Is there a sound doctrine or biblical explanation why Satan is called "the ape of God"?

Is there a sound doctrine or biblical explanation why Satan is called the “Ape of God”?

The Adversary, in waging war against the Almighty, is understood to copy all of his acts and attributes. Popular tradition, moreover, asserts that the Devil, impotent to do anything original, has set his heart on aping
everything created by the Deity.
Tertullian was led to declare that "Satan imitates the sacraments of God" and "goes about to apply to the worship of the idols those very things of which the administration of Christ's sacraments consists.”
Tertullian has already said that the Devil, as the ape of the Deity, practices baptism on his subjects. -  Diabolus Simia Dei

St. Augustine of Hippo says this about the ”Ape of God”:

Dr. Farr says, “In Eph. 5:18, two possible sources of simulation are indicated - drunkenness and Deity; full of wine or full of the Spirit. Satan was called by Augustine Simius Dei, the Ape of God, because he counterfeits the work of God. Human nature needs a stimulus of some kind. Doubtless, the Holy Spirit was intended to be the only original stimulus of humanity, but Satan invented alcohol as a substitute, stealing the nomenclature of the truth to mask the lie, i.e., Aqua vitae, eau de vie.” - Outline Studies in Christian Doctrine

The Encyclopedia Britannica adds the following:

Among the early Church Fathers, the idea of Satan as the antagonist of Christ led to a mythical interpretation of the incarnation and disguise in the “form of a servant.” Through this disguise the Son of God makes his heavenly origin unrecognizable to Satan. In some medieval depictions Christ appears as the “bait” cast before Satan, after which Satan grasps because he believes Christ to be an ordinary human being subject to his power. In the Middle Ages a further feature was added: the understanding of the Devil as the “ape of God,” who attempts to imitate God through spurious, malicious creations that he interpolates for, or opposes to, the divine creations.

St. Augustine actually liked comparing the Devil to animals, as it is something our imaginations can understand.
The saints have their own specific way that they name or describe the devil and each description manifests a different dimension of the evil of the devil himself.  St. Augustine also calls him an angry dog bound to a chain.

He (the devil) is tied up like a dog on a chain, and can only bite someone who, deathly sure of himself, goes near him. Wouldn’t you think a man a fool who let hiimself be bitten by a chained up dog?
He can only bite those who willingly let him. It is not by force, but by persuasion, that he harms: he asks for our consent, he does not drag it from us. - Augustine on the binding of the devil

Finally, the Prince of the Apostles, St Peter calls the devil “a roaring lion seeking whom he can devour…”  This Biblical name as well as names that the saints have coined for us can help us to understand the malicious intent of the devil!


What evidence is there to support Deuteronomy being written during the reign of King Josiah?

That authorship is one of two explanations offered by scholars

Rather than refer to a Christian source, an entry-level explanation of when Deuteronomy  was written can be found at the Jewish Encyclopedia online site.  (The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia).  The authors for this article are: Morris Jastrow, Jr., S. R. Driver, Emil G. Hirsch, Benno Jacob.

The author of the article you read was not making a definitive claim about authorship (his article was about books and book snobs, not about Judaism nor Christianity).  He chose from one of the two options (see below) that scholarship has presented.  Why he chose that is his own affair, but from the style of writing in that article, I'll offer that he made the choice for an artistic reason: it fits into the pattern of behavior he was building about 19th century and modern book snobs.

Note that "JE" in the text below refers to Jewish Encyclopedia.

  Age and Authorship of Deuteronomy.

  (From the Jewish Encyclopedia, see link above)
  It is the unanimous opinion of modern critics that Deuteronomy is not
  the work of Moses, but that it was, in its main parts, written in the
  seventh century B.C., either during the reign of Manasseh, or
  during that of Josiah ...  {emphasis mine}

  The reasons {evidence} for this conclusion, stated here in the briefest outline:

  Even upon the assumption that JE in Exodus and Numbers is
  Mosaic,
  the historical discrepancies in Deut. i-iv. and ix.-x., and the terms
  in which incidents belonging to the fortieth year of the Exodus are
  referred to, preclude the possibility of Deuteronomy being Mosaic
  likewise; while the use of the expression "beyond Jordan" in i. 1, 5;
  iii. 8; iv. 41, 46, 47, 49, for eastern Palestine, implies that the
  author was a resident in western Palestine.
  The same conclusion follows, a fortiori, for those who allow
  that
  JE is a post-Mosaic document, from the fact, noticed above, that JE
  itself, both in the narrative parts and in the laws, is repeatedly
  quoted in Deuteronomy.
  In Deuteronomy it is strictly laid down that sacrifice is to be
  offered at a single central sanctuary (xii. 5, 11, 14, etc.); whereas
  in Joshua to I Kings vi. sacrifices are frequently described as
  offered in various parts of the land (in accordance with the law of
  Ex. xx. 24), without any indication on the part of either the actor or
  the narrator that a law such as that of Deuteronomy is being
  infringed.
  The other differences between the legislation of Deuteronomy and
  that of Ex. xxi.-xxiii. point with some cogency to the conclusion
  that
  the laws of Deuteronomy originated in a later and more highly
  developed stage of society than the laws of Exodus.
  The law of the kingdom (xvii. 14-20) is colored by reminiscences
  of the monarchy of Solomon.
  The forms of idolatry referred to—especially the worship of the
  "host of heaven" (iv. 19, xvii. 7)—point to a date not earlier than
  the reign of Ahaz, and more probably to one in the seventh century
  B.C.

The USCCB's (Conference of Catholic Bishops) on line version of the New American Bible offer this in the introduction to the book of Deuteronomy:

  The book was probably composed over the course of three centuries,
  from the eighth century to the exile and beyond. It bears some
  relation to “the Book of the Law” discovered in the Jerusalem Temple
  around 622 B.C. during the reign of King Josiah (2 Kgs 22:8–13). It
  gives evidence of later editing: cf. the references to exile in
  4:1–40; 28:63–68; 29:21–28; 30:1–10.


What is the role of Lucifer in the Heavenly realm?

First of all, the Church Fathers do not believe that the name of Lucifer is the proper name of the Devil. However in Catholic tradition the Devil has many names including Lucifer.

In any case this question deals with much speculation since the Church has yet to pronounce on anything concerning this subject in a definitive manner.

  The name Lucifer originally denotes the planet Venus, emphasizing its brilliance. The Vulgate employs the word also for "the light of the morning" (Job 11:17), "the signs of the zodiac" (Job 38:32), and "the aurora" (Psalm 109:3). Metaphorically, the word is applied to the King of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12) as preeminent among the princes of his time; to the high priest Simon son of Onias (Ecclesiasticus 50:6), for his surpassing virtue, to the glory of heaven (Apocalypse 2:28), by reason of its excellency; finally to Jesus Christ himself (2 Peter 1:19; Apocalypse 22:16; the "Exultet" of Holy Saturday) the true light of our spiritual life.

  The Syriac version and the version of Aquila derive the Hebrew noun helel from the verb yalal, "to lament"; St. Jerome agrees with them (In Isaiah 1.14), and makes Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel who must lament the loss of his original glory bright as the morning star. In Christian tradition this meaning of Lucifer has prevailed; the Fathers maintain that Lucifer is not the proper name of the devil, but denotes only the state from which he has fallen (Petavius, De Angelis, III, iii, 4). - Lucifer (Catholic Encyclopaedia)

As for what the Devil did in the Heavenly Realm, the Catholic Encyclopaedia) may have at least a partial answer.

  The language of the prophets (Isaiah 14; Ezekiel 28) would seem to show that Lucifer held a very high rank in the heavenly hierarchy. And, accordingly, we find many theologians maintaining that before his fall he was the foremost of all the angels. Suarez is disposed to admit that he was the highest negatively, i.e. that no one was higher, though many may have been his equals. But here again we are in the region of pious opinions, for some divines maintain that, far from being first of all, he did not belong to one of the highest choirs - Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones--but to one of the lower orders of angels. In any case it appears that he holds a certain sovereignty over those who followed him in his rebellion. For we read of "the Devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), "the dragon and his angels" (Apocalypse 12:7), "Beelzebub, the prince of devils"--which, whatever be the interpretation of the name, clearly refers to Satan, as appears from the context: "And if Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? Because you say that through Beelzebub I cast out devils" (Luke 11:15, 18), and "the prince of the Powers of this air" (Ephesians 2:2). At first sight it may seem strange that there should be any order or subordination amongst those rebellious spirits, and that those who rose against their Maker should obey one of their own fellows who had led them to destruction. And the analogy of similar movements among men might suggest that the rebellion would be likely to issue in anarchy and division. But it must be remembered that the fall of the angels did not impair their natural powers, that Lucifer still retained the gifts that enabled him to influence his brethren before their fall, and that their superior intelligence would show them that they could achieve more success and do more harm to others by unity and organization than by independence and division.

  There is no need to discuss the view of some theologians who surmise that Lucifer was one of the angels who ruled and administered the heavenly bodies, and that this planet was committed to his care. For in any case the sovereignty with which these texts are primarily concerned is but the rude right of conquest and the power of evil influence. His sway began by his victory over our first parents, who, yielding to his suggestions, were brought under his bondage. All sinners who do his will become in so far his servants. For, as St. Gregory says, he is the head of all the wicked--"Surely the Devil is the head of all the wicked; and of this head all the wicked are members" (Certe iniquorum omnium caput diabolus est; et hujus capitis membra sunt omnes iniqui.--Hom. 16, in Evangel.). This headship over the wicked, as St. Thomas is careful to explain, differs widely from Christ's headship over the Church, inasmuch as Satan is only head by outward government and not also, as Christ is, by inward, life-giving influence (Summa III:8:7).

The following articles may be of interest:

Is Satan a seraph or a cherub?
Biagio da Cesena: “Pope Paul III joked that his jurisdiction did not extend to hell!”
Angels: From the Teachings of Saint Thomas Aquinas


What is the source of the count of 40000 denominations, and how are they classified?

The 40,000 figure comes from a chart that is quoted by the "Best Estimates" web site, the estimation comes from the a chart that is linked below originally provided by Gordon Conwell Edu.   It is an estimation of where things stand now in Christianity world wide.    This figure is actually off now, and has been surpassed as time has passed.   If you go to line 41 of the original chart the figure should now be over 45,000 separate denominations, and should grow to 55K by 2025!

https://www.gordonconwell.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2019/04/StatusofGlobalChristianity20191.pdf


The word myth, in its academic definition, means a story with deep power and symbolic meaning. When studied in the academic sense, it's that meaning that is important, not whether the story actually happened or not. Thus ancient 'myths' like the founding of Rome, or the stories of Hercules were important (to their societies) for what they said and the effect they had on those societies rather than because of their historicity.

Many of those myths turn out not to be actually true (like Hercules). That doesn't necessarily rob them of their power. The existence of the story can still shape a nation and a culture. But given that they mostly aren't historical, the word 'myth' in common parlance has come to mean 'something that isn't true' (giving rise to 'Mythbusters' for example). But that's not the sense that Lewis, as an academic, intended it.

So Lewis' point in calling the Christian story a 'true myth' is that it is a story that is powerful, and capable of changing lives and shaping cultures. It also happens to be historically true.


What is the meaning of "last day" from the perspective of the dispensational premillennialist?

You correctly speak of “Jesus' clear words that the resurrection of believers takes place on the last day. The Lord mentioned this promise several times. Even Martha reflects on Jesus' teaching: John 11:24 Martha replied, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day."
In the Revelation Jesus gave to John via an angel, there is no ambiguity about “the last day” starting with “the last trump” – the fearsome angelic trumpet sound heralding the end of the Day of Salvation and the start of the Day of Resurrection and Judgment. Revelation 8 speaks of Christ opening the 7th seal, showing 7 angels being given 7 trumpets, blown by them in turn. Various plagues and afflictions fall from heaven on to the earth. Chapter 10 then says, “that there should be time no longer. But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets”. Chapter 11 says “And the seventh angel sounded;” vs 15, adding in vs 18, “And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged…” Chapter 20 makes it perfectly clear that that time of judging is when “the dead, small and great, stand before God”. Time is no more. The hour of judgment has arrived and ALL the dead are given resurrection bodies. This harmonises perfectly with what Jesus said about the resurrection happening on “the last day”, which Martha correctly understood would see her brother Lazarus arise from the grave, resurrected.
So, how can it be that dispensationalal premillennialists insist that there is a prior resurrection of Christians who will be taken up (‘raptured’) into heaven? It is point 2 in your “dispensational timeline” that requires explanation, and the most essential requirement for it is a secret rapture, requiring a two-stage return of Jesus Christ. This is where the following link needs to be checked, What scripture is used to support a "Pre-Tribulation Rapture"?  to see the answer by Dick Harfield on 22/3/2015, for he cites a book that claims the origin of this idea was in 1830 when a 15-year-old Scottish girl called Margaret MacDonald attended a healing service, where she claimed to have had a vision of a two-stage return of Christ. Apparently this was adopted and amplified by John Nelson Darby, a British evangelical preacher and founder of the Plymouth Brethren. The book in question is called ‘The Rapture Exposed’, by Barbara R. Rossing.
To summarise Darby’s explanation, he has to claim that Christ returns secretly for his congregation, but that a literal angel appears in Rev. 4:1; that the voice saying, “Come up hither” into heaven, was spoken to Christians on earth – and they were raptured (dead Christians being raised first, the living ones following them up into heaven).  However, given that ch. 4 is crystal clear that the voice like a trumpet was talking to John shortly before the end of the 1st century A.D., and that John was given a vision of himself being in heaven, such an explanation is insufficient (to put it charitably).
There is no mention of Christ having returned for the events in ch. 4, and no mention of any dead people having been raised. The phrase, “Come up hither” [to heaven] is interpreted as meaning a secret rapture of believers. An admission is made by Darby’s disciple, W. Kelly: ‘One important thing, then, we have seen to be assumed.’ He continues, ‘This most solemn and blessed event must occur therefore between chapters 3 and 4 of this book.’
The claim is made that the assembly of believers was seen on earth in chapters 2 and 3 but by ch. 4 the congregation is now in heaven, represented by the 24 elders. Thus, they conclude, there must have been a secret rapture (which didn’t happen to be mentioned anywhere, let alone in the chapter where it was supposed to have happened). Regarding Rev. 4:1 Darby admits, ‘There is no mention here of the fact of the Lord’s coming in reference to the assembly.’ That is why this dispensationalist, premillennialist system of interpretation claims virtually the whole of the rest of the Book of Revelation is irrelevant to Christians and only applicable to the Jews. It is only at ch. 20 that a sort of general resurrection is described.
Yet, as pointed out at the start of this answer, the Book of Revelation depicts the Day of Resurrection and Judgment, “that there should be time no longer. But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets” (ch. 10). Chapter 11 says “And the seventh angel sounded;” vs 15, adding in vs 18, “And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged…” It is not until the final, seventh, last trump that the awesome resurrection happens.  Of course, I am not giving an answer in support of the dispensational premillennialist interpretation, but I offer this in the hope that some who do hold to such an interpretation might correct or enlarge.

Reference source for quotes by Darby and Kelly and summary of their view, ‘The Revelation of Jesus Christ’ by John Metcalfe, pp81-84 & p379 (The Publishing Trust 1998)


What is the history behind the tradition of making the sign of the cross?

Throughout the history of the Catholic Church, there have been various ways to make the sign of the cross. Probably one of the best sources would be the Catholic Encyclopedia.

  Sign of the Cross

  A term applied to various manual acts, liturgical or devotional in character, which have this at least in common: that by the gesture of tracing two lines intersecting at right angles they indicate symbolically the figure of Christ's cross.

  Most commonly and properly the words "sign of the cross" are used of the large cross traced from forehead to breast and from shoulder to shoulder, such as Catholics are taught to make upon themselves when they begin their prayers, and such also as the priest makes at the foot of the altar when he commences Mass with the words: "In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti". (At the beginning of Mass the celebrant makes the sign of the cross by placing his left hand extended under his breast; then raising his right to his forehead, which he touches with the extremities of his fingers, he says: In nomine Patris; then, touching his breast with the same hand, he says: et Filii; touching his left and right shoulders, he says; et Spiritus Sancti; and as he joins his hands again adds: Amen.) The same sign recurs frequently during Mass, e.g. at the words "Adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domini", at the "Indulgentiam" after the Confiteor, etc., as also in the Divine Office, for example at the invocation "Deus in adjutorium nostrum intende", at the beginning of the "Magnificat", the "Benedictus", the "Nunc Dimittis", and on many other occasions.

  Another kind of sign of the cross is that made in the air by bishops, priests, and others in blessing persons or material objects. This cross recurs also many times in the liturgy of the Mass and in nearly all the ritual offices connected with the sacraments and sacramentals.

  A third variety is represented by the little cross, generally made with the thumb, which the priest or deacon traces for example upon the book of the Gospels and then upon his own forehead, lips, and breast at Mass, as also that made upon the lips in the "Domine labia mea aperies" of the Office, or again upon the forehead of the infant in Baptism, and upon the various organs of sense in Extreme Unction, etc.

  Still another variant of the same holy sign may be recognized in the direction of the "Lay Folks Mass Book" (thirteenth century) that the people at the end of the Gospel should trace a cross upon the bench or wall or a book and then kiss it. It was prescribed in some early uses that the priest ascending to the altar before the Introit should first mark a cross upon the altar-cloth and then should kiss the cross so traced. Moreover it would seem that the custom, prevalent in Spain and some other countries, according to which a man, after making the sign of the cross in the ordinary way, apparently kisses his thumb, has a similar origin. The thumb laid across the forefinger forms an image of the cross to which the lips are devoutly pressed.

  Of all the above methods of venerating this life-giving symbol and adopting it as an emblem, the marking of a little cross seems to be the most ancient. We have positive evidence in the early Fathers that such a practice was familiar to Christians in the second century. "In all our travels and movements", says Tertullian (De cor. Mil., iii), "in all our coming in and going out, in putting of our shoes, at the bath, at the table, in lighting our candles, in lying down, in sitting down, whatever employment occupieth us, we mark our foreheads with the sign of the cross". On the other hand this must soon have passed into a gesture of benediction, as many quotations from the Fathers in the fourth century would show. Thus St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his "Catecheses" (xiii, 36) remarks: "let us then not be ashamed to confess the Crucified. Be the cross our seal, made with boldness by our fingers on our brow and in every thing; over the bread we eat and the cups we drink, in our comings and in goings; before our sleep, when we lie down and when we awake; when we are travelling, and when we are at rest".

  The course of development seems to have been the following. The cross was originally traced by Christians with the thumb or finger on their own foreheads. This practice is attested by numberless allusions in Patristic literature, and it was clearly associated in idea with certain references in Scripture, notably Ezekiel 9:4 (of the mark of the letter Tau); Exodus 17:9-14; and especially Apocalypse 7:3, 9:4 and 14:1. Hardly less early in date is the custom of marking a cross on objects — already Tertullian speaks of the Christian woman "signing" her bed (cum lectulum tuum signas, "Ad uxor.", ii, 5) before retiring to rest—and we soon hear also of the sign of the cross being traced on the lips (Jerome, "Epitaph. Paulæ") and on the heart (Prudentius, "Cathem.", vi, 129). Not unnaturally if the object were more remote, the cross which was directed towards it had to be made in the air. Thus Epiphanius tells us (Adv. Hær., xxx, 12) of a certain holy man Josephus, who imparted to a vessel of water the power of overthrowing magical incantations by "making over the vessel with his finger the seal of the cross" pronouncing the while a form of prayer. Again half a century later Sozomen, the church historian (VII, xxvi), describes how Bishop Donatus when attacked by a dragon "made the sign of the cross with his finger in the air and spat upon the monster". All this obviously leads up to the suggestion of a larger cross made over the whole body, and perhaps the earliest example which can be quoted comes to us from a Georgian source, possibly of the fourth or fifth century. In the life of St. Nino, a woman saint, honoured as the Apostle of Georgia, we are told in these terms of a miracle worked by her: "St. Nino began to pray and entreat God for a long time. Then she took her (wooden) cross and with it touched the Queen's head, her feet and her shoulders, making the sign of the cross and straightway she was cured" (Studia Biblica, V, 32).

  It appears on the whole probable that the general introduction of our present larger cross (from brow to breast and from shoulder to shoulder) was an indirect result of the Monophysite controversy. The use of the thumb alone or the single forefinger, which so long as only a small cross was traced upon the forehead was almost inevitable, seems to have given way for symbolic reasons to the use of two fingers (the forefinger and middle finger, or thumb and forefinger) as typifying the two natures and two wills in Jesus Christ. But if two fingers were to be employed, the large cross, in which forehead, breast, etc. were merely touched, suggested itself as the only natural gesture. Indeed some large movement of the sort was required to make it perceptible that a man was using two fingers rather than one. At a somewhat later date, throughout the greater part of the East, three fingers, or rather the thumb and two fingers were displayed, while the ring and little finger were folded back upon the palm. These two were held to symbolize the two natures or wills in Christ, while the extended three denoted the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. At the same time these fingers were so held as to indicate the common abbreviation I X C (Iesous Christos Soter), the forefinger representing the I, the middle finger crossed with the thumb standing for the X and the bent middle finger serving to suggest the C. In Armenia, however, the sign of the cross made with two fingers is still retained to the present day. Much of this symbolism passed to the West, though at a later date.

  On the whole it seems probable that the ultimate prevalence of the larger cross is due to an instruction of Leo IV in the middle of the ninth century. "Sign the chalice and the host", he wrote, "with a right cross and not with circles or with a varying of the fingers, but with two fingers stretched out and the thumb hidden within them, by which the Trinity is symbolized. Take heed to make this sign rightly, for otherwise you can bless nothing" (see Georgi, "Liturg. Rom. Pont.", III, 37). Although this, of course, primarily applies to the position of the hand in blessing with the sign of the cross; it seems to have been adapted popularly to the making of the sign of the cross upon oneself. Aelfric (about 1000) probably had it in mind when he tells his hearers in one of his sermons: "A man may wave about wonderfully with his hands without creating any blessing unless he make the sign of the cross. But if he do the fiend will soon be frightened on account of the victorious token. With three fingers one must bless himself for the Holy Trinity" (Thorpe, "The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church" I, 462). Fifty years earlier than this Anglo-Saxon Christians were exhorted to "bless all their bodies seven times with Christ's rood token" (Blicking Hom., 47), which seems to assume this large cross. Bede in his letter to Bishop Egbert advises him to remind his flock "with what frequent diligence to employ upon themselves the sign of our Lord's cross", though here we can draw no inferences as to the kind of cross made. On the other hand when we meet in the so-called "Prayer Book of King Henry" (eleventh century) a direction in the morning prayers to mark with the holy Cross "the four sides of the body", there is a good reason to suppose that the large sign with which we are now familiar is meant.

  At this period the manner of making it in the West seems to have been identical with that followed at present in the East, i.e. only three fingers were used, and the hand traveled from the right shoulder to the left. The point, it must be confessed, is not entirely clear and Thalhofer (Liturgik, I, 633) inclines to the opinion that in the passages of Belethus (xxxix), Sicardus (III, iv), Innocent III (De myst. Alt., II, xlvi), and Durandus (V, ii, 13), which are usually appealed to in proof of this, these authors have in mind the small cross made upon the forehead or external objects, in which the hand moves naturally from right to left, and not the big cross made from shoulder to shoulder. Still, a rubric in a manuscript copy of the York Missal clearly requires the priest when signing himself with the paten to touch the left shoulder after the right. Moreover it is at least clear from many pictures and sculptures that in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the Greek practice of extending only three fingers was adhered to by many Latin Christians. Thus the compiler of the Ancren Riwle (about 1200) directs his nuns at "Deus in adjutorium" to make a little cross from above the forehead down to the breast with three fingers". However there can be little doubt that long before the close of the Middle Ages the large sign of the cross was more commonly made in the West with the open hand and that the bar of the cross was traced from left to right. In the "Myroure of our Ladye" (p. 80) the Bridgettine Nuns of Sion have a mystical reason given to them for the practice: "And then ye bless you with the sygne of the holy crosse, to chase away the fiend with all his deceytes. For, as Chrysostome sayth, wherever the fiends see the signe of the crosse, they flye away, dreading it as a staffe that they are beaten withall. And in thys blessinge ye beginne with youre hande at the hedde downwarde, and then to the lefte side and byleve that our Lord Jesu Christe came down from the head, that is from the Father into erthe by his holy Incarnation, and from the erthe into the left syde, that is hell, by his bitter Passion, and from thence into his Father's righte syde by his glorious Ascension".

  The manual act of tracing the cross with the hand or the thumb has at all periods been quite commonly, though not indispensably, accompanied by a form of words. The formula, however, has varied greatly. In the earlier ages we have evidence for such invocation as "The sign of Christ", "The seal of the living God", "In the name of Jesus"; etc. Later we meet "In the name of Jesus of Nazareth", "In the name of the Holy Trinity", "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost", "Our help is in the name of the Lord", "O God come to my assistance". Members of the Orthodox Greek Church when blessing themselves with three fingers, as above explained, commonly use the invocation: "Holy God, Holy strong One, Holy Immortal One, Have mercy on us", which words, as is well known, have been retained in their Greek form by the Western Church in the Office for Good Friday.

  It is unnecessary to insist upon the effects of grace and power attributed by the Church at all times to the use of the holy sign of the cross. From the earliest period it has been employed in all exorcisms and conjurations as a weapon against the spirits of darkness, and it takes its place not less consistently in the ritual of the sacraments and in every form of blessing and consecration. A famous difficulty is that suggested by the making of the sign of the cross repeatedly over the Host and Chalice after the words of institution have been spoken in the Mass. The true explanation is probably to be found in the fact that at the time these crosses were introduced (they vary too much in the early copies of the Canon to be of primitive institution), the clergy and faithful did not clearly ask themselves at what precise moment the transubstantiation of the elements was effected. They were satisfied to believe that it was the result of the whole of the consecratory prayer which we call the Canon, without determining the exact words which were operative; just as we are now content to know that the Precious Blood is consecrated by the whole word spoken over the chalice, without pausing to reflect whether all the words are necessary. Hence the signs of the cross continue till the end of the Canon and they may be regarded as mentally referred back to a consecration which is still conceived of as incomplete. The process is the reverse of that by which in the Greek Church at the "Great Entrance" the highest marks of honour are paid to the simple elements of bread and wine in anticipation of the consecration which they are to receive shortly afterwards.


According to reformed theology, who or what will the saints reign over during the millenium?

While pre-millennialism is rare in Reformed theology, you will find it among the Reformed Baptists. It is possible that their views vary greatly today, I will assume that those of the eminent theologian John Gill (1697-1771) are still typical. As mentioned in the comments, this pre-millennialism is not dispensational, so do not confuse it with the popular modern versions.

Quoting from his Exposition of the Bible, on Revelations 20:4, as his commentary on verse 6 refers to the previous mention of "reigned with Christ a thousand years":

  ... Christ being descended from heaven, and having bound Satan, and the dead saints being raised, and the living ones changed, he will reign among them personally, visibly, and gloriously, and in the fullest manner; all the antichristian powers will be destroyed; Satan will be in close confinement; death, with respect to Christ and his people, will be no more; the heavens and the earth will be made new, and all things will be subject to him; and all his saints will be with him, and they shall reign with him; they shall be glorified together; they shall sit on the throne with him, have a crown of righteousness given them, and possess the kingdom appointed for them; they will reign over all their enemies; Satan will be bruised under their feet, being bound; the wicked will be shut up in hell, and neither will be able to give them any disturbance; and sin and death will be no more: this reign will not be in a sensual and carnal way, or lie in possessing worldly riches and honours, in eating and drinking, marrying, and giving in marriage; the saints will not be in a mortal, but in an immortal state; the children of this resurrection will be like the angels; and this reign will be on earth, (Revelation 5:10) the present earth will be burnt up, and a new one formed, in which these righteous persons will dwell, (2 Peter 3:13) of which (See Gill on Revelation 21:1) and it will last a thousand years; not distinct from, but the same with the thousand years in which Satan will be bound ...

I hope this summary is accurate, but from my reading of Gills Exposition, Reformed pre-millennialsm essentially is a belief in an extended "judgement day" that begins with Christ's second coming and ends with the final judgement, the millennium being a thousand years of glory for the saints before that final judgement of the wicked.

To get a clear picture of his teachings on the millennium and the second coming, I would recommend reading his full commentary on Revelations 20. Again, as a disclaimer, I only know one Reformed Baptist personally, and I have no idea if John Gill's pre-millennial theology is still popular among them.


How did the people know that John the Baptist was a prophet?

I wouldn't overthink this one, LukeoX.

God obviously called John to be a prophet and a forerunner to His Son Jesus, the Christ (Luke 1:17). Consequently, in obedience to God's call John presented himself to the people as a witness, called by God to be a testimony to the Light. Put differently, John was a light to the people, and Jesus was the Light of the world (see John 1:4-9; cf. 8:12). John's little light paved the way for the big Light.

When people believed John's message, they proved the sincerity of their repentance by submitting to his baptism. They then became John's disciples (see Matthew 9:14; 11:2; Mark 2:18; Luke 5:33; 7:18; John 1:35; 3:25; and 4:1). The angel Gabriel told John's father that his yet-to-be-born son would come on the scene "in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Luke 1:17). In other words, John's preaching ministry would bear fruit, just as Elijah's did.

Now, what all was involved in being one of John's disciples is not exactly clear to me, nor does the Bible say too much about that. Unlike Jesus, however, I don't think John was called of God to form a denomination such as--oh, I don't know--Baptists perhaps!?
As the Christ's forerunner, he sort of faded into the background shortly after Jesus came on the scene. After all, John admitted humbly,

  "He must increase, but I must decrease" (John 3:30).

Not too terribly long after John made that statement, he was beheaded by King Herod. Interestingly, however, just before he died John told his disciples to ask Jesus,

  "'Are you the Expected One, or do we look for someone else?'" (Luke 7:19).

Despite John's greatness in Jesus' eyes ("among those born of women," Jesus said, "there is no one greater than John"), even he struggled with doubts about the identity of his cousin(?), the son of his mom's relative, Mary, whom John's mom called "the mother of my Lord"! (Luke 1:43).


And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone forth from him, immediately turned about in the crowd, and said, “Who touched my garments?” (RSV)

The word rendered as "power" is δύναμις (dynamis).  Luke (8:46) recounts a slightly different version, but using the same Greek word:

  Jesus said, “Some one touched me; for I perceive that power has gone forth from me.”

Although we think of "power" as some kind of energy or force, the word dynamis has a wider scope.  It translated on many occasions as "mighty works" in the King James, RSV, and other versions:

Matthew 7:22 (RSV)

  On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’

Mark 6:2

  And on the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him? What mighty works are wrought by his hands!

Luke 10:13

  “Woe to you, Chorazin! woe to you, Beth-saida! for if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

The power imparted to the woman in Mark 5:25ff is not "transferred" to her form some store of power that Jesus had, perhaps dispersed in some kind of quanta.  It is imparted without depleting anything from the source.  One Byzantine commentary drew a parallel with how "teaching" is imparted:

  Power goes out from Christ, not travelling from one location to another, but rather imparted to others while remaining in Christ undiminished.  It is the same with teachings, which remain with those who teach, and yet are imparted to those who learn.*

*  Theophylact of Ohrid (ca 1055-1107), Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to St. Mark (tr. from the Greek, Chrysostom Press, 1993), p.46.


Are there any English Bible translations whose primary text for the OT is the Septuagint?

There are a few. Some of them are published as academic works, while others are intended for the common use and worship (especially in Eastern Orthodox Churches).

The first was The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Covenant, translated by Charles Thomson in 1808 (though he did not include the apocrypha). It can still be bought today. The translation was revised and enlarged by C. A. Muses in 1954 as The Septuagint Bible.

Sir Lancelot Brenton published one in 1851. It has continually been in print since then and was updated as LXX2012: Septuagint in English 2012.

There is also the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS). Even here, they have to do textual criticism as the extant copies of the LXX don't all agree. In the translation principles, the committee states they have a target audience "that closely approximates that of the NRSV."

The Eastern Orthodox churches in English-speaking countries also have several options available for English translations based off the Septuagint. In 2008, The Orthodox Study Bible was released. It uses the semi-critical Septuaginta of Alfred Rahlfs as its base. Peter King, SJ, has also released a translation of the Septuagint in four volumes: The Pentateuch 2010, The Historical Books 2012, The Wisdom Literature 2008, and The Prophets 2013.


Noun for a person who believes in ordinances?

There doesn't appear to be such a word. If an ordinant is someone who performs ordinances, i.e., one who ordains, then ordinantalist would be likely the word for one who believes in ordinances.


What is the source for Martin Luther's quote against the use of pipe organ music?

Might this be your quote?

  "The organ in the worship is the insignia of Baal" (Martin Luther, Mcclintock & Strong's Encyclopedia Volume VI, page 762)

This phrase turns up 1,400 results in Google; but it may not be accurate.

One researcher, apparently familiar with Luther and this quote, had this rebuttal:

  Strong DOES NOT use the word “insignia,” it uses the word “ensign!” Various other church of Christ denomination websites also misquote this statement.

Searching Google for the quote with "ensign" instead of "insignia" turns up 7 results. This suggests widespread dissemination of the (mis)quote without checking sources. (This is possibly the encyclopedic source, though it's certainly not word-for-word; thanks @James T)

The source mentioned above had more to say on the topic:

  One big problem with this quote is that students of the writings of Luther CANNOT find this quote ANYWHERE in the writings of Martin Luther! It is well known that Martin Luther DID NOT oppose musical instruments in church. Luther was at odds with John Calvin on this subject. Luther taught Gospel Liberty, that anything not specifically condemned in the New Testament was authorized.

With a creative search query, I determined that 98% of the online sources for this quote reference the same Martin Luther encyclopedia referenced above.

Another possible source for this saying is Heinrich Eckhard's Fasciculus Controversiarum Theologicarum where he states,

  Lutherus organa Musica inter Baalis insignia refert.

Which a 19th century author translates as:

  Luther considers organs among the ensigns of Baal.

A few problems, though: @James T's source suggests that "organa Musica" is better translated as "instruments of music." Further, Eckhard isn't even himself the original source of his statement.

As we trace this quote back, we go from one shaky source to another (as the "quote" changes) until the internet trail peters out at "Anhaldini p. 74"


What is the biblical basis for baptism by immersion?

There is an excellent article here that covers the Biblical arguments for, and the common arguments against each point.  A few relevant excerpts"

  The word baptizo in Greek, translated "baptize" in the New Testaments,
  meant to "dip" or "immerse."  It is sometimes argued that in Mark 7:4
  and Luke 11:38 the word means "to wash by pouring," not "immerse"; but
  in those texts the actual meaning (as historical information
  substantiates) is to "wash by dipping or immersing in water."
  Baptism is specifically stated in the New Testament to represent the
  Christian's spiritual union with Christ in His death, burial and
  resurrection (Romans 6:3-7), which is remarkably and dramatically
  pictured in immersion.
  Whenever the act of baptism is described in the New Testament (which is rarely), the one who is baptized actually goes into the
  water.  Thus, after Jesus was baptized, He "came up out of the water"
  (Mark 1:10), and when Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, "they both
  went down into the water" (Acts 8:38).  These descriptions do not
  quite prove complete immersion, however, since they could have stood,
  let us say, ankle-deep in water while one of them scooped up some
  water and poured it over the other's head.  Furthermore, we are not
  told in Scripture that we must baptize in exactly the same way as John
  or Philip.
  The mode used by the early Church in the first few centuries was immersion, with affusion reserved for occasions when immersion was
  impossible due to lack of sufficient water, and aspersion used for
  individuals too sick or weak for either immersion of affusion.

There is more in the original article, but in summary, the Biblical argument is based on both the meaning of the original Greek word, and also from evidence inferred, but not directly stated in Scripture.

The summary, however, is excellent, in my opinion.  The author states:

  ...Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not
  all-important and that, therefore, other modes may be used as
  substitutes in exceptional circumstances.  God accepts the believer on
  the basis of his faith in Christ and his desire to obey Him, not on
  the basis of how much water covered his body when he was baptized.
  The doctrine that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism and that
  only those so baptized should be admitted into the fellowship of the
  Church body would, therefore, appear to be a bit extreme and not based
  on Scripture.


What's the origin of the Catholic object that is a staff with a crucifix on top?

That, in fact is the Papal Cross or Ferula.

It has been used since Pope Paul VI, designed by the Italian artist Lello Scorzelli. It is used in the same manner as a crozier. However, the cross bar is bent much like the paterissa.


There are, unfortunately, numerous sedevacantist groups that disagree with each other. As indicated in the question, there are some that have tried to elect their own popes. There are also the Feeneyites, particularly associated with Most Holy Family Monastery, who deny the doctrines of baptism of desire (and, I believe, also of baptism of blood).  For another viewpoint, one with which I agree, I strongly recommend that you look at some of the material at the web site http://www.traditionalmass.org/ and particularly the link "Key Issues".  You might also listen to some of the sermons at http://www.traditionalcatholicsermons.org particularly those of Bishop Sanborn.  (You'll be able to tell from the titles which ones are relevant to your question about sedevacantism and which ones are general Catholic doctrine).

One example of how these groups could see the issue resolving is  Bishop Sanborn's position, which is essentially that the administrative structure of the Catholic Church continues, despite heresy, so that the modernist popes have valid elections (and the cardinals valid appointments) but are impeded from having the authority of the papacy by their lack of the Catholic faith. So the crisis would be ended if one of these popes were to abjure heresy and profess the Catholic faith (and, I suppose, receive ordination and episcopal consecration in traditional rites).


The Catholic Church has a uniquely developed perspective on this question. It is a dogma of the Catholic faith that Mary was immaculately conceived -- or in the words of Pope Pius IX:

  We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that
  the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception,
  by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of
  the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was
  preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed
  by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the
  faithful

The Pope lays out the arguments from Scripture and Tradition in the 1854 document from which that quote is drawn, Ineffabilis Deus. But to briefly address your questions from a Catholic perspective:

Yes, Mary is uniquely holy among mere human beings -- and I use the word "mere" to distinguish her from Jesus, who is human but also divine and so uniquely holy among human beings in a different way.
By the same token Mary is uniquely favored. See especially Luke 1:28, 1:30, 1:42 and 1:48, which all seem to indicate fairly clearly (whatever one thinks about the dogma of the Immaculate Conception) that Mary holds a special place in God's providence and is worthy of our special attention.1
No, there is not an infinite regress of ancestors of Mary who would themselves have needed to be just as holy -- she was personally and individually given a unique grace.
St. Joseph, being the spouse of Mary and the adoptive father of Jesus, is held in greet esteem in the Catholic Church -- Scripture attests his righteousness unequivocally, and after Mary he would have known the Lord more intimately than anyone else, at least in an earthly sense.
But Joseph is not on the same level as Mary, who is called in a true sense the mother of God. As the Wikipedia article nicely explains it, summarizing what the Council of Ephesus taught in the year 431 (principally to combat the error of Nestorius about the person of Jesus): "her son Jesus is one person who is both God and man".

1 For less clear but still evocative indications of Mary's special role, see Luke 2:35, John 2:5, and Acts 1:14. And then there are texts that have additional significance if one already accepts the Catholic perspective, such as John 19:26-27 and Revelation 12:1-6.


Are there any documented cases of prophecies, dreams or visions (Joel 2) in modern times (1900 - present) that are endorsed by a denomination?

The Bible speaks plainly about how to “validate” a genuine prophecy, dream or vision.   First, it must come to pass, but also, it must not promote false worship or detract from the word of God:

If a prophet or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has has spoken takes place, and he says, “Let us follow other gods”... that prophet or dreamer must be put to death because he preached rebellion against the Lord your God... (Deuteronomy 13:1-5).

Here is an example of a modern-day vision or prophecy that does not break that rule.
In 1968 an old woman age 90, from Valdres in Norway, had a vision from God.  A respected evangelist called Emanuel Minos spoke with this woman and wrote down what she described.  He thought it was so preposterous that he put the document in a drawer and left it there for 30 years.  Then he realised he had to share her vision with others.  The woman from Valdres was a very alert, reliable, awake and credible Christian, with a good reputation among all who knew her.  Remember, it was sometime around 1998 when this document came to light. This is part of what she saw:

I saw the time just before the coming of Jesus and the outbreak of the Third World War. I saw the events with my natural eyes. I saw the world like a kind of a globe and saw Europe, land by land. I saw Scandinavia. I saw Norway. I saw certain things that would take place just before the return of Jesus, and just before the last calamity happens, a calamity the likes of which we have never before experienced.

There will be peace between the super powers in the east and the west, and there will be a long peace. (Remember, this was in 1968 when the cold war was at its peak with the Cuban Crisis in 1962)

A lukewarmness without parallel will take hold of the Christians, a falling away from true, living Christianity. Christians will not be open for penetrating preaching. They will not, like in earlier times, want to hear of sin and grace, law and gospel, repentance and restoration. There will come a substitute instead: prosperity (happiness) Christianity...  Churches and prayer houses will be emptier and emptier.

There will be a moral disintegration that old Norway has never experienced the likes of. People will live together like married without being married...  TV will be filled with such horrible violence.   People will use it for entertainment.  We will see terrible scenes of murder and destruction one of the other, and this will spread in society.  Sex scenes will also be shown on the screen, the most intimate things that take place in a marriage.  (TV had just arrived in Norway in 1968)

People from poor countries will stream to Europe.  (In 1968 there was no such thing as immigration)  There will be so many of them that people will begin to dislike them and become hard with them. They will be treated like the Jews before the Second World War. Then the full measure of our sins will have been reached.  I will not see it, but you will. Then suddenly, Jesus will come and the Third World War breaks out. It will be a short war.

She concluded:

I am so glad that I will not see it, but when the time draws near, you must take courage and tell this. I have received it from God, and nothing of it goes against what the Bible tells.  The one who has his sins forgiven and has Jesus as Saviour and Lord is safe.
(Translated from German into English in an article in the magazine “Christian Information Service”)  http://www.inthebeginning.com/articles/norway1968.htm

Were these prophetic visions fulfilled?  Remember, this old lady from Norway had this vision in 1968.
Peace between the superpowers in the East and in the West: The “cold war” period is generally considered to span the 1947 Truman Doctrine (12 March 1947) to the 1991 Dissolution of the Soviet Union (26 December 1991). The Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962 sparked genuine fear that it would result in a nuclear war between America and Russia.  Then, in November 1989, the unimaginable happened – the Berlin Wall came down, resulting in a distinct thaw between the east and west.  On 3 December 1989, Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush declared the Cold War over at the Malta Summit.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War  and  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War#Thaw_in_relations
Churches closing and the rise of the “Prosperity Gospel” – health and wealth style Christianity:   A 2015 analysis of the European Values Study in the Handbook of Children and Youth Studies identified a "dramatic decline" in religious affiliation across Europe from 1981 to 2008 – however, this Wikipedia article does not focus on specifics such as number of churches that have closed in Scandinavia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_Christianity_in_various_countries
The view that many churches have closed in Europe since 1968 is probably supported by documented evidence, but I can’t find anything specific.  That church attendance has dropped due to apathy is also fairly obvious but difficult to quantify.  Pew Forum organisation is probably the best source: https://www.pewforum.org/2018/05/29/being-christian-in-western-europe/
Many healing evangelists of the 1940s and 1950s taught that faith could bring financial reward. Then a new prosperity-oriented teaching developed in the 1970s that differed from the one taught by Pentecostal evangelists of the 1950s.  During the 1960s, prosperity gospel teachers embraced televangelism and came to dominate religious programming in the United States. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology#Televangelism
Moral disintegration and an increase in violence – proliferation of sexually explicit and violent television programmes:  In 1968 the number of television channels was quite low compared to the hundreds of channels now available.  Scenes of violent or sexual conduct were heavily censored.  Today, not only do television, video and films exploit both violence and sex, the world wide web has a deeply dark and sinister side.  Why, even “social media” is being used to pervert children.  Media is saturated with scenes of immorality and violence – and it’s all taken for granted, as being an acceptable form of entertainment.  Evidence can be found by turning on your television.
Mass immigration from people in poor countries into Europe: Causes for the displacement of people include natural disasters, conflict and economic poverty due to climate change.  The number of unofficial border crossings by sea and land detected by Frontex at the external borders of the EU peaked at a total of 141,051 in 2011.  The migrant crisis was part of a pattern of increased forced migration to Europe from other continents which is said to have begun in 2014.  At the peak of the crisis in 2015, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) observed that the top three nationalities among over one million refugees arriving from the Mediterranean Sea were Syrian (46.7%), Afghan (20.9%) and Iraqi (9.4%).  According to the UNHCR, the EU countries with the biggest numbers of recognised refugees at the end of 2014 were France (252,264), Germany (216,973), Sweden (142,207) and the United Kingdom (117,161).  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis
I do not know which particular denomination this lady may have belonged to, only that she was a Christian.  In order to validate what she described, one only has to consult recent history.


How are passages vetted for inclusion in officially sanctioned liturgical readings?

I am a member of the United Methodist Church, so my answer will be from that perspective.

In the United Methodist Church, preachers preach from the Lectionary.

According to Wikipedia:

  The Revised Common Lectionary was the product of a collaboration between the North American Consultation on Common Texts (CCT) and the International English Language Liturgical Consultation (ELLC). After a nine-year trial period, it was publicly released in 1994. The CCT membership includes the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops as well as many traditional "mainline" or "liturgically-based" American and Canadian Protestant denominations such as Lutheran, North American Anglican (Episcopalian), Presbyterian, and more loosely Methodist and/or Seventh Day Adventist. The CCT thereby represents the majority of American and Canadian Christians and has been widely adopted in Great Britain.

The Consultation on Common Texts explains the process by which the current Revised Common Lectionary came about in this PDF file.  It appears to be a process of collaboration and suggestions from the various denominations.

The Revised Common Lectionary appears to be a product of the majority of American Christian faiths.

For those not familiar with the Lectionary, the book contains 4 Bible readings for each Sunday for a 3 year cycle.  The church year starts with the first Sunday of Advent, which this year happens to be Sunday, November 27, 2011.  This new year is Year B, or the 2nd year of the 3 year cycle.

A preacher can use any or all of the 4 Bible readings in a worship service, and still be considered as preaching from the Lectionary.


Did original Christian theology that predated the birth of Jesus teach anything similar to the doctrine of the Trinity?

No, neither the Jews (those left after the northern exile) nor the entirety of the Hebrews (all those of the faith before the northern exile) held to any concept of a trinity. The ancient egyptians had a trinity, but not the Hebrews. In fact, they held to a strict monotheism as taught by scripture.

  Deuteronomy 6:4 The Scriptures 1998+ (4) Hear, O Yisra’el: יהוה our Elohim, יהוה is one!

Fortunately for the purposes of our discussion, the verse of the translation above is a word for word and in the same order as that of the original Hebrew. This was pretty much the creed of the faithful and the creed that our Messiah Yahushua re-iterated in Mark 12:29. The above is extremely important due to the grammatical construction of the sentence in Hebrew. For those of you who don't know, in order to express something as singular, you place the numerical designation after the noun. But in order to express something as plural, you place the numerical designation before the noun. In English we always place the numerical designation before the noun so it's not as obvious to us when we read it. But in Hebrew if you wanted to say "3 o'clock" you would say "hour three". It's the third hour, but it's still a singular hour. However, if you wanted to say "three hours" then you would simply say "three hours" to indicate plurality.

This brings us back to the verse above. Here we clearly see that the numerical designation is AFTER Yahuweh (aka God). Take a look at the original Hebrew for further verification. We can clearly see how the Hebrews, then the Jews, and then the Christians (at least up until the Catholic councils) would view Yahuweh (aka God) as one as opposed to seeing Yahuweh (aka God) as three as is stated in the theory of the trinity.

And also, no, the Hebrews and then just the Jews (after the northern exile) would not have thought of Yahuweh (aka God) as becoming human and dieing. The scriptures clearly indicate that Yahuweh is eternal and cannot die (Deuteronomy 23:40, Psalm 90:2, Psalm 102:27) and the Hebrews would also have read many times as they went over and over the Torah, how Yahuweh is not a man nor a son of man:

  Numbers 23:19 The Scriptures 1998+ (19) “El is not a man, to lie; nor a son of man, to repent! Has He said, and would He not do it; or spoken, and would not confirm it?

So to answer your question directly, no, the Hebrews, then the Jews (after the northern exile), and then the early Christians until the Catholic councils would not have imagined that Yahuweh (aka God) would come to earth as the Messiah.


What is the stance of the LDS Church on gender?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a very clear stance on the topic of gender.

  27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he
  him; male and female created he them. (Gen 1:27)

There are only two genders: MALE and FEMALE, every spirit child of our Father in Heaven (every human being ever born on Earth) is one of these genders, has been one of these genders since before the creation of the Earth, and will remain the same gender for all of eternity.

  ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each
  is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such,
  each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential
  characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity
  and purpose. (The Family: A proclomation to the World)

This stance was recently reaffirmed at the October 2018 General Conference of the Church:

  ...some are troubled by some of our Church’s positions on marriage and
  children. Our knowledge of God’s revealed plan of salvation requires
  us to oppose current social and legal pressures to retreat from
  traditional marriage and to make changes that confuse or alter gender
  or homogenize the differences between men and women. We know that the
  relationships, identities, and functions of men and women are
  essential to accomplish God’s great plan. (Truth and the Plan. 2018)

Gender is eternal and unchangeable. When our spirits were created an eternity ago, before the very foundations of the universe were formed, we were created as either male, or female, and we will remain the same gender throughout all time and eternity.


Did St. Nicholas punch Arius at the Council of Nicaea?

Did St Nicholas really slap Arius?

Well if the truth be known, St Nicholas never slapped Arius.

  There are some problems with the story, though.

  In the first place, it’s not true. The story has no historical value.

  As the old Catholic Encyclopedia notes, it’s doubtful St. Nicholas was even at Nicea, since the historical lists of bishops that attended that council don’t include him. Instead, Nicholas is linked to the Council by much later hagiographical works written over half a millennium after Nicholas died. Let’s Stop Celebrating St. Nicholas Punching Arius

Here is the excerpt of what the old Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about St Nicholas:

  There is reason to doubt his presence at Nicaea, since his name is not mentioned in any of the old lists of bishops that attended this council. - Catholic Encyclopedia

But how did this legend come about:

  According to Roger Pearse, editor of the Tertullian Project, the account of the violent incident at Nicea apparently shows up first over a thousand years after the Council, in a 14th-century work.

  Even then, it isn’t Arius himself that Nicholas supposedly struck, but only “a certain Arian.” That story wasn’t good enough, though, so a couple of centuries later another writer changed it to Arius himself.

  Note, too, that the medieval accounts have Nicholas slapping — not punching — the heretic. The story describes a medicinal slap or a rebuke, an attempt to “slap him back to his senses” rather than an expression of contempt or a wish to harm, as a punch certainly would be.

  As such, the moment is celebrated in Greek iconography. When I say “Let’s stop celebrating St. Nicholas punching Arius,” I don’t mean to demean this tradition in Greek iconography.

  Be that as it may, in the original story the blow is not celebrated as a high point of the Council. On the contrary, for striking the Arian heretic, Nicholas was reportedly deprived of his mitre and pallium.

  The later story, which changes the heretic to Arius, also ramps up Nicholas’s punishment, having him thrown into jail — and has him vindicated by no less than Our Lord and Our Lady, who appear to Nicholas in prison and, hearing that his has been imprisoned “for loving You,” free him of his fetters and clothe him in an archpriestly vestment, to the astonishment of those who come for him in the morning.

All said and pondered over there is no historical evidence that St Nicholas punched Arius.

  In many places online we can find the statement that St Nicholas of Myra – the basis for Santa Claus – was present at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, where he punched Arius in the mouth.  So … is it true?

  Unfortunately we have almost no historical information at all about any St Nicholas of Myra – our information is entirely based on Saint’s Lives of him, of which the earliest are 9th century, and the latest are modern compilations based on medieval collections.  All these Lives are really closer to folk-tales than to history, and they reflect the accumulations of popular legends.  Some of them do have Nicholas attending the Council of Nicaea; but they do not contain the story of Nicholas punching Arius. - Did St Nicholas of Myra / Santa Claus punch Arius at the Council of Nicaea?


What would a person need to be able to do to be a saint while he was yet alive?
Formally declared saints are chosen ultimately by the pope, but only after a thorough investigation of the life, writings, and legacy of the saint candidate. No stone is left unturned. Testimony from witnesses and experts, physical evidence, and the entire life of the person is examined with fine detail. Every skeleton in the closet is taken out, and all dirty laundry looked at — if any exists, that is.
The classic requirements for consideration would be as follows:

Evidence of having led an exemplary life of goodness and virtue worthy of imitation, having died a heroic death (martyrdom), or having undergone a major conversion of heart where a previous immoral life is abandoned and replaced by one of outstanding holiness - What Are the Requirements for Sainthood?

Most Roman theologians consider the minimum time of living a saintly life after an immoral lifestyle is abandoned to be five (5) years although exceptions could be made.
On July 11, 2014, Pope Francis slightly somewhat altered these requirements.

Pope Francis has introduced a new pathway to Catholic sainthood, recognizing those who sacrifice their lives for others.
The new category, introduced in a official letter from the pope on Tuesday, is "one of the most significant changes in centuries to the Roman Catholic Church's saint-making procedures," Reuters reports.
Before the change, there were three categories that provided a path to sainthood: being killed for the faith (martyrdom), living a life heroically of Christian virtues and having a strong reputation for religious devotion. The process of becoming a saint begins after an individual's death.
According to the Vatican's official news service, the new category has five main criteria:

The individual must freely and voluntarily offer their life in the face of "a certain and soon-to-come death"

There must be a "close relation" between "the offering of one's life and the premature death of the one who offers it."

The person must show Christian virtues, at least to an ordinary extent, before and after offering their life.

They must have a "reputation for holiness" at least after their death.

They must have performed a miracle. This is a major difference from the "martyrdom" category, which does not require a miracle.

Archbishop Marcello Bartolucci, secretary of the Vatican Congregation for Saints' Causes, said that this is intended "to promote heroic Christian testimony, (that has been) up to now without a specific process, precisely because it did not completely fit within the case of martyrdom or heroic virtues," according to Catholic News Service.
The current categories are insufficient "for interpreting all possible cases," Bartolucci added.
The pope's letter announcing the new category is called "Maiorem hac dilectionem," which is taken from this passage in the Gospel of John: "Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”
According to The Associated Press, "examples of people who might fall into that category include those who take the place of someone condemned to death or expectant mothers with fatal diseases who suspend treatment so their babies can be born." - Pope Francis Announces New Path To Sainthood

The point that ”they must have a ‘reputation for holiness’ at least after their death,” reminds me of the life of St. Benedict Labre when he died:

Benedict Joseph Labre probably evoked similar feelings in many who encountered him, and yet when he died the cry went up “the saint is dead! the saint is dead!”

Further information may be gleaned from the following article(s):

Pope approves new path to sainthood: heroic act of loving service


What does Paul mean when he says that we are no longer under the law but under grace?

The traditional understanding is that, whereas in under the Old Covenant actions were sinful because they contravened the law, under the New Covenant they are sinful because they contravene grace and love as shown to us in Jesus Christ.

This is explained, for instance, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  The New Law is called a law of love because it makes us act out of the love infused by the Holy Spirit, rather than from fear; a law of grace, because it confers the strength of grace to act, by means of faith and the sacraments; a law of freedom, because it sets us free from the ritual and juridical observances of the Old Law, inclines us to act spontaneously by the prompting of charity and, finally, lets us pass from the condition of a servant who “does not know what his master is doing” to that of a friend of Christ — “For all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you”—or even to the status of son and heir. (CCC 1972)

Under the law, actions were regulated. Under grace, transformation is required of the whole being of the person. We are commanded not to sin not because it contravenes a set of laws but because it contravenes the grace given to us in Jesus Christ.


Does Song of Solomon encourage pre-marital sex?

No, what the heck!

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

  28 ¶If a man find a damsel that is a avirgin, which is not betrothed,
  and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

  29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father
  fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath
  humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Does that sound to you like "encouraging"?

As to pornography, just look at how David got into a big mess that caused him much trouble with God:

2 Samuel 11:2

  2 ¶And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David arose from off
  his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king’s house: and from the
  roof he asaw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful
  to blook upon.

Aaaaaaand, he commits adultery after that, and murder to cover up the adultery. Doesn't sound like encouraging looking at naked women that aren't one's wife (aka pornography). And of course what Jesus taught:

Matthew 5:27-28

  27 ¶Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt
  not commit aadultery:

  28 But I say unto you, That whosoever alooketh on a bwoman to clust
  after her hath committed dadultery with her already in his heart.

Of course you can say "oh he's not talking pre-marital here", but I tell you: you are on the wrong path here.

1 Corinthians 6:18

  18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body;
  but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

Also, Song of Solomon 5:1 (KJV)

  1 I am come into my garden, my asister, my spouse: I have gathered
  my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I
  have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O friends; drink, yea, drink
  abundantly, O beloved.

The KJV has for 8:10

  10 I am a wall, and my breasts like towers: then was I in his eyes as
  one that found favour.

With the image being not necessarily virginity, as the verses before read:

  8 ¶We have a little sister, and she hath no breasts: what shall we do
  for our sister in the day when she shall be spoken for?

  9 If she be a wall, we will build upon her a palace of silver: and if
  she be a door, we will inclose her with boards of cedar.

So, the image used here is buildings, and as we should probably assume the sister in question is a virgin, wall vs. door isn't necessarily about virginity.

As to verses 1 and 2, it is mostly about sucking breasts, I will now give a free translation to explain my understanding:

Verse 1: Oh that you would be like my little brother who sucks my mothers breasts = Suck my breasts. If I should find you without, I would kiss thee and no one would despise me = I want to kiss you, and no one would despise me, because you are my spouse

Verse 2: We go in a house and you suck my breasts.

The issue is really the second part of verse 1, but ask yourself: Does this really imply that they would be despised now for kissing in the open, and that him being like a little brother would change that, or that they would not be despised in the first place. Also, would married people kissing in the open be despised or not? Do you have enough knowledge of customs in these days to judge that? Does your friend have? As for me, I don't see the implication that something despicable is happening here.


What did Jesus mean by "this generation will certainly not pass away.." in Matthew 24:34?

The word "generation" there in Greek is γενεα (genea), which can also refer to a family, stock, nation. (Strongs, definition 2b) The NASB also has a footnote here next to "generation" saying "Or race".  I've always interpreted it, therefore, as meaning that the Jewish people will continue to exist until the second coming.

Another form of the same word, γενος, is used in 1 Peter 2:9 where the KJV says "But ye are a chosen generation..." and the NASB, NRSV, ESV, pretty much all the modern translations, say "But you are a chosen race..."

Some people object to this interpretation because of the other verses that are clearly talking about the people of that time not dying until they see the kingdom come.

Matthew 16:28 "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

Mark 9:1 "And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."

Luke 9:27 "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God."

But I maintain that these are about the coming of the kingdom in the form of the establishment of the church on Pentecost, whereas Matthew 24:34 is about the end of the world.  And so I believe they are speaking about different groups of people.  You will notice also that these other verses don't use the word "generation."


What's the difference between 'Divine Providence' and 'Holy Spirit' in this statement?

One Theory: It's possible that the Jews (which Jews? There's not just one body of "orthodox" Jews.) do not wish to endorse the Christian idea of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is not exactly described as a divine person in the OT. "Spirit" and "Spirit of God" are used, but not really in the same sense as "Holy Spirit" is used in the NT.

Perhaps alluding to the Holy Spirit is not a concession that the Jews wish to make, and for the sake of expressing positive things in common, "Divine Providence" was something both groups could agree on.


What is a practical Catholic definition of conscience?

Fr. John Hardon, S.J.'s Catholic Dictionary entry for "conscience":

The judgment of the practical intellect deciding, from general principles of faith and reason, the goodness or badness of a way of acting that a person now faces.
It is an operation of the intellect and not of the feelings or even of the will. An action is right or wrong because of objective principles to which the mind must subscribe, not because a person subjectively feels that way or because his will wants it that way.
Conscience, therefore, is a specific act of the mind applying its knowledge to a concrete moral situation. What the mind decides in a given case depends on principles already in the mind.
These principles are presupposed as known to the mind, either from the light of natural reason reflecting on the data of creation, or from divine faith responding to God's supernatural revelation. Conscience does not produce these principles; it accepts them. Nor does not conscience pass judgment on the truths of reason and divine faith; it uses them as the premises from which to conclude whether something should be done (or should have been done) because it is good, or should be omitted (or should have been omitted) because it is bad. Its conclusions also apply to situations where the mind decides that something is permissible or preferable but not obligatory.
Always the role of conscience is to decide subjectively on the ethical propriety of a specific action, here and now, for this person, in these circumstances. But always, too, the decision is a mental conclusion derived from objective norms that conscience does not determine on its own, receiving it as given by the Author of nature and divine grace.


Can a Catholic cite a religion as a reason for not doing something even if that thing isn't officially prohibited by the Church?

This is a legitimate question, but the answer cannot be generalized as the question wishes it, because each case is different (see points of consideration #1, #2 and #4 below).
Sample Case
For the sake of this question let's consider a specific case: a hypothetical regulation for compulsory Covid-19 vaccination:

On January 1st, 2021 a USA federal regulation goes into effect, mandating Covid-19 vaccination of every resident of USA, free of charge, by March 31st, 2021
using a vaccine of one's choice as long as it passes Stage 3 Clinical trial
even though 1) there are published potential minor side effects, 2) there may be long term adverse side effects which are currently unknown due to accelerated nature of this 1st generation vaccine research.
There is widespread announcement in all media channels a few months before.
The text of the regulation as well as the disclosure of the vaccine research and production are also made available in the federal government websites.
Exemptions: 1) certain groups of people whose health conditions made them susceptible to the known side effects, 2) you're pregnant, 3) you have a doctor's note
The reason for the regulation is for making the community as a whole safer (herd immunity) when return to normalcy is desired (for economic and other community related reasons)
There is at least one vaccine that is produced ethically according to Catholic moral principles (example: not derived from abhorrent origins such as cells from non-implanted or aborted foetuses)

A Catholic is understandably faced with a decision that calls for risking his/her health when obeying the regulation.
Is the regulation ITSELF legitimate?
Let's review Aquinas's Treatise on Law on the legitimacy of a human law.
It needs to fulfill 4 criteria:

Ordination of reason (i.e. follow natural law principles)
For the common good (i.e. not corrupt, or end up injuring the common good)
By one who has care for the community (i.e. by justly elected / appointed official having jurisdiction)
Promulgated (i.e. published through a channel that everyone has access to; no surprises, no secrets)

From the details above, the regulation appears legitimate.
Points of consideration
Now we consider the Catholic individual's act as he/she decides whether to be vaccinated or to refuse.  Let's consider 2 grounds for refusal:

Safety: Let's say there are credible articles by credible people that the insufficiently tested first generation vaccine may have unforeseen long term side effect that can damage someone's health permanently, since normal vaccine development usually takes 10-15 years.  So this Catholic is considering postponing vaccination until the 2nd or 3rd generation which would not have been developed by the deadline of March 31st, 2021.
Ethical: Let's say all of the available vaccines as of Mar 2021 have some assocation one way or another with non-implanted or aborted foetuses in the past, either in research only or also in production.  For a background, see the document Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared From Cells Derived from Aborted Human Foetuses attached in a 2005 letter response from the Pontifical Academy of Life, especially the 3 distinctions: 1) formal vs. material cooperation, 2) immediate vs. remote, 3) active vs. passive cooperation.  Furthermore, due to the developing situation, there are yet-to-be-resolved differences in opinion between US Bishops and UK Bishops on whether to comply with a vaccination regulation.  So an individual Catholic has to make a judgment call to his/her situation.

Here are some points of consideration from the Catholic perspective:

Whether the act of refusal itself is licit under the Catholic natural law principle? An act is wrong if either of the means or the telos / ends of the act is wrong/evil.  In this instance the telos (the chosen aim of this act) is NOT to break the regulation, but for the preservation of one's health.  Therefore the aim is OK, especially because one is still open to vaccination in the future (when it becomes safer, or when an ethical vaccine choice becomes available).  The means of this act is the refusal itself, but the breaking of the regulation is merely "accidental" to the aim (like borrowing a friend's car to drive oneself to the hospital in an emergency without notifying your friend because there is no time, is not considered stealing).  So this act is licit in the eyes of the Catholic church.  For more guidance, see a lecture series from the Thomistic Institute Aquinas on Human Action and Virtue especially lectures 1, 2, 5, and 6.

Whether the regulation itself permits exemptions? Most regulations have exemptions that may not be religious in nature.  But the OP question specifically asks for religious exemption, presumably because this is the only avenue to be exempted from the regulation.  Therefore, for this hypothetical regulation, let's say the individual does NOT qualify under those exemptions, so the individual would like to say to the authorities that he/she doesn't want to be vaccinated for "religious reason", which can be worded as: "After taking all facts under consideration my moral conscience says that I should not take the 1st generation vaccine and my church allows me to break a regulation that is potentially injurious to my health.  I appeal to the Free Exercise Clause."  This is even though the Catholic Church does not prohibit you to be vaccinated, but let's say another church X does.

Whether the way US constitution phrases the Free Exercise Clause you have to belong to the institutionalized religion (church X), or whether the clause simply refers to your conscience?

If it is the former, you may have to fight harder, but can cite church X as a precedent and hopes the court can rule in your favor
If it is the latter, then the OP question is probably a moot point.  But we still need to consider points #4 and #5 below

Whether the religious exemption for this regulation has been decided by the Supreme Court? Glancing through this article covering Supreme Court decisions over many types of Free Exercise Clause lawsuits, it's very clear that this is a case by case basis.  With respect to Covid-19 related regulations, they are still untested in the courts.  Therefore it seems one can legitimately test the court by disobeying the regulation anyway over conscience without appearing to blatantly ignoring the law, until it is tested in the Supreme Court.  Once it's tested though, from the Catholic law-abiding principle it could be a more serious disobedience because the legitimate law criteria #3 (issued by legitimate authority) becomes much stronger.

Whether the Catholic church allows one to disobey a regulation that has been tested by the Supreme Court?  We assume that one has made a justifiable personal decision regarding a specific case based on the Catholic natural law principle AND the Catholic church is silent BUT it is against a secular regulation already tested by the highest court in the land.  Are there previous cases where the Catholic Church has allowed this implicitly or explicitly?  If it is a Yes, then we may have a stronger reason to disobey licitly, even though we should not take it as a blanket statement to disobey all Supreme Court rulings simply over moral conscience.

Conclusion
If there is already a Supreme Court decision about the particular case, then criteria #3 (legitimate authority) becomes a lot stronger.  But even so, if we can decrease the strengh of criteria #1 (ordination of reason) by appealing to either personal danger or the unavailability of ethical vaccine (described in 2 grounds of refusal above), it is probably licit, especially if the Catholic church is relatively silent (so far) on this specific regulation, leaving a faithful free to follow his/her conscience.
At any rate, when disobeying this regulation because one believes criteria #1 of the regulation is not sufficient (for example: it should not have been compulsory, or no ethical vaccine is available), one has to take the precautions so the purpose of the regulation itself is protected (criteria #2: community safety).  In lieu of declining vaccination in March 2021 one can make a stronger case when appealing to the Free Exercise Clause in the Federal Court by demonstrating that one wears mask, maintains safe distance, performs self-isolation when exhibiting symptoms, and remains open for vaccination, and thus proving that the refusal to obey the regulation is done in good conscience.
UPDATE: The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a 21 Dec 2020 Note on the morality of using
some anti-Covid-19 vaccines that provides clarity on:

moral reasoning for benefiting from the ethically compromised cell lines while strongly asserting that it is NOT a moral endorsement
moral imperative for organizations (pharmaceutical, governmental, etc.) to sponsor fully ethical vaccine development
balancing the availability of fully / partially ethical vaccines with personal duty for health and common good
that vaccination "must be voluntary" while needing to preserve personal health and common good:

At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary. In any case, from the ethical point of view, the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one's own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good. In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed. Those who, however, for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent. In particular, they must avoid any risk to the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons, and who are the most vulnerable.


Why does John 1 say "the Word was with God" and not "scripture was with God"?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
  was God. (John 1:1, NIV)

  All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
  correcting and training in righteousness. (2 Timothy 3:16, NIV)

The Greek word for 'Word' in John 1:1 is Logos(λόγος) and 'Scripture' in 2 Timothy 3:16 is Graphey(γραφή). Though 'Word' and 'Scripture' are very much related, they are necessarily not the same.

The 'Word' in the context of John-1 is a divine entity, which is Jesus Christ, who existed in the beginning with God. 'Scripture' in the context of the Bible mostly refers to the written words of God. Scripture is a subset of the Word. The Scripture may represent the Word and illustrates the picture of the Word but it cannot fully explain it, because scriptures are written in human language which has limitations to describe Heavenly things.

We cannot say that the words we have in the Bible are the only words that God has spoken. Therefore, the Scripture that we have is not equivalent to the Word, it is only part of the Word. Hence, John 1:1 was written as such by the writer, using Word(λόγος), instead of Scripture(γραφή), where the Word refers to Jesus Christ, who is the source of Scripture.


What does the abbreviation "RNIO" mean in a painting of the Virgin and Child?

There seems to be two views on what the letters "RNIO" mean in the Carlos Crivelli painting. I only have one reference for the answer: Dr. Liliana Leopardi, an expert in Italian Renaissance art, Assistant Professor of Art and Art History at Chapman University, who was gracious enough to share her knowledge with me through personal correspondence.

  Scholars have been trying to figure out the inscription for quite a long time now. It is thought to be to an inscription that somehow refers to the commissioner's identity. As it happens to be painted on one of a shield.

Scholars are divided on the way that it refers to the commissioner's identity, Dr. Leopardi continues:

  It could either be a reference to the name of the commissioner or the initials of a series of words that were meant to be the commissioner's motto.

The answer unfortunately is that scholars simply don't know the answer.


What is the 70 weeks prophesied in Daniel chapter nine?

In order to answer the question it is necessary to first understand what Daniel meant by 70 weeks.
We are given a clue in verse 2:

Daniel 9:2  KJV  In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

Jeremiah 25:18  KJV  To wit, Jerusalem, and the cities of Judah, and the kings thereof, and the princes thereof, to make them a desolation, an astonishment, an hissing, and a curse; as it is this day;
Jeremiah 44:2 KJV  Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Ye have seen all the evil that I have brought upon Jerusalem, and upon all the cities of Judah; and, behold, this day they are a desolation, and no man dwelleth therein,
here it is worth noting that the use of the term 7 in the Bible is usually a notation meaning complete or total.
The following is pasted from http://www.gotquestions.org/seventy-weeks.html
The Vision is explained by the Angel Gabrielle.
Daniel 9:21  through 23  KJV

21  Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.
22  And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.
23  At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.

Explanation of the Vision:
Daniel 9:24  through 27   KJV

24  Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
25  Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26  And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27  And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

So does this literally mean 70 weeks?
Remember that we said that the number 7 when used in the Bible meant complete or total.
This usage of the number 7 in this case can be construed to indicate completion of time, or that is to say that this period encompasses the Church age, or that period between Christ's death on the cross and his second coming.
The prophet Daniel was given many direct visions and revelations by God through the angel Gabriel
that pertain to the End Times. In fact, he was given so much information that Jesus Himself recommends
that we study and understand what Daniel had to say.
The Divisions of the 70 Weeks quoted from http://www.gotquestions.org/seventy-weeks.html.

In verse 24, Gabriel says, “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city.” Almost all commentators agree that the seventy “sevens” should be understood as seventy “weeks” of years, in other words, a period of 490 years. These verses provide a sort of “clock” that gives an idea of when the Messiah would come and some of the events that would accompany His appearance.
The prophecy goes on to divide the 490 years into three smaller units: one of 49 years, one of 434 years, and one 7 years. The final “week” of 7 years is further divided in half. Verse 25 says, “From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’” Seven “sevens” is 49 years, and sixty-two “sevens” is another 434 years:
49 years + 434 years = 483 years

The prophecy contains a statement concerning God’s six-fold purpose in bringing these events to pass. Verse 24 says this purpose is 1) “to finish transgression,” 2) “to put an end to sin,” 3) “to atone for wickedness,” 4) “to bring in everlasting righteousness,” 5) “to seal up vision and prophecy,” and 6) “to anoint the most holy.”
Notice that these results concern the total eradication of sin and the establishing of righteousness. The prophecy of the 70 weeks summarizes what happens before Jesus sets up His millennial kingdom. Of special note is the third in the list of results: “to atone for wickedness.” Jesus accomplished the atonement for sin by His death on the cross.

Fulfillment of the 70 Weeks

Gabriel said the prophetic clock would start at the time that a decree was issued to rebuild Jerusalem. From the date of that decree to the time of the Messiah would be 483 years. We know from history that the command to “restore and rebuild Jerusalem” was given by King Artaxerxes of Persia c. 445 B.C. (see Nehemiah 2:1-8).
The first unit of 49 years (seven “sevens”) covers the time that it took to rebuild Jerusalem, “with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble”. This rebuilding is chronicled in the book of Nehemiah.
Using the Jewish custom of a 360-day year, 483 years after 445 B.C. places us at A.D. 30, which would coincide with Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem. The prophecy in Daniel 9 specifies that after the completion of the 483 years, “the Anointed One will be cut off” (verse 26). This was fulfilled when Jesus was crucified.
Daniel 9:26 continues with a prediction that, after the Messiah is killed, “the people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.” This was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The “ruler who will come” is a reference to the Antichrist, who, it seems, will have some connection with Rome, since it was the Romans who destroyed Jerusalem.

The Final Week of the 70 Weeks

Of the 70 “sevens,” 69 have been fulfilled in history. This leaves one more “seven” yet to be fulfilled. Most scholars believe that we are now living in a huge gap between the 69th week and the 70th week. The prophetic clock has been paused, as it were. The final “seven” of Daniel is what we usually call the tribulation period.
Daniel’s prophecy reveals some of the actions of the Antichrist, the “ruler who will come.” Verse 27 says, “He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’” However, “in the middle of the ‘seven,’ . . . he will set up an abomination that causes desolation” in the temple. Jesus warned of this event in Matthew 24:15. After the Antichrist breaks the covenant with Israel, a time of “great tribulation” begins (Matthew 24:21, NKJV).
Daniel also predicts that the Antichrist will face judgment. He only rules “until the end that is decreed is poured out on him” (Daniel 9:27). God will only allow evil to go so far, and the judgment the Antichrist will face has already been planned out.

Conclusion

The prophecy of the 70 weeks is complex and amazingly detailed, and much has been written about it. Of course, there are various interpretations, but what we have presented here is the dispensational, premillennial view. One thing is certain: God has a time table, and He is keeping things on schedule. He knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10), and we should always be looking for the triumphant return of our Lord (Revelation 22:7).