How do Jehovah's Witnesses respond to the charge that they are false prophets (because their end-of-the-world predictions didn't come true)?

In their publication Reasoning from the Scriptures they address this question.
They don't claim to be inspired prophets but faithful students of the scriptures who in their constant efforts to keep on the watch have made errors in regard to their expectations on end times bible prophecy. Below is the pertinent quote from that book:

  Have not Jehovah’s Witnesses made errors in their teachings?

  Jehovah’s Witnesses do not claim to be inspired prophets. They have made mistakes. Like the apostles of Jesus Christ, they have at times had some wrong expectations.—Luke 19:11; Acts 1:6.

  The Scriptures provide time elements related to Christ’s presence, and Jehovah’s Witnesses have studied these with keen interest. (Luke 21:24; Dan. 4:10-17) Jesus also described a many-featured sign that would tie in with the fulfillment of time prophecies to identify the generation that would live to see the end of Satan’s wicked system of things. (Luke 21:7-36) Jehovah’s Witnesses have pointed to evidence in fulfillment of this sign. It is true that the Witnesses have made mistakes in their understanding of what would occur at the end of certain time periods, but they have not made the mistake of losing faith or ceasing to be watchful as to fulfillment of Jehovah’s purposes. They have continued to keep to the fore in their thinking the counsel given by Jesus: “Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.”—Matt. 24

Additionally the definition of false prophet provided in this book is quite specific and does not therefore apply to the mistakes made by their scholars in interpreting scripture. Below is the definition:

  False Prophets
  Definition: Individuals and organizations proclaiming messages that they attribute to a superhuman source but that do not originate with the true God and are not in harmony with his revealed will.

For more info from this book published by Jehovah's Witnesses see:  False Prophets.

Additionally the Watchtower of January 2013 directly addresses this question:

  HAVE JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES GIVEN INCORRECT DATES FOR THE END?
  Jehovah’s Witnesses have had wrong expectations about when the end would come. Like Jesus’ first-century disciples, we have sometimes looked forward to the fulfillment of prophecy ahead of God’s timetable. (Luke 19:11; Acts 1:6; 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) We agree with the sentiment of longtime Witness A. H. Macmillan, who said: “I learned that we should admit our mistakes and continue searching God’s Word for more enlightenment.”

  Why, then, do we continue to highlight the nearness of the end? Because we take seriously Jesus’ words: “Keep looking, keep awake.” The alternative, to be found “sleeping” by Jesus, would prevent us from gaining his favor. (Mark 13:33, 36) Why?

  Consider this example: A lookout in a fire tower might see what he thinks is a wisp of smoke on the horizon and sound what proves to be a false alarm. Later, though, his alertness could save lives.

  Likewise, we have had some wrong expectations about the end. But we are more concerned with obeying Jesus and saving lives than with avoiding criticism. Jesus’ command to “give a thorough witness” compels us to warn others about the end.—Acts 10:42.

  We believe that even more important than focusing on when the end will come, we must be confident that it will come, and we must act accordingly. We take seriously the words of Habakkuk 2:3, which says: “Even if [the end] should delay [compared to what you thought], keep in expectation of it; for it will without fail come true. It will not be late.”

Additionally there is this footnote in an Awake magazine that makes it clear that we have long been aware that we are not inspired nor infallible:

  Jehovah’s Witnesses, in their eagerness for Jesus’ second coming, have suggested dates that turned out to be incorrect. Because of this, some have called them false prophets. Never in these instances, however, did they presume to originate predictions ‘in the name of Jehovah.’ Never did they say, ‘These are the words of Jehovah.’ The Watchtower, the official journal of Jehovah’s Witnesses, has said: “We have not the gift of prophecy.” (January 1883, page 425) “Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible.” (December 15, 1896, page 306) The Watchtower has also said that the fact that some have Jehovah’s spirit “does not mean those now serving as Jehovah’s witnesses are inspired. It does not mean that the writings in this magazine The Watchtower are inspired and infallible and without mistakes.” (May 15, 1947, page 157) “The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances, nor is it dogmatic.” (August 15, 1950, page 263) “The brothers preparing these publications are not infallible. Their writings are not inspired as are those of Paul and the other Bible writers. (2 Tim. 3:16) And so, at times, it has been necessary, as understanding became clearer, to correct views. (Prov. 4:18)” —February 15, 1981, page 19.


Dispensationalism is a framework based on dispensations, just as Covenant Theology is a framework based on covenants. But both dispensations and covenants can be considered in their own right, and both can be discussed by people who don't accept the frameworks based on them.


How did Luther view 'confessing intentional sins' to a priest for forgiveness?

Originally Luther believed that confession to a priest was a holy sacrament. After being what he called 'born again', which is often referred to as his Tower Experience, he began to see confession and penance differently.
Early in the reformation he still maintained that it was still a sacrament, along with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, but the priests involvement was almost meaningless in his explanation, as they were there as mere mouth pieces to declare the gospel of forgiveness, which 'any child' could just as easily do considering the fact it is only reminding sinners of the gospel.
Here he argues that it does not really matter who you confess to:

A pope or bishop does nothing more than the lowliest priest. Indeed where there is no priest, each individual Christian—even a woman or child—does as much. For any Christian can say to you, “God forgives you your sins, in the name,” etc., and if you can accept that word with a confident faith, as though God were saying it to you, then in that same faith you are surely absolved.
It follows that the keys or the authority of St. Peter is not an authority at all but a service; and the keys have not been given to St. Peter but to you and me. The keys are yours and mine. (Luther's Works Vol 35.16)

Yet luther had many suspicions and detestations of the way many people used this practice not truthfully acting as a mere mouthpiece but to torment the consciences of those who foolishly sought the help of blind priests. . To Luther they were trying to make it a matter of works, as opposed to the free gospel which the priest should merely affirm:

A number of people have been teaching us that we should, and must necessarily, be uncertain about absolution, and doubt whether we have been restored to grace and our sins forgiven—on the grounds that we do not know whether our contrition has been adequate or whether sufficient satisfaction has been made for our sins. And because this is not known, the priest cannot at once assign appropriate penance.  Be on guard against these misleading and un-Christian gossips. The priest is necessarily uncertain as to your contrition and faith, but this is not what matters. To him it is enough that you make confession and seek an absolution. He is supposed to give it to you and is obligated to do so. What will come of it, however, he should leave to God and to your faith. You should not be debating in the first place whether or not your contrition is sufficient. Rather you should be assured of this, that after all your efforts your contrition is not sufficient. This is why you must cast yourself upon the grace of God, hear his sufficiently sure word in the sacrament, accept it in free and joyful faith, and never doubt that you have come to grace—not by your own merits or contrition but by his gracious and divine mercy, which promises, offers, and grants you full and free forgiveness of sins in order that in the face of all the assaults  of sin, conscience, and the devil, you thus learn to glory and trust not in yourself or your own actions, but in the grace and mercy of your dear Father in heaven. (Luther's Works Vol 35.15)

After some more thought, as some years passed, his detestations became clearer to him, not only did he no longer consider it a sacrament but fully made known his thoughts about the Papal abuse of it.  In an Exhortation of Martin Luther to All the Clergy Assembled at Augsburg for the Diet of 1530 he made his final sentiments known about the confessional, confessions and penance. As is usual in the world of Luther the practices of the church seemed to have become so horribly perverse but we do not have much history to work from other than to take his word for it as a former monk and teacher.
Concerning Confessionals

My dear man, was not this, too, a blasphemous trade fair, invented in every respect for the sake of money? As if God had not before through the gospel given all such things freely to all the world, or as if God had forbidden these things, and they were the mighty men who could sell the commandments of God for money. The gospel must be nothing and God must be their merchandise.  (Luther's Works Vol 34.19)

Concerning Confession

I consider one of the greatest plagues on earth whereby you have confused the conscience of the whole world, caused so many souls to despair, and have weakened and quenched all men’s faith in Christ.
(Luther's Works Vol 34.19).

Concerning Penance

That is the very worst and hell itself! If one were to forgive and remit all abominations, one can never forgive you for this one. This doctrine has filled hell and has troubled the kingdom of Christ more horribly than the Turk or the whole world could ever do. For you taught us that we should by our own works make satisfaction for sin, even against God. And that was called repenting of sin. You have nowhere given so much emphasis to contrition and confession, although you have made works of them also. Now what else does it mean to say, “You must make satisfaction for your sins,” than to say, “You must deny Christ, renounce your baptism, blaspheme the gospel, reproach God for lies, disbelieve the forgiveness of sins, tread underfoot Christ’s blood and death, dishonor the Holy Spirit, and go to heaven by your own effort with such virtues”? Alas, where are the tongues and voices which can say enough about this? (Luther's Works Vol 34.20)


What arguments support an early date for the Didache?

Background

The wild dates assigned to the Didache are most likely a result of the the several developments it seems to have gone under. Some scholars have even attempted to remove the "additions" to the original Didache in order to uncover the original text1. It is difficult to determine just how late the last development occurred, so for this reason, I will be assuming that you are asking when the Didache in its original form was first composed.

The importance of the Didache stems from the fact that some of the early Christian churches considered it to be canonical. Even some modern-day Oriental Orthodox Churches consider a derrivative of the Didache, the Didascalia, to be part of a broad canon2. Though generally the Didache and her derivatives have not been considered canonical by Christendom in general. This is likely due to the very practical nature of the document.

This answer will quickly summarize the various arguments put forth and allow you to follow up on each of these points for further study. It will not offer arguments for a late date, as this is beyond the scope of your question.

Arguments for a 1st Century Dating

The primitive church presented by the Didache is highly indicative of an early composition date. The Didache shows little to no knowledge of the more formal structures referenced by those like Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch (1 Clement dating ~70-140 CE and Letter to the Smyrnaeans ~107 CE). Some believe the Didache to have been composed in Antioch, which then begs the question why it would not mention the formal church structures Ignatius (who lives in Antioch) mentions.
The Didache seems to lack Pauline influence which indicates its writers where not familiar with Paul's theological ideas expressed in his letters dating ~50 CE onward. This leads to the conclusion that the Didache was written before its writers had received the famous Pauline letters we know today.
The manner in which the sayings of Jesus are presented suggest they were received by oral tradition. This has led some to believe the Didache lacked all four of the written gospel accounts. For example, the golden rule is recited in the negative ("do not do to another what you would not want done to you" Didache 1.23) unlike the gospels which recite it in the positive. This suggests that the writers were relying on oral tradition rather than written tradition.
The Didache begins by arguing that there are "two ways." This comports with the early Christian name "those who follow the way" (Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22) and from Jesus' teaching of the two gates (Matthew 7:13-14). Jesus is also called the way (John 14:6). This is highly suggestive that the original writers of the Didache still considered Christianity to be a sect or "way" within the broader religion of Judaism4.
Dr. Alan Garrow argues the Didache is a possible solution to the synoptic problem5 which would date it before the Synoptic Gospels.
Several parts of the Didache demonstrate it is targeted towards gentiles, not Jews. This has led some to consider it an early catechism used by Jewish-Christians to first evangelize the gentiles. Essentially, it is a vague suggestion that the Didache is one of the first attempts by the original Jewish-Christians to evangelize the gentiles.
The Didache shows little sign of contemporary persecution in the writters' Christian communities. This suggests it was written before the harsh persecution characterizing the 60's CE.6
There is no "polemic against heterodox or Gnostic tendencies within the church."6 This suggests the Didache was composed before heterodox and Gnostic tendencies appeared within the church.
"The Didache does not fit clearly into any period of liturgy or ministry for which we have documentation."6 The reason may be because it was written before any liturgy we know of had formed.
In chapter 6 there is an appeal to abstain from food offered to idols. This comports with James' admonition in Acts 15 at the council of Jerusalem (~50 CE) and is unlike teachings after the council on the subject (1 Corinthians 8:4-6 ~53 CE). This has also led some to identify the Didache with the Apostolic Decree written by James the Just.
Despite the apocalyptic ending, the Didache makes no connection to the temple destruction. However, it is hard to tell if this indicates much.
The longer name of the Didache is "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles." The even fuller title is "The Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles." If this title were correct, it would have been written by the apostles themselves.
Some have argued that the Didache is a "matriarch" of Apocalypse of John (or Revelation), which if true, would naturally date the Didache before John wrote his apocalypse. See Dr. Alan Garrow's discussion7.

Conclusion

I have presented one side of the argument because this is what your question asked for. However, note that the Didache is one of the most wildly dated Christian documents, and it is likely that it will remain so. It is a document that many Christians esteem but rarely consider canonical.

Sources:

https://www.alangarrow.com/original.html
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/ethiopican.html
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Christian
https://www.alangarrow.com/synoptic-problem.html
https://earlychurch.org.uk/pdf/didache.pdf
https://www.alangarrow.com/uploads/4/4/0/3/44031657/the_didache_and_revelation__sbl_2015_.pdf


What is the difference between Lutheran and Calvinist beliefs in the apostasy of the Church?

As far as I know, both Lutherans and Calvinists are not subscribed to ritualistic pattern. The Great Apostasy article in Wikipedia, I believe, refers to the 'ritualistic' apostasy which were increasing in the period of pre-reformation.

Doctrine-wise, Luther and Calvin do not differ on great apostasy, as they hold on 'Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura'. The 'Apostasy' they fought was due to the greediness of the church at that time which deny those 3 principles as the foundation of Christian faith. In both Lutheranism and Calvinism, the important point of sacraments are to remember the work of Christ in this world, instead of doing them for the sake of the rituals. The same goes to the Christian holidays which are celebrated nowadays, they are acting as remembrance for the work of Christ.

Regarding Mormonism

  Survivors of the persecutions were overly-influenced by various pagan philosophies either because they were not well indoctrinated in Jesus' teachings or they corrupted their Christian beliefs (willingly, by compulsion, or with good intentions but without direct revelation from God to help them interpret said beliefs) by accepting non-Christian doctrines into their faith. Latter-day Saints believe that many plain and simple truths of the gospel of Christ were, therefore, lost. (Wikipedia)

I quoted some of the Mormons understanding on the 'Apostasy' of the church. And, NO. Both Lutherans and Calvinists do not believe that the simple truths of the Gospel of Christ were lost due to the human inability to interpret the Scripture. Holy Spirit works, and to conform to this statement would means that we undermine the power of God (in this case via the persona of Holy Spirit), to help the church to understand the Truth.

At the very least, God has preserved the Truth from the time of Adam to Noah to Abraham to Moses to David to Christ to the early church. He, Himself, is the one and only Truth. After all, preserving the Truth and revealing Himself to the faithful and righteous has been his hobby for quite a while (i.e. Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, I can go on and on with this). And, there wasn't any 'Bible' before Moses, they were all received the Truth orally, too, like the early church.


How do Catholics reconcile the Immaculate Conception with Romans 3:23?

In essence, the Catholic Church takes the position that Paul is not intending to attribute actual sin to every human being that has ever existed.

For the benefit of readers not familiar with the Catholic doctrine on sin, the Church distinguishes between actual sin (sometimes also called personal sin), which consists in concrete actions in which a person knowingly and deliberately contravenes God’s law, and original sin, which is not “sin” in the strict sense, but the privation of grace that all people (save the singular cases discussed below) suffer before their Baptism. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 405 and 1849.)

The broader context of 3:23 is as follows:

  But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God… (Rom. 3:21-23, ESV).

Although it is possible that Paul is referring to passages of the Old Testament (such as Ecclesiastes 7:20, as Marc points out), it is also clear that St. Paul is making the message his own. Nevertheless, in the context of Chapter 3, St. Paul is essentially refuting the idea that the People of Israel have a special advantage with respect to the Gentiles. It is true, argues Paul, that the Jews have the tremendous advantage of the Law and the Prophets, but it has not prevented them from sinning. Rather, he says, “all”—that is, both Jews and Gentiles—“have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

It follows that Paul’s use of the qualifier “all” should not be taken to mean “every man, woman, or child that has ever existed,” but rather all human beings in general, and in particular, all human beings including the people of Israel.

Moreover, even just a simple logical analysis of St. Paul’s expression reveals that it cannot be ascribing actual sin to every human being. Clearly, Jesus Christ himself—who is fully man—did not commit any actual sins, and indeed was conceived free of original sin as well. (The union of his human nature to his Divine Nature according to his divine Person makes any kind of sin impossible in him.)

Even among mere creatures, there are many human beings who die without ever committing an actual sin: for example, those who die as young children, and those who have severe mental handicaps.

For all these reasons, it follows that when Paul asserts that “all have sinned” (πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον), the “all” (πάντες) is not meant to be applied exhaustively. There is, therefore, no reason that an individual human being could not receive a special grace that preserves him (or her) from original sin and its effects.

(Note that the Church holds that Mary, when she was alive on earth, was always capable of sinning—unlike Jesus Christ—but that she never actually did. Thanks to her preservation from original sin, she enjoyed the ability to avoid committing any actual sins—a possibility that the vast majority of us do not have. See CCC 490-493.)


Which scriptures tells us that Jesus laughed or was happy?

The classic book on this subject is The Humor of Christ by Elton Trueblood.  While it is true that the Scripture rarely tells Jesus' emotion, there are considerable places in Scripture where Jesus is most likely making a joke:

When the Syrophoenician woman quips back that even the dogs get the crumbs
When the Pharisees strain out the gnats but swallow a camel
When Jesus describes the Pharisees as the blind leading the blind

Additionally, we may not have 'Jesus laughed," but we know that Jesus loved a party:

His first miracle was at a party, turning water into wine (and embarrassing Baptists ever since).
Matthew 9:15 "Jesus replied, "Do wedding guests mourn while celebrating with the groom? Of course not. But someday the groom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast." - basically telling the Pharisees to lighten up about the fact that the disciples weren't fasting.
Numerous parables about wedding feasts.  This was almost a staple of the genre.

And, finally, Jesus upbraids the Pharisees for their double-mindedness on the subject of fun in Matthew 11:16 - 19:

  To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others:

  17“ ‘We played the pipe for you,
  and you did not dance;
  we sang a dirge,
  and you did not mourn.’

  18For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.”


What do "sin" and "death" mean in Romans 5:12?

Your first question:

  In the English language world, does the word "sinned" in that verse also mean an act against God's will or something else?

My answer to this would be that the Oxford dictionary of English states that the word "sin {verb; sins, sinning, sinned}" means:

  "an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law {an act regarded as a serious or regrettable fault, offence, or omission}.

Your second question:

  In the English language world, what does the word "death" mean in that verse? Does it mean that the person is not breathing anymore, or that they are spiritually dead?

My answer to your second point is that the word "death" found in Romans 5:12 can be referenced as physical and spiritual death simultaneously {see below my understanding of the text where the emphasis is mine}.

  Therefore, just as through one man {Adam} sin entered into the world {because He disobeyed God in Eden thus cursing the whole creation}, and death through sin {because the creation is no longer perfect, but fallen due to sin; hence why we die}, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned {because we are all descendants of Adam it is in our nature to sin in thought, word and deed}.


How is sin transfered from one to another?

Original sin is a lack of infused Grace, with infused Grace being a partaking of the Divine Nature (2 Peter 1:4).

Original sin isn't a thing, it is a lack of a thing. Adam didn't pass anything on, he didn't pass on something he lost.

One of the effects or qualities of this original Grace is it kept the emotional and physical side of man (the flesh, see Gallatians 5) subordinate to the rational and spiritual side (the spirit). When the Grace was lost through sin, it caused the flesh to struggle with the  spirit for control of a man (I want (the flesh) to eat the cake, but I know (the spirit) I shouldn't). When the spirit of man rebelled against God, his flesh rebelled against his spirit.

Jesus came to offer this gift of Grace to us, although it doesn't immediately correct the internal discord within us.

Christi pax,

Lucretius


Did Pope Francis declare that according to the teaching of the Catholic Church capital punishment is intrinsically evil?

The short answer is no.

The choice of words regarding the Roman Pontiff's decision to try to abolish the death penalty is not strong enough to raise the death penalty to the fact that it is intrinsically evil in all situations.

The pope stated the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”

According to the Cambridge Dictionary inadmissible is defined as the following:

  Unable to be accepted, esp. in a law court:

  The lie detector test was inadmissible as evidence in the case.

Or if one prefers the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

  Not able to be allowed or considered in a legal case : not admissible

What is an intrinsic evil?

  Intrinsic evil is something which is always evil, no matter the circumstances or rationale. If an act is intrinsically evil, it cannot be justified by the intention or by the circumstances (the environment, social pressure, emergency situation, etc.)

Historically speaking the Church has allowed the use executions as a means for courts to protect its' citizens against serious evil doers.

What is the Catholic Church's historical position on capital punishment: how did we get here?

  Some issues allow for a diversity of opinion, and Catholics are permitted leeway in endorsing or opposing particular policies. This is the case with the questions of when to go to war and when to apply the death penalty. Though the Church urges caution regarding both of these issues, it acknowledges that the state has the right to employ them in some circumstances (CCC 2309, 2267).

  Pope Benedict XVI, when he was still Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, spoke of this in a document dealing with when Catholics may receive Communion:

  "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the -application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia" (WRHC 3). - Five Non-Negotiable Issues.

Pope Francis has yet to state that capital punishment is grounds for a Catholic not being to able to receive Holy Communion if one partakes in some legal form with a lawfully convicted criminal's execution. Therefore capital punishment is not an intrinsically evil act.

  Even the new wording of the Catechism, as approved by Pope Francis, does not quite require Catholics to disapprove of the death penalty in all circumstances. The Pope’s new language does not contradict the time-honored Church teaching that the state has the authority to invoke the death penalty in appropriate circumstances. (That traditional teaching was clearly upheld, in the same section 2267 of the Catechism, even after Pope John Paul II called for a tighter restriction on executions.)

  Nor does the revised Catechism teach that the use of capital punishment is intrinsically immoral. - Pope Francis and the death penalty: another dose of confusion


According to the Catholic Church, are Adam and Eve in heaven?

What Catholic tradition speaks of them to be in heaven?

This is the doctrine known as the Harrowing of Hell. It says that, after his crucifixion, Jesus descended to the realm of the dead, in order to bring forth the righteous who had died into the Resurrection life. "He descended into Hell," as the Apostles' Creed says.

The doctrine is that the righteous were freed by his Resurrection, and "opened heaven's gates for the just who had gone before him" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 637).

There is an ancient homily for Holy Saturday (quoted in the Catechism) that mentions Adam and Eve by name:

  Today a great silence reigns on earth, a great silence and a great stillness. A great silence because the King is asleep. the earth trembled and is still because God has fallen asleep in the flesh and he has raised up all who have slept ever since the world began... He has gone to search for Adam, our first father, as for a lost sheep. Greatly desiring to visit those who live in darkness and in the shadow of death, he has gone to free from sorrow Adam in his bonds and Eve, captive with him - He who is both their God and the son of Eve... "I am your God, who for your sake have become your son... I order you, O sleeper, to awake. I did not create you to be a prisoner in hell. Rise from the dead, for I am the life of the dead."

This is also a theme in religious art. For example, Bartolomeo Bertejo's painting Christ leads the patriarchs from Hell to Paradise (downloaded from Wikimedia Commons).


Did St. Joachim prevent the transmission of original sin to Mary by overcoming concupiscence?

The Blessed Virgin Mary's immaculate conception was not due to the merits of St. Joachim but to "a special grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ" (Ineffabilis Deus).

Also, St. Thomas writes (Summa Theologica suppl. q. 41 a. 3 arg. 3) that

  the marriage act is always connected with concupiscenceactus matrimonialis habet concupiscentiam adjunctam (Super Sent., lib. 4 d. 26 q. 1 a. 3 arg. 3)

(Certainly concupiscence in the marriage act can come in degrees, but, as your citation to the Summa mentions, original sin does not.)

Even if the marriage act between Sts. Jochim and Anne involved no concupiscence, original sin would still be transmitted, if it were not for God's "special grace and privilege" to the Blessed Virgin Mary.


What is the significance of "seventy times seven"?

In many ancient cultures, Hebrew included, the number seven often signifies completeness and/or perfection (for more information see either Numerical Sayings in the OT, W. Roth or IVP New Bible Dictionary, ed. Marshall, Miller, Packer, Wiseman, p834). Therefore, it is often used in an emphatic sense. This is seen in Peter's question: "should I forgive seven times?" (possibly thinking he was being a good disciple in making the point that he should always forgive) - Jesus' reply is to be emphatically emphatic! That is, seventy times seven! Jesus often uses hyperbole (overstatement to make a point) in his teaching style, such as the Camel and the eye of a needle in Matthew 19:24.

Lamech's use, again, is to show he is being emphatic. His use of seventy-seven is to make a point.

Hope this helps.

(Edit)

It's also interesting to note that Jesus' contemporary rabbis would teach that a man should forgive a sin 3 times. (See Carson's commentary on Matthew, p.405). This makes Peter's statement of "forgiving an infinite amount of times" even more impressive, though Jesus is not outdone, of course!


What is the Catholic interpretation of Soteriology in the Bread of Life Discourse in John chapter 6?

Jesus didn't teach just one or two things necessary for salvation. Cf.

  And he said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to
  the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved;
  but he who does not believe will be condemned. - Mk 16:15-16.

And

  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the
  name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching
  them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you
  always, to the close of the age.” - Mt 28:19-20

From these two passages one can readily see that baptism and observing ALL the LORD commanded the disciples are necessary for salvation.

And the Church teaches that we are to receive the LORD in the Eucharist or else we will have no life in us:

  CCC 1384 The Lord addresses an invitation to us, urging us to
  receive him in the sacrament of the Eucharist: "Truly, I say to you,
  unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you
  have no life in you." (Jn 6:53).

Based on the Bread of Life Discourse in John chapter 6 this is the Church's teaching on the necessity of receiving the Eucharist for our salavation.


I am indebted to Dr. Peter Leithart for his writings and lectures on the Song of Songs. For further reading, you can visit his website. These thoughts might help in approaching the book.

Wisdom literature

It is helpful to consider the book’s position in the canon as part of the wisdom literature. In Proverbs, the king exhorts his son to seek wisdom and throughout the book, wisdom is personified as a great and righteous lady. She is contrasted with the harlot Folly, the strange or foreign woman who tempts the simple to turn aside to their ruin. “In the final chapter, we find that the prince has chosen well: He has made Lady Wisdom his bride.  As King Lemuel’s mother urged, he has renounced the women who destroy kings (31:3) and embraces the woman who enables him to rule well.(Leithart)"

Ecclesiastes follows on this theme and shows the limit of wisdom. Wisdom is rightly prized and sought, but it is not ultimate. This life, this creation, is good and is meant to be enjoyed, but, to borrow a phrase from Doug Wilson, that joy is on a tether.

The Song of Songs displays the King’s desire for his Bride, the one in whom he delights. It is a love poem, to be sure, but it reaches beyond individual human relationships. It is the height of wisdom literature and the height of poetry. It is the Song of Songs - a verbal construction that parallels the Holy of Holies - the Most Songy Song, the Greatest Song Ever Written. As such, it is elusive, difficult to get a solid hold on. It is also allusive - it reaches out and pulls in imagery and ideas from all over the rest of scripture.

Land Imagery

The beauty of the Bride is often expressed in geographic or agricultural terms. Her body is like a rolling landscape, her breasts like spiced mountains, her hair like goats leaping down the slopes of Gilead (4:1). Her neck is like the Tower of David, set with warriors’ shields (4:4). She is beautiful as Tirzah, lovely as Jerusalem (6:4). Her eyes are pools in Heshbon, her nose like the tower of Lebanon, her head crowns her like Mount Carmel (7:4-5). This is the love of the King for his country, his people.

  Who is this who looks down like the dawn,
  beautiful as the moon, bright as the sun,
  awesome as an army with banners?

This alludes to the gathered host of Israel encamped under the tribal banners around the tabernacle (Num 2). The people surround the King as the Bridal City, the New Jerusalem, which is decked out in royal splendor and surrounds Christ, the Husband, and which outshines the sun and moon with the reflected glory of God (Rev 21).

Edenic Imagery

“The Song is full of the imagery of Eden.  Solomon uses the word “garden” eight times (4:12, 15, 16 [2x], 5:1; 6:2 [2x]; 8:13), and the poem frequently refers to trees, fruits, flowers, springs.(Leithart)” The lovers are a sort of idyllic, unfallen Adam and Eve, maturing in their passion and love for one another. He describes her as a tree which he climbs to gather and eat her fruit (7:8), reminiscent of the fruit trees in the garden.

Four times Solomon calls her “my sister, my bride” which brings to mind Adam’s statement of Eve, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." ‘Bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh’ is a statement of kinship. It is nearly the same greeting Laban gives Jacob (Gen 29:14) and different groups claim kinship in similar terms (cf. Jud 9:2, 2 Sam 5:1, 19:12, 13). The Hebrew behind the ‘Woman’ and ‘Man’ is Ishah and Ish. Up until this point the man has been called adam because he was formed from the dust of the ground, adamah. The word Ish is almost exactly the same word as Esh, fire. So, the dirt-man becomes fire-man in union with his bride. He is transformed and glorified. This is the same thing Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:7, “For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.” The woman lights up and glorifies her husband, making him better than he would be on his own.

Temple Imagery

“Eden’s garden was Adam’s original sanctuary, and the imagery of the garden in the Song shades over into imagery of the sanctuary.  The house where the lovers meet is made from temple materials – cedar and cypress (1:17), and like the temple the garden of love is a place of feasting (2:4; 5:1).  Solomon frequently mentions the fragrances that waft from the garden, reminding us of the pacifying smoke from Israel’s sacrifices.(Leithart)”

Both the Bride and the Beloved are described in terms of temple imagery. She is pictured as a lily, with cheeks like halves of pomegranates, like the lily-topped and pomegranate-encircled pillars in the temple court (1 Kg 7:21ff). Again, she herself is like a pillar that the Beloved climbs, a palm tree like the palm groves carved into the walls of the temple (1 Kg 6:29). Her aroma is that of frankincense, myrrh, cinnamon and spices, like the perfumed anointing oil used in the sanctuary (Ex 30:23ff).

He is described like a statue of a man with a head like gold - the Holy of Holies; eyes like doves - the seven branched lampstand*; cheeks of spices - the altar of incense; lips of lilies - again, the lily-topped pillars; body of ivory, legs of alabaster and gold, appearance like cedar - the foundation and structure of the temple.

“The interweaving of imagery in the Song hints at the double reference of the poem: It is a poem of ideal human love, the lovers like unfallen Adam and Eve, but it is also a poem about Yahweh’s trysts with Israel in the love-garden of the temple.(Leithart)”

Sexual Imagery

As a love poem, it expresses in very passionate terms the desire of the Bride for the Beloved, and that of the Beloved for his Bride. In Ephesians 5, Paul points out that the fundamental meaning of the sexual relationship between a husband and wife is that it is an image, a type, of the relationship of Christ and the Church. “‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.”

Scripture, especially in the prophets, frequently refers to Yahweh as Husband and Israel as Wife (cf. Is 54:5, Jer 3:20, 31:32, Hsa 2) Ezekiel 16 is a retelling of the history of Israel in Husband/Wife imagery:

  When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord GOD, and you became mine. Then I bathed you with water and washed off your blood from you and anointed you with oil. I clothed you also with embroidered cloth and shod you with fine leather. I wrapped you in fine linen and covered you with silk. And I adorned you with ornaments and put bracelets on your wrists and a chain on your neck. And I put a ring on your nose and earrings in your ears and a beautiful crown on your head. Thus you were adorned with gold and silver, and your clothing was of fine linen and silk and embroidered cloth. You ate fine flour and honey and oil. You grew exceedingly beautiful and advanced to royalty.

Yahweh brought His people out of wallowing in the blood of Egypt to bring them to His mountain and establish His covenant with them. He washed them by baptism in the Red Sea (1Cr 10:2) and by the sprinkling of blood at Sinai (Ex 24:8). He anointed Aaron and the whole tabernacle with oil, setting them apart for holy use. He adorned them with the glory of the tabernacle: gold, silver, embroidered cloth and leather - plunder from the Egyptians. The rendering of the story in Ezekiel highlights the covenant of Sinai as His marriage covenant with His people. But despite all this, Israel turned away and whored after other lovers, other gods, and lusted after the gods of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, or anyone else who happened to pass by.

The Song shows desire set over against lust. The desire of the two lovers for one another is full, passionate, mature. Each is fully longing for and seeking after the other and will not turn aside to any other. “As a lily among brambles, so is my love among the young women.” He is captivated by her beauty. “You have captivated my heart, my sister, my bride; you have captivated my heart with one glance of your eyes... Turn away your eyes from me, for they overwhelm me.” By the end of the Song, the Bride has taken on the name of the Beloved. She is the Shulamite, a feminine form of Solomon’s name. She has become  the radiant, glorious, spotless Bride - a Bride fit for the King.

If what Paul says is true, that marriage is a picture of God with His people, Christ with the Church, then here we see the complete devotion and passionate desire of Christ for His Bride and of the Church for Christ. This has implications for how the Church should be viewed. How often was Israel led astray? How often is today’s Church led astray by lovers less wild than Jesus? The Song shows an idyllic relationship, one that has not been born out in the Church (at least with our limited perspective on history), but Paul says it will and that Christ will “present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.”

*the Spirit who descends as a dove at the baptism of Christ and as flames of fire on Pentecost is the same ‘seven Spirits (or seven-fold Spirit) of God’ in Revelation 4:5, and the seven flaming eyes of Christ in Revelation 5:6.


According to Catholicism, does saying "God loves everyone equally" mean that God *likes* everyone equally?

St. Thomas Aquinas answers this question in his Summa Theologica I q. 20 a. 3 ("Whether God loves all things equally?") c., making a twofold distinction:

Since to love a thing is to will it good, in a twofold way anything may be loved more, or less.

In one way on the part of the act of the will itself, which is more or less intense. In this way God does not love some things more than others, because He loves all things by an act of the will that is one, simple, and always the same.

In another way on the part of the good itself that a person wills for the beloved. In this way we are said to love that one more than another, for whom we will a greater good, though our will is not more intense. In this way we must needs say that God loves some things more than others. For since God's love is the cause of goodness in things, as has been said (Article [2]), no one thing would be better than another, if God did not will greater good for one than for another.


A Biblical commandment as applied to scripture is a directive from God to a people group. In the Old Testament, this was always from God the Father and was always directed to Israel by way of the Prophets. Most of the commandments are found in the Pentateuch, although God spoke through other prophets during different times in Israel's history.

In the New Testament, commandments came from the Messiah directly and were directed to Christian believers. The Apostles did not add to the commandments of Messiah but referred to Messianic commandments in their writings to the churches.

Any other commandments found in scripture would not be considered Biblical commandments but instead represent historical commandments from humans to other humans.


Eating of which non-fish animals does not go against the dietery law of the Roman Catholic Church?

Canon Law 1251 says:

  Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays [...] (emphasis mine).

In other words it is to be determined by the bishops exactly what constitutes abstinence. The bishops of Quebec can simply state that beaver meat is OK to eat on days of abstinence. They don't have to declare it 'fish'. I would imagine that this is common practice in areas where fish is very hard to come by and meat is a staple food. In areas where meat is a rarity, giving it up would be little sacrifice and the rules might again be changed. As this page puts it, "when we abstain, it's not because the food is impure; we're voluntarily giving up something good, for our spiritual benefit". The exact nature of what is given up is of secondary importance.


How many Pentecostals and Charismatics are there in the U.S. today?

Todd Johnson, who is the director of the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, reported on the global demographics of the Pentecostal and Charismatic renewal.

He does this by first breaking down our demographic of interest into a single group called “renewalists” which are comprised of three “waves”: Pentecostals, Charismatics, and neocharismatics. Despite the three waves, Johnson argues that they all point to an interconnected movement:

  “The case for the Pentecostal and Charismatic Renewal as a single
  interconnected movement can best be made by considering how the
  movement starts and spreads in any area, from the days of the earliest
  Pentecostals to those of current Charismatics and neocharismatics. The
  start of the movement anywhere has always been an unexpected or
  unpredictable happening rather than the result of any human planning
  or organization. First individuals (at random across the existing
  churches), then groups, then large numbers in semi-organized movements
  become filled with the Spirit and embark on the common Charismatic
  experience. All of them, originally, can collectively be termed
  Renewalists.”

Number of Renewalists in the United States

For these “renewalists,” as Johnson calls them, we find that they have quite a substantial representation in American Christianity. According to a reference Johnson makes to the World Christian Database, as of 2010, there are roughly 76,000,000 renewalists in the U.S.1

That is to say approximately 1/3rd of all Christians in the U.S identify with renewalist ideology. This renewalist group makes up in fact the largest demographic of Christian in the U.S. today, with Catholics trailing in second at about 70,000,000 followers, or about 30% of the Christian population.

Johnson, T.M. Soc (2009) 46: 479. The Global Demographics of the Pentecostal and Charismatic Renewal


What is the biblical basis for Christians being instructed to tithe (10%) of their income to the modern day 'church'?

There are a couple of "proof" texts still used by pastors to command a tithe.

  Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
  Mal. 3:10

Then there's the next question phrased do you want to be the head or the tail based on Deut 28?  Pay your tithes or be the tail (cursed).

There are some groups that claim to be or hint at being of the Levitical priesthood and thus command their followers to tithe.

Lastly, there is the guilt trip.

  But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.
  2 Cor. 9:6

To close, we are not under condemnation, but we give cheerfully.


How is the new anti-conversion law going to affect Christians in India?

There's many a slip twixt cup and lip, so until an actual law is actually passed, we can only surmise. The history tag is useful to remind us that in every generation, sections of Christians in different parts of the world have had legislation enacted against them to stop their God-given commission to share the good news about Jesus everywhere. Many vicious tactics have been employed against the liberty of Christians to share the gospel with other. Yet there really is only one answer to your complex question, and it has little to do with what modern-day governments in India might do in the very near future.
You ask, "How would [such proposed laws] affect Christians in India?" As history shows, Christians will be scattered, blood will be spilled, and many people will be converted to Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit, through such adverse circumstances. As the North African Christian theologian Tertullian (circa 155-220A.D.) wrote,

"The blood of the Christians is the seed of the church" (chapter 50 of
his Apology.) [See this, Henry Bettenson's correct quote, Doctrines of the Christian Church page v.]

In other words, the more the Romans persecuted and killed Christians, the more the church grew.
Government laws to try to stop Christians encouraging people to turn in faith to Christ are counterproductive. That is because conversion to Christ is the work of the Holy Spirit, not of individual or collective Christian efforts at evangelism. Non-Christian governments always misunderstand this and think that by proscribing evangelism, conversions will more or less stop. What happens is that Christians go "underground" (as in China) with antagonistic groups grasping the legislative opportunity to turn on Christians, to betray them to the authorities, or to invent lies with which to get them accused in courts. Yet people are still converted to Christ! Baptisms keep happening. The faith of the faithful keeps growing. Yes, many professed Christians may fall away, but that does not stop conversions to Christ continuing. Why? Because that is the role of the Holy Spirit. He convicts people of their sin, giving them such a burden of sin that they cry out to God in repentance, to be forgiven. When they are freely forgiven by God, they are converted and become Christians.
No laws passed by any government has ever been able to stop this. But because ungodly governments know nothing of the things of God and of the way the Holy Spirit operates, they keep trying to suppress the Church visible, thinking they are succeeding when, hidden in plain spiritual sight are increasing conversions enacted by the Holy Spirit.
Yes, Christians undergoing such duress will find spiritual encouragement and help from those they might not normally fellowship with. This is another evidence of the Holy Spirit at work, building up the body of Christ where secular powers have tried to break it down. Despite some falling away from the faith, others remain faithful to Christ. Denominational 'identities' are seen to less important than previously supposed, under dire circumstances of persecution. Which is what anti-conversion laws designed to silence Christian witness and testimony actually is. It may be couched in apparently sensitive language, to allow for 'legitimate' or 'genuine' conversions that can be shown to be un-forced, but recent history shows many non-Christians accusing Christians of trying to bribe people into conversion when they were only helping the starving to get some food or shelter. That sort of thing.
Nobody can prognosticate and give you a precise answer as to how such proposed laws might affect Christians in India, so my answer is speaking in broadly general terms, based on what has happened to Christians in different parts of the world, at different times. Jesus promised that the Church he builds will not be overcome, not even by the gates of Hades. Those individuals who make up that spiritual 'body of Christ' will stand firm and continue to point others to Christ, by word and by deed, and the Holy Spirit will continue to do his work of conversion.


What do the names of the different hours of the divine office mean? Where do they come from? (Etymology)

"Matins" was traditionally sung overnight, or in the very early morning. The name comes from the Latin "matutinae" which means "morning [hours]". In the 1960s,with a revision of the Divine Office, Matins was removed from those hours which must be sung (or said). It was renamed "The Office of Readings", and is permitted to be used at any time.

Lauds was traditionally the first Office sung after getting out of bed. A selection of mostly praise psalms, the name comes from the Latin "laudes", which means "praises". It is now generally combined with the immediately following office, Prime.

Vespers, sung in the evening before dinner, comes from the Latin "vesperae", meaning "evening [hours]".

Compline, at the ending of the day just before bed, comes from the Latin "compleri", "to fill up" (also the source of our word "complete").

The other offices, Prime, Terce, Sext, and None (pronounced with a long "O"), were sung traditionally at about the first, third, sixth, and ninth hours after sunrise - about 7 AM, 9 AM, noon, and 3 PM. The words come from the Latin for those ordinal numbers - "prima", "tertia", "sexta", and "nona". "Nona" is indeed the source of our word "noon", even though it refers to the 3 PM prayer. Etymonline.com states:

  Sense shift from "3 p.m." to "12 p.m." began during 12c., when time of Church prayers shifted from ninth hour to sixth hour, or perhaps because the customary time of the midday meal shifted, or both.


What kinds of things are mutable in Latin Rite Catholic Liturgy?

Reform of the mutable aspects of the liturgy* has occurred throughout the Church's history. Pope St. Pius V standardized the Roman Rite in his 1570 bull Quo Primum, and Pope St. Pius X reformed the breviary in his Divino afflatu. John XXIII was the first in 1½ millennia to change the Roman Canon prayers of the Mass when he added St. Joseph's name to it.

For there to be a valid Mass, the form of consecration ("For this is my body…" and "For this is the chalice of my Blood…") cannot ever change. Defects that occur in the Mass (which may or may not render the Mass invalid) are summarized in Pope St. Pius V's De defectibus.

That the liturgy must "adapt to the cultures of diverse peoples" is a novelty since Vatican II. Liturgical reform prior to Vatican II has always been about better conforming the liturgy to God's liturgical law, transmitted via tradition through the Church. Just as the Old Testament Jews had ceremonial precepts* in which God prescribed exactly how they are to worship Him, so too does the New Law include liturgical law.

*Ex. 32:17-19 (false worship of golden calf) shows how angry Moses got when the Jews violated liturgical law. They had good intentions (they thought the calf was a likeness of God and that they were honoring God by worshiping it), but they violated how God commanded they worship. They were so irreverent (shouting, singing, dancing) that Aaron thought there was a battle going on!

See:

Fr. Chad Ripperger's Topics in Tradition "Chapter 13: Modern Philosophy and the Liturgical Development"(cf. A Thomistic Perspective on Worship by Francisco J. Romero Carrasquillo of Ite ad Thomam blog, in which he shows that the virtue of religion, of which worship is the exterior expression, is grounded in the natural law)
Michael Davies's A Short History of the Roman Mass and Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II


Did Protestants get "Thine is the Kingdom etc..." from the Didache?

In the record of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6, the additional phrase appears in the 1611 edition of the KJV, the Tyndale Bible, and, it appears, in the German Luther Bible of 1545.

I can't read German, except for "Amen", but it looks like it's there.

  And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine
  is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.  Matthew
  6:13 KJV

  And leade vs not into teptacion: but delyver vs fro evell. For thyne
  is ye kyngedome and ye power and ye glorye for ever. Amen.  Matthew
  6:13 Tyndale, 1525

  Und führe uns nicht in Versuchung, sondern erlöse uns von dem Übel.
  Denn dein ist das Reich und die Kraft und die Herrlichkeit in
  Ewigkeit. Amen.  Matthew 6:13 German Luther Bible, 1545

These translations are at the very beginning of the Protestant Reformation, and Tyndale's even predates it a bit.

This phrase does represent a variant in the Greek Manuscripts, but the origin is in the Greek.

So, this doesn't come from the Didache, but from Matthew's Gospel.


Are the ten commandments considered part of the old testament law?

The Ten Commandments are also refered to as the decalogue.  However, Christians do not believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus were the fulfillment of the Ten Commandments, it was the life of Jesus Christ that was because He alone was able to live a holy life within the parameters of the Ten Commandments.

However, Christians today often "tout" the Ten Commandments because they have more or less become an icon of Judeo-Christian morality seeing as the 613 commandments in the OT are built upon them.  But according to the first half of Romans 8, the Christian life is less about living by the Law of God and more about living by the Spirit of God.

Yet an even more concise manner of living by the Ten Commandments can be seen as following the two greatest commandments, to love God and neighbor seen here in Matthew 22:36-40 NIV:

  36“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
  37Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on
     these two commandments.”

I hope this helps!


Why is the name Jehovah not used more in the Book of Mormon?

It's pretty simple. The Book of Mormon translation follows in the KJV tradition, which in turn follows in the Jewish tradition.
(1) Out of reverence, Jews never pronounced יהוה when reading scripture.

The original pronunciation of this name has possibly been lost, as the Jews, in reading, never mentioned it but substituted one of the other names of God, usually Adonai.
"Jehovah", Bible Dictionary

(Thus "Jehovah" is actually just a modern day guess at a transliteration of the Hebrew יהוה.)
(2) The King James Version did something similar. It was partly out of a similar tradition of reverence, and partly because they could't really write Jhvh, and they didn't want to guess at a transliteration. So in the KJV, you will find יהוה rendered as LORD or GOD.

For the LORD GOD will help me; therefore shall I not be confounded: therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.
Isaiah 50:7

(3) The Book of Mormon (or, more properly, the English translation of the Book of Mormon) did the same thing: יהוה  becomes Lord or God.

For the Lord God will help me, therefore shall I not be confounded. Therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.
2 Nephi 7:7

In fact, almost anytime Lord appears in the KJV Bible (or in the Book of Mormon), it is a translation for יהוה.

In the LDS faith, there's no need to avoid pronouncing or writing Jehovah (or Jahveh, Yahveh, etc.). Jehovah is regularly used, particularly when referring to Jesus before his mortal birth. The reason that it appears this way in scripture is just a custom with an interesting history.


How does scholars' denial of the possibility of NT autographs affect the Christian doctrines of biblical inerrancy and infallibility?

It doesn't affect it at all. Inerrancy and infallibility are only attributed to the original autographs. It's not applied to translations, copies (even early ones) or modern versions. If it were applicable to translations then we'd have a bigger problem in the Wicked Bible.

The belief that we can't reproduce an original autograph doesn't mean there was no initial autograph. And it was only the initial autograph that is inerrant, doctrinally speaking.

Along with this, the Reliability of the translations, meaning we believe they are accurate enough to be trusted as doctrinal sources, is still defensible via manuscript evidence, so there is still no problem.

We have always accepted flaws in modern versions, and even the idea that our oldest known manuscripts are not likely perfect reproductions of the original manuscripts.  However, since we can reasonably reconstruct enough to understand the meaning, minor flaws in modern versions are inconsequential.

It's only the straw-man version of infallibility - the one that claims we think modern translations (or even old copies of the original manuscripts like the Textus Receptus) are inerrant - that is knocked down by this method of textual criticism.


When is the first time in church history we find a prayer ending with "in Jesus' name, amen"?

A definitive answer to this question will be elusive, but here are some preliminary findings that give some idea and hopefully inspire more research.
As we'll see, the exact English phrase, "in Jesus' name, amen," appears to be a fairly recent development, as do its variations.  But it appears earlier in other languages, notably Latin and German.  Thus, we'll follow this outline:

Phrase in translation (German, Latin)
Traditional forms in English
Exact phrase and its variations in English

Phrase in translation
The earliest example of something similar to "in Jesus' name, amen" that I've found comes from the 5th century, in Latin:

In nomine Iesu Christi, Amen. (source)
In Jesus Christ's name, amen.

And in the early 8th century:

In nomine Domini nostri Iesu Christi, amen. (source)
In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, amen.

Interestingly, the form also turns up much earlier in German than in English.  For example, in 1538:

In den Namen Jesu Amen. (source)

And in 1687:

Im Namen Jesu! Amen! (source)

Traditional forms in English
Prayers using the trinitarian formula – "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" – can be found early in church history, and it's thus not surprising that early English prayer books used it.  More interesting is the frequent ending of prayers with a variation on "Jesus Christ."  Over 50 prayers in the 1689 Book of Common Prayer use his name in a phrase immediately before "Amen," such as:

through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Amen.  (page 167)
through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  Amen.  (183)
but only the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Amen.  (190)
for the honor of our Advocate and Mediator, Jesus Christ. Amen. (40)

Yet the phrase in question does not appear.  Nor does it appear in the popular non-conformist Method for Prayer (1710) by Matthew Henry.  The influence of such works, particularly the BCP, may have been a significant factor in the relatively late appearance of "in Jesus' name, amen" in English.
Phrase in English
Definitively identifying the earliest use of this phrase in English would require the use of more corpora than I have at my disposal.  The University of Michigan's Middle English corpus yields no results, so I turn then to Google Books.  There, the earliest variation of this phrase in English appears in 1778:

All which we beg for the sake and in the name of Jesus Christ.  Amen. (source)

And the exact phrase for the first time only in 1840:

We ask all in Jesus' name.  Amen. (source)

Summary
I haven't uncovered written evidence for the use of this phrase in English prior to the 18th century, even though it appears in other European languages much earlier – as early as the 5th century in Latin.
It's certainly possible that this lack of evidence is due to a limited written record (or access to it).  But the fact that my sources have German instances of this phrase in the 16th and 17th centuries, but no English ones, suggests that the influence of early English prayer books helped ensure that "in Jesus' name, amen" was not commonly employed.  Apparently only after Protestantism split further and revivals spread did the phrase come into common usage and eventually become ubiquitous.


You know you're in confession if:

you started your conversation saying bless me father for I have sinned.
the priest dons his purple stole
you can't see the priest you're talking to
you stood in line to talk to a priest
you were given absolution for your sins
you end your conversation by making an act of contrition.
you don't go in to details, but merely count the number of times you screwed up.
when you knelt down a light changed from green to red.

The most relaxed (and personally awful) confession I ever did was in the middle of a conversation. The priest merely whipped out his stole, told me that if I wanted more grace I should kneel and I told him all the awful things I was probably going to tell him anyway.

Let me know if you want a more canon law answer, rather than an anecdotal one.  I don't think there's any mistaking when you're in confession, the most telling part is the absolution, but if you don't get absolution for whatever reason, I doubt you didn't know you went to confession.

The normal for of confession, according to the handbook of prayers (which is not a liturgical text, but a guide for the laity) is that confession begins with "bless me father... And it's been x number of days since my last confession" then you rattle off your calumnities and the priest gives you a little advice and asks if you're really sorry (you say yes, I don't want to know what happens if you say no, always say yes). Then the priest (acting in persona Christi) absolves you of your sins  and you say an Act of Contrition (O my God I am heartily sorry, etc...) and the priest gives you some penance (usually a number of prayers to be prayed in earnest nowadays, although in the past, the punishement fit the crime) the most penance I've ever had was flowers and a date night. Then you leave feeling refreshed in body and soul.  (Unless you did something dumb or self righteous in the confessional, then you feel worse than you can possibly imagine.  But it's not so bad, you remind yourself, same absolution same succor of Heaven.


What is the Biblical basis for Jesus Christ being a created being according to Jehovah’s Witnesses?

Taking a look  at this Watchtower article scriptural citations appear to be from The Common Bible. I believe this is a 1973 edition of the revised standard version.

The apostle Paul wrote concerning Jesus Christ:

  He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”—Col. 1:15-17

Looking at Paul’s further words helps explain what is meant by the phrase firstborn of all creation:

  He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.”—Col. 1:18

The Greek words for both “first-born” (protótokos) and “beginning” (arkhé) show Jesus as the first one of a group or class, “the body, the church,” meaning that  he has preeminence in this respect.
Jesus also has preeminence in another class as the firstborn of the dead. This means Jesus is the first one resurrected to endless life from among all the human dead.—1 Cor. 15:22, 23.

These same Greek words are found in the Greek Septuagint translation at Genesis 49:3:

  Ruben, thou art my first-born [protótokos], thou my strength, and the first [arkhé, “beginning”] of my children.”

We believe that biblical statements like these make it reasonable to conclude that the Son of God is the firstborn of all creation in the sense of being the first of God’s creatures. Jesus in fact refers to himself as “the beginning [arkhé] of God’s creation.” (Rev. 3:14,).

Most professed Christians object to the idea of Jesus as being a created person. They believe that Jesus is himself Almighty God, the second person of a “trinity” of three coequal, coeternal persons in one “godhead.”

Trinitarians protest that  the Greek expression (at Revelation 3:14) for “the beginning of God’s creation” means “the origin (or ‘primary source’) of the creation of God.”
One Greek scholar,Henry Alford, takes this viewpoint as correct. However he concedes in his work “The Greek Testament”: “The mere word arkhé would admit the meaning that Christ is the first created being”. Thus he notes that this is why Arians taught that Colossians 1:15 is in effect saying [“the first and most excellent of all God’s works”]

The book The Expositors Greek Testament says: “to understand Revelation 3:14 as meaning that Jesus is “the active source” of creation, rather than the first created person, one must interpret arkhé “as in Greek philosophy and [non-Biblical] Jewish wisdom-literature,=aitía or origin.”

But it is clear that bible writers did not follow Greek philosophy.

Some would argue,  if Jesus is a created being explain the phraseology “in him all things were created”.

On occasion the Bible uses “all” in a way that allows for exceptions. For example, we read at 1 Corinthians 15:27:

  But when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection under him [Jesus Christ],’ it is plain that he [God] is excepted who put all things under him.”

Also consider that the Bible states that “through one man,” Adam, “death spread to all men.” (Rom. 5:12)
Was Adam  part of the “all men” to whom death “spread”?   No. Because previous to Adam there was no human who could have spread death to him. Adam was nonetheless a man.

In this way we can reason that although Jesus was not part of the “all things” that came into existence through him, he was, nevertheless, a created person, the very first creature of God.

Since  Jehovah’s witnesses are convinced that Jesus  is a created person, we understand that he cannot be Almighty God.

This is why we point repeatedly to verses that portray him as in a position subordinate to God.
For example, the apostle Paul said about the resurrected Jesus :

  I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” (1 Cor. 11:3)

And notice the words of Jesus to John in Revelation 3:12 Jesus said concerning himself

  He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.

Four times in this verse alone Jesus refers to his Father, Jehovah, as “my God”.

We do not teach that Jesus did not exist before he became a human born of Mary.  Nor do we teach that Jesus is just another angel.

We recognize the exalted position that Jesus occupies next to God. Before ascending to heaven, Jesus said to his disciplesjust before ascending to heaven

  All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matt. 28:18)

It was appropriate for Jehovah to ‘give’ to his Son such authority, since Jesus is the firstborn (preeminent) of all creatures.
Right in line with this exalted preeminent position granted to Jesus the apostle Paul wrote concerning him:

  [God] raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come; and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church.”—Eph. 1:20-23

For more info on the name that is above all names see this answer to a related question.


Question: On what basis do Evangelical apologists argue that Muhammad committed sin?
Romans 5:12 tells us that through Adam sin entered the world, and so death was passed on to all men because “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).  King David understood his sinful nature: “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Psalm51:5).  Christians acknowledge that we are all natural born sinners and the Bible confirms this: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).  That would include Muhammad.  The only sinless person was Christ Jesus: “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth” (1 Peter 2:22). That is the biblical and Christian understanding of sin – we ALL sin, and there is no exception.
The difference between the Christian understanding of sin and the Muslim understanding of sin is significant.  Christians believe that sinners have broken God’s law (1 John 3:4); sinners are slaves to sin (John 8:34); they face the judgment of God (Jude 1:14–15); they are on the road to death and destruction (Ezekiel 18:20; James 1:5). The ONLY solution to sin is to place our faith in what God, through Christ Jesus, has done – He laid down his life to pay the price of sin, then was raised from the dead and is now seated at the right hand of God.
Muslims do not believe this.  They deny that Jesus died and was resurrected.  They do not believe in original sin or that every person since Adam has inherited sin.

In Islam, a sin is any act of disobedience against the commands of Allah, which may entail punishment in the Hereafter.  In contrast, a good deed (if done sincerely and accepted by the Almighty Allah) will entail reward in the Hereafter.  The crucial piece is that sins vs. good deeds are weighed, and the human being is judged on the difference; that determines where you end up.  Sin is not a state of being (no "Original Sin").  Sin is an action that you commit.  Sins can be committed accidentally, although you are not held accountable for them in that case.  You can think of committing sins, but you are only held accountable for actions, not thoughts. https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/351/what-is-the-muslim-definition-of-sin

Muslims believe they can atone for their own sins by good works.  If they comply with the Five Pillars of Islam and perform more good deeds than bad deeds, then Allah may be merciful and they will not go to hell.  With regard to Muhammad, I posted a question on the Islam site and received this answer:

The theological Islamic position is that prophets can not commit sins.  What is attributed to e.g. Noah, Abraham, Moses عليه السلام etc. are not actual sins - rather excusable or lawful matters over which they repent out of their extreme piety and because of holding themselves more strictly accountable in view of their status and relationship with Allah.

47:19 does not mention a sin of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and if you look at its exegesis there are various explanations on whether it is addressed to the Prophet or an ummati, and in which of their possible meanings the words غفر (forgive) and ذنب (sin) are used.

Regarding the incidents over which the prophets repented: One is not necessarily attributed to all prophets, and Jesus عليه السلام is among those prophets regarding whom nothing of the sort is mentioned in the Quran. Although from hadith it may be construed that he is concerned over people committing shirk using him.

The following answer is in response to another question on the Islam site regarding Jesus/Isa being without sin.  This makes reference to the Hadiths (traditions):  https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/215/was-the-prophet-sinless/52867#52867
I hope this will help readers to understand the theological differences that separate the Christian view of sin, repentance, forgiveness and salvation from the Muslim view.   Muslims might believe that Muhammad never sinned, but their view of sin differs from the biblical view of sin.  Only Christ Jesus was without sin.  He died so that we might live:

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21).

P.S. There is a religious movement that attempts to merge Islam and Christianity.  It is known as ‘Chrislam’:

While it is undeniable that there are many similarities between Christianity and Islam (and Judaism, for that matter), Chrislam ultimately fails because Christianity and Islam are diametrically opposed on the most important of issues – the identity of Jesus Christ. True Christianity declares Jesus to be God incarnate. For Christians, the deity of Christ is a non-negotiable, for without His deity, Jesus’ death on the cross would not have been sufficient to be the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the entire world (1 John 2:2).

Islam adamantly rejects the deity of Christ. The Qur’an declares the idea that Jesus is God to be blasphemy (5:17). Belief in the deity of Christ is considered shirk (“polytheism”) to Muslims. Further, Islam denies the death of Christ on the cross (4:157–158). The most crucial doctrine of the Christian faith is rejected in Islam.  Source:  https://www.gotquestions.org/Chrislam.html


Reformation objections to lectio divina?

This subject is all about balance. Rationalism and Mysticism are the extremes to avoid. Your question does not seem biased to either extreme.

I do not think you will find reformers making direct attacks upon particular forms of meditation so long as those meditating, mediated on those objective doctrines that they taught! The moment any type of mysticism crept in that would give cause for someone to claim that their 'inner light' had authority over objective doctrine, they were called fanatics. Thomas Muntzer was a German reformer who went that way. Luther mentions his sentiments when discussing the necessity of the public reading of scripture:

  First, attend to the public reading. Do not omit it. It seems to me that there is a miraculous spirit in those fanatics. Thomas [Müntzer] began it. So they hold the Word in contempt. “The testimony in my inner being is enough for me.”
  (Luther's Works 28.329)

However the reformers were not rationalists, they felt until the Spirit opened up the objective doctrine you did not know what you ought:

  Secondly, you should meditate, that is, not only in your heart, but also externally, by actually repeating and comparing oral speech and literal words of the book, reading and rereading them with diligent attention and reflection, so that you may see what the Holy Spirit means by them. And take care that you do not grow weary or think that you have done enough when you have read, heard, and spoken them once or twice, and that you then have complete understanding. You will never be a particularly good theologian if you do that, for you will be like untimely fruit which falls to the ground before it is haft ripe. (Luther's Works 34.386)

However, to reiterate, if one's meditation was not centered on objective truth, and most importantly objective truth of grace, as opposed to works, one's meditation was self-based and idolatry:

  The highest forms of religion and holiness, and the most fervent forms of devotion of those who worship God without the Word and command of God, are idolatry. Thus under the papacy it was regarded as an act of the greatest spirituality when the monks sat in their cells and meditated about God and His works, or when their fervent devotions so inflamed them as they genuflected, prayed, and contemplated heavenly things that they wept for sheer pleasure and joy. There was no thinking here about women or about any other creature, but only about the Creator and His marvelous works. And yet this action, which reason regards as eminently spiritual, is a “work of the flesh” according to Paul. Thus every such form of religion, which worships God without His Word and command, is idolatry. The more spiritual and holy it appears to be, the more dangerous and destructive it is; for it deflects men from faith in Christ and causes them to rely on their own powers, works, and righteousness. (Luther's Works 27.87)

From all the references about prayer or meditation in Luther or Calvin that I have read, which is a fair sum, never will you find an encouragement to practice mysticism, nor is the subject important enough for their attention. So long as people held to the doctrines they preached, meditation styles just did not matter.


How does Catholicism contradict Brene Brown? (Lev 19:18) Practical implications?

Original Post, founded on "God is Love"

I'm not Catholic and so won't be speaking from a Catholic standpoint, but I will try to ground my statements in Scripture and hopefully you will find that sufficient.

Love is a virtue, not a quantity

The premise of your question is 'love is a quantity' and can therefore be given more to some and less to others. I disagree. God is Love.  In other words, everything God does and is, is loving and is the perfect example of what love is.

Love is not a quantity.  Love is a virtue--a character trait--and as such is stronger in those who practice it and weaker in those who don't. For more on Love as a virtue, see James KA Smith, particularly You Are What You Love and Desiring the Kingdom (he also has books out by the same names), as well as anything by St. Augustine (particularly his Confessions).

What people often mean when they talk about loving someone or something more than another, is that they are acting more loving towards someone than towards someone else.   But let's assume a person has perfected the virtue of Love, and they truly and perfectly love two people (a spouse and a child, for instance); their actions towards those two people will often be different.

At times, they will love their child by putting their spouse's needs
first, and at other times they will love their spouse by putting
their child's needs first. There are many examples like this. In
these examples, it may seem to an outsider that they love their
spouse "more than" their child, or vice versa, but that is not true.
They love them both truly and perfectly.

Now to address your specific questions. I the statement 'We can only love others as much as we love ourselves' treats love as a quantity.  I would reword it like this, 'We love others, ourselves, and our God to the degree that we have practiced the virtue of Love, and to the degree that we have allowed God's love to overcome us' (for more on God's love overcoming us, see all of St. John's letters, especially 1 John, particularly 1 John 4:19)

  Question 1: Which part of my understanding or assumptions below is
  wrong, and why?

  It's an alternative interpretation to Love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:18).

Yes, it is a competing statement to the Shema and Jesus's interpretation of the Shema, where He famously combines Deut 6:4-5 with Lev 19:18. To Jesus, loving God was synonymous with loving others, and vice versa, again because God is Love.

  Humans generally don't have difficulties loving themselves, and their task is to love others to the level they love themselves.

Humans often have a difficult time loving anything, including themselves. Only in and through God can we love anything, including ourselves, again because God is Love.  Humans are very good at preferring their own happiness over other things, but that is not Love.

  Humans love others almost as much as themselves. Thus, they must love themselves more to love others more.

See my answer to 2.

  Brene Brown calls self-love 'vulnerability' and loving others 'empathy'.

Love is Love. To differentiate 'kinds' of love is going to result in misunderstanding love. God is Love.

  Brene Brown says in order to have more empathy we need to have more vulnerability.

Both empathy and vulnerability (and all other things) are skills. As such, they can get stronger as we practice them. Some skills may benefit others where being strong in one skill makes being strong in another easier, but I don't think empathy and vulnerability are so strongly linked as to be necessary for one another like Brown indicates.

  M Scott Peck does not say anything similar.

Not sure.

  There is something in Catholic teaching that contradicts what Brene Brown said.  If this is true, please cite from the Bible or Catholic
  teaching.

I would say yes, the Bible contradicts what Brown is saying here and therefore Catholic teaching contradicts it as well.

  The Catholic Church agrees with (2) and disagrees with (3).

The Bible disagrees with both.

  Question 2: (If there is a disagreement) What specifically is the
  practical implication, if any?

If we misunderstand Love, we misunderstand virtue, skill, habits, liturgies in short, we misunderstand how people grow. We are also very likely to misunderstand God.  If we understand Love--what it is, what it isn't, how to grow in it, why and where we are deficit in it, etc--then we are closer to knowing God. We will please God more. There is always immense implication to rightly understanding or misunderstanding the Scriptures.

In response to OP's comments:

Regarding the statement, "you already love yourselves too much."

There is no such thing as too much love. There is love, which is always right, good, true, and perfect, and then there is ... for lack of a better phrase...wrong love or lack of love. It might be possible to love yourself at all times and to love others only sometime, in which case you should train to love others all of the time, but I would not use @curiousdanii's phrase to describe this.

  'empathy' is one way to love others. I guess others would be generousity, hard work, etc

There are many ways I can love a person, and I think empathy must always be present to rightly love someone.

  As for 8, well yeah what are the PRACTICAL implications exactly? ...
  Like it doesn't really affect my work or relationships if I believe
  the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father and not the Son.

First I feel the need to explain that we always act out of our beliefs. If we believe that a chair can hold us, we will sit in it. If we refuse to sit in it then it reveals that we don't actually believe that the chair can hold us. It is the same in all things. If we believe God loves us and that we are wholly unworthy of that love on our own, then we will act very differently than if we don't believe it. (All of us believe lies to some degree, otherwise we would always act perfectly.)

So if we believe a lie (in this case, and in my opinion, that 'we can only love others as much as we love ourselves') then we will act from that lie, which will always be bad for ourselves and others. The practical implications are many (as are the practical implications of believing the lie that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father and not from the Son):

While truths can be perverted by the enemy, it is much easier for us to act perversely if we believe a lie than if we believe truth. In this case, our actions are much more likely to become inclined to 'love' ourselves only (love in quotes because this would not be love), at the exclusion of God and/or others.
We may focus on growing the wrong skill. We may focus on loving ourselves more, when instead we should focus on 1) being loved by God, 2) responding rightly (in this case accepting His love and submitting to it), 3) being changed by His love.
If we try to love ourselves, we will fail. Only by doing 1 and 2 above can we love at all.
etc.

  [Loving myself more], in my experience has enabled me to love others
  more. So I overlooked something?

I would say yes, but at the same time I would rejoice that you have grown in love! We can grow even when we don't believe everything perfectly. This should be obvious because 1) we don't believe everything perfect, and yet 2) we still grow. But how quickly, efficiently, and thoroughly you grow will not be as good as it could be. Consider swimming. If we start with someone who can't swim, and tell them that their primary source of success in swimming is kicking their legs, and then proceed to teach them to swim, they will get better at swimming. But they will be limited because success in swimming is not primarily about kicking. Later, when they see the lie, they will have to 'unlearn' a lot, and then learn how to swim all over again, in a certain sense, or forever be limited.

  When you say love is not a quantity, do you mean something like it is
  binary/absolute rather than continuous/subject to gradation? If not,
  what do you mean?.

Loving can be portrayed as an acquired skill. Consider the skill of playing an instrument. You or I can practice flute or guitar or violin for years and years until we are quite good. We have increased our ability to play well. However, we may decide to play poorly for some strange reason. Or we may neglect to rehearse a certain piece and then perform it far below our ability at the concert. Love is the same way. We may practice love for years and years until we are quite good, and our ability to love has increased. But we may decide to not love someone because we're tired or hungry, or they are a different political party than us, or a different color, or some other reason (Consider Mat 5:46 in light of what I just wrote. Jesus is instructing us to grow in our ability and consistency to love). Any skill is made up of ability and execution. If we want to master a skill, we must grow our ability and consistently execute at the top of our ability. When we begin, our ability is low and thus our execution will look poor even though we are executing at the top of our ability.

  I think this is precision being sacrificed for concision. We could say
  'we cannot love others if we do not love ourselves' kinda like 1 John
  4:20 which talks about love binary-ily.

You are probably correct that Brown, Saint John, and others, are sacrificing precision for concision, which we must do on a regular basis or risk speaking Entish. That does not make them wrong. However, we must be careful when communicating with people who don't know us very very well, to be precise or risk misunderstanding.

In much of what I just wrote I neglected to outline what part God plays. Phi 2:12-13 indicates that we are responsible to work it out because God has already brought about the desire and effort. He is there before we ever realize we desire to do good, He has paved the way for us, He will help and accompany us on the way, but we must make the effort.


וַיְהִי יְהוָה אֶתּ־יְהוּדָה
  And the LORD was with Judah
  וַיֹרֶשׁ אֶת־הָהָר
  and he took possession of the hill [country]
  ...כִּ֣י לֹא לְהוֹרִישׁ אֶת־יֹשְׁבֵי הָעֵמֶק
  but he could not drive out those living in the valley...

The pronoun "he" in the final line is of interest. In fact, the Hebrew has no pronoun, nor does it have a form of "could". Technically, there is neither subject nor finite verb in the clause at all. The MT would be more formally translated using a dummy subject: "it was not possible to drive out...", as both Gesenius (§ 114l) and Jouon-Muraoka (§ 160, n. 14) have it.1

The question remains: not possible for whom? There are at least two helpful comments that can be made from the Hebrew text that are not evident in English:

Line 3 is a dependent clause, subordinated to line 2 and constituting a concession ("...although it was not possible to drive out"); and
the English "took possession" and "drive out" are actually the same word: hôrish (~"dispossess").

For both reasons, the one who dispossesses in line 2 must be the same one who dispossesses in line 3.

The identity of the subject of line 2 is best derived from the context:

  v. 17: And Judah...defeated the Canaanites
  v. 18: Judah also captured Gaza
  v. 19: And the LORD was with Judah... and ? took possession but ? could not drive out...
  v. 20: And [Caleb] drove out from [Hebron] the three sons of Anak...
  v. 21: But the people of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites...
  v. 22: The house of Joseph also went up against Bethel, and the LORD was with them.

Notice who is doing the capturing, driving, defeating, etc: people. In every verse. Verse 20, in fact, repeats for a third time hôrish, and Caleb is the only possible subject. As the people go about their various aggressions, the LORD was with them. That's his role here (cf. v. 2).

It's clear, then, that it was Judah who was "unable to cope" with the iron chariots in v. 19. There is no suggestion of Yahweh being unable to accomplish his purpose here. Still, sensitive readers of the text, including (I should hope) Christian apologists, are likely to find the "exceptive" clause of v. 19 disquieting.

  We are left to wonder why iron chariots should have proven so decisive if Yahweh was indeed with Judah as verse 19a says he was....There is something profoundly unsatisfying about the simple juxtaposition of the two statements in verse 19.... It is the beginning of a much more mixed picture of Israel’s military fortunes that will be revealed in the rest of the book.2

1. The alternative, which most English translations appear to have adopted, is to add a form of יָכְלוּ = "they could", with the Greek (both versions), Targum, some Hebrew manuscripts, and the BHS apparatus. It's interesting that the grammarians seem to find the MT as written less objectionable than do the translators!

2. Barry G. Webb, The Book of Judges, NICOT; (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 108-109.


How do local flood proponents explain God's promises to never do it again?

Local-flood proponents generally fall into one of two camps:

That the narrative is told from the point of view of the author, and from the author's point of view, the flood covered the entire (known) earth. (One example).

In this view, I believe the only logical explanation for your question would be that God's promise was taken to mean that this would not happen again.  Specifically, God promised not to destroy the entire known world by water again.

So your objection about the author knowing about local floods isn't really relevant, since the flood of Noah was a distinct event from his perspective.
The Bible's language is not unambiguous, and a strong textual case can be made for the possibility of a local flood. This article offers a good explanation of this view.

In this view, if "all the earth" doesn't mean all the physical planet, then when God says "all the earth" He also doesn't mean the entire physical planet, which would allow for local floods of a lesser degree (what degree, I'm sure is subject to debate).


What is the Biblical basis for the "one" in "the Trinitarian God is one being in three persons"?

My understanding is that the scriptures convey that three Divine Persons share one divine nature.

I and the Father are one. [John 10:30, Young's Literal Translation] . . .

. . . . expresses a shared nature but different personalities.
One could re-word this and say that three Divine Persons share one divine existence.
Fulness being an attribute of divine nature means that the divine nature is shared perfectly, in fulness.

And of His fullness (the Word made flesh) we all have received, and grace for grace.

[John 1:16, KJV]

For in him (Christ) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

[Colossians 2:9, KJV]

But the word 'being', when it refers to 'human being', has a specific meaning in that human persons, although they share the characteristics of humanity do not actually share the same humanity, that is to say the same human body and the same human soul.
I think that this causes a confusion of wording.
So I therefore, myself, prefer to say that three Divine Persons share one divine existence.
That is to say, three Divine Persons, dwelling in a perfection of unity, co-exist in the fulness of one divine nature.
(This wording therefore expresses person, unity, being and nature.)
And I know that some word this as 'three Divine Persons share one divine essence'.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;

First Council of Nicea 325 - Wikipedia

Then, also :

... who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

[Philippians 2:6 KJV]

Here, existence (being) nature (form) deity (God) and person (he) are seen together.
The Son of God exists (being) in the form or nature of deity. That is how his person exists and that is the form in which he exists : deity.
It is similar to the expression 'I am that I am' Exodus 3:14, which expresses the  fact of existence (of being) - I am - and the mode of being or the form of being or the nature of being - that I am.
This existence, this form, he shares (equal with God) : it is an equivalent, an equal, mode of existence with God.
This form of being is a shared form of being - the form or nature in which he exists and which existence he shares : is deity.
It is one form of existence which is shared.
One mode of being - is shared.