What biblical support do Arminians and open theists find for libertarian free will? Libertarian free will is the position that a person’s choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. Libertarians generally argue that we cannot be held responsible for our own choices unless we were entirely able to have made a contrary choice instead.1

I’ve included both Arminians and open theists in the question because my understanding is they would generally agree on their views and would both self-identify as holding the libertarian free will position.2

Please no philosophical or logical arguments or opinions. The question here is what case can be made for this view from the Bible. Answers are welcome from determinists and compatibilists as long as you think you can faithfully represent the libertarian position (always cite your
sources if applicable!).

1 This is not to be confused with the political view known as libertarianism. Political libertarianism and libertarian free will, sometimes called metaphysical libertarianism, are completely unrelated. For a fuller definition see Theopedia › Libertarian free will.
2 For an Arminian defending libertarian free well and self-identifying as libertarian, see Society of Evangelical Arminians › Libertarian free will. For an open theist, see ReKnew.org › Is Free Will compatible with Predestination?.

I will address some background issues prior to bringing the point home.

Yes, most believe in a sinful nature for mankind. I believe along with Dallas Willard and all those in the Wesleyan tradition that total depravity is not the description of mankind. It is interesting to note that Calvin himself believed that babies are born innocent. Luther on the other hand would require baptism for babies since he did not believe they were born innocent. So, except for that discrepancy, evangelicals believe that depravity is not total. Usually what the Calvinist means by this phrase is total inability. I would identify with Dallas Willard when he talks of sufficient depravity (as evidenced in Rom 3:23) At present there are less Calvinists than not, not that numbers prove a position. Once total depravity is accepted, the rest of TULIP just naturally flows logically.

I do not believe in original sin. What is sin? Sin is a missing of the mark. If one can miss the mark at the moment that one is born then we have more capability than we know. Babies are born innocent. Calvin got that right. Just because my father sinned does not mean that any of those sins were transferred to me. That is true all the way back to Adam. (c.f.Ezekiel 18:20)

I do believe in the Sovereignty of God as expressed in the Bible. I also believe eternal security, though not as expressed in the P of TULIP. The Sovereignty of God does not override the free will of man. The free will of man in no way threatens the Sovereignty of God. In fact God in His sovereignly has decided that the angels and man are to have free will. This in no way thwarts God's plans. I am stating these without reference to any particular scripture, but do have many in mind. I will get around to those shortly.I do not believe in total depravity. Let's say for sake of argument, man is totally depraved. We believe that Jesus is totally God and totally man. Scripture affirms this.

How can Jesus be fully man if man is fully depraved from birth?... from Matt Elton (who is Monotheist while I believe in the Trinity)

The answer is that man is not fully depraved from birth. Man is born innocent. David in the Psalms said that man is born into sin - notice - not with sin. Psalm 51:5 David said that he would go to his son by Bathsheba -the son that died. (2 Sam 12:23) Paul talking in 1 Cor 14:20 has reference to babies being innocent as the basis for an argument. He assumed it, and assumed that his audience assumed it. Otherwise his argument would fall apart. There are other times that God is talking about the innocent blood of children being spilled in pagan sacrifices. (Psalms 106:38 and others - From Rich Deem's website) Babies are innocent. Realize also that when Jesus spoke of being born again, He was indicating that we needed go through a process to become innocent once again - as we were when we were born.

We do come to an age of accountability. Adam did and so do we. This is referenced by Paul in Romans 7:7-11. Adam did not lose perfection, he lost his innocence.

What is the point of the book of Job? Surely Satan has free will or God would have just changed Satan's mind instead of working to convince him about Job's allegiance. And if Job had no free will then what was being determined - that Job could be a puppet? Oh and by the way, there is a verse that says that we will judge angels. If God judges man arbitrarily, then that is our example for how to judge the angels later. (1 Corinthians 6:3)

Matthew 22:1-14 talks about chosen. This chosen is the same Greek word as in Romans. Here Jesus himself explains how the kingdom is working. The first part of the parable signifies those who choose not to participate in the kingdom. Note that the King is enraged. If the King already knew that they would not choose to participate - why would he be enraged? The last part of the parable is about those who choose to participate in the kingdom. Then the last statement is "many are called and few are chosen" So riddle me this - If the Calvinist take was taken, then it should have been "many are called and many are chosen" - or "few are called and few are chosen"

If there is no free will, then at least five things do not make sense... repentance, prayer, evangelism, rewards, and punishment. Hence this is why some (most?) Calvinists do not adhere to no free will after salvation. Choice is implied in all the Bible, but is made most obvious in some scriptures (Deut 30:19 and Joshua 24:15)

God's sovereignty is not encroached on by our free will. God controls when we die (Sodom and Gomorrah, the Worldwide Flood, etc) As well as other means of affecting people without affecting free will (Blinding (Genesis 19:11), Changing their language (Genesis 11:9), etc.)

God is Sovereign and Just. If God's love is greater than our love, then it would seem to follow that God's justice is greater than our Justice. His ways are higher than our ways. His thoughts higher than our thoughts. (Isaiah 55:9) Note that in James 1:13  "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." If God does not tempt someone, then why would He do something more intrusive like harden someone's heart? Apologetics Press addresses the topic "Who Hardened Pharaoh's heart?"(see (1) below)

The Book of Life is interesting in regard to predestination. Exodus 32:32-33 is its first mention and where God says that those who have sinned will be blotted out of the Book of Life. Another place it says that those in the Book of Life are from there from the foundation of the world  "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:" (Ephesians 1:4) If the elect are from the foundation of the world, and they are known ahead of time, why would some of the elect be blotted out? Did God make a mistake? Do you see the problem here? The problem is resolved if we realize that the word elect is the word for chosen. And those that are chosen are those that chose first. And God made the system, grace, whereby it is possible for us to choose. Note that this implies that the Book of Life originally had everyone's name. Some references in Revelation muddy the waters, but they may be referring to people who have done the unforgivable sin and are just around until their death happens.

Predestination is not predestination to be saved. It is once saved being predestined therefore to be conformed to  the likeness of Christ.

Who did Christ die for? All are wanted. Reference 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 John 2:2.

Also, what comes first belief or regeneration? (see John 1:12 and John 20:31)

Calvinism purports to promote and magnify God and demote man. What it does in the end is to demote God and promote and magnify man. What do I mean by that? Man is promoted to a place where he doesn't have to worry about his actions (or at least his salvation) - because they are all predestined - determined. He also is in a place where God needs him to further God's kingdom - God can't do without him, and so appoints him to salvation. God is demoted in that no longer is God "just" in man's estimation - and heaven's estimation. God arbitrarily chooses who He will and rewards them for God's efforts. Those who God does not see fit to choose to further the kingdom are punished without any recourse for something that they do not have any chance of affecting. This is the end conclusion of accepting total depravity. This is what atheists hear about and have a justifiably good argument that that God is not one to be admired and worshiped. (see (1) below)

So while we do partner together Wesleyan and Neo-Calvinist, I will not back down from promoting God and His true justice so that sinners see a great God - not a monster God. And promote letting the Bible say what it has to say. Using the obvious verses to interpret the harder verses to understand. (2 Peter 3:16 and 2 Tim 2:15)

(1) http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1205

(2) http://watchmanforjesus.blogspot.com/search/label/Calvinism%20Heresy


Who first came up with the "four attributes of Scripture"? There's a lot written about the "four attributes of Scripture", meaning it's "Sufficient, Necessary, Authoritative and Perspicuous". On the other hand, most sources (like this one) seem to attribute this concept to "tradition".
I'm pretty sure it comes from a reformed background, but which theologian came up first with this notion?
I've read it's related to the concept of Sola Scripture and it's often presented by the acronym SCAN.
This article from a seminar
This article from TGC
This article from Evangelical Focus
This article from a missionary that quotes Kevin DeYoung
This article even quotes two books on this subject, one from Timothy Ward and other from Wayne Grudem

It looks like the "4 attributes" was first used by the theologian Wayne Grudem while the SCAN acronym itself was first used by Justin Taylor.  The rest of this answer will provide evidence.
Another acrostic is NAPS which I found here (Mar 7, 2012), but expresses the same attributes, substituting "Clarity" with "Perspicuous" (a more historic term).  Yet another is SNAC described here, which is another ordering of the same 4 attributes.
Justin Taylor's blog article
Justin Taylor wrote the blog article "SCAN the Scriptures" on Aug 11, 2010, which begins as follows:

If you want a quick and easy way to memorize the traditional four attributes of Scripture, just put them in the order of S.C.A.N.:

the Sufficiency of Scripture
the Clarity of Scripture
the Authority of Scripture, and
the Necessity of Scripture

5 days later, another blogger wrote a short post "Sola Scriptura and SCAN!" dated Aug 16, 2010, which links to the article above, saying:

Justin Taylor gave a handy way for us to remember the key attributes of Scripture– just put them in the order of S.C.A.N.:

the Sufficiency of Scripture
the Clarity of Scripture
the Authority of Scripture, and
the Necessity of Scripture
Read the rest of the post for a helpful explanation of what each one of these characteristic mean.  It’s really worth your time.

But where did Justin Taylor get the idea of the "four attributes" from?
Timothy Ward's book
A clue is from a book he referenced: Words of Life: Scripture as the living and active word of God by Timothy Ward published by IVP only 1.5 years earlier on Feb 22, 2009.  Chapter 4 of that book is titled The Attributes of Scripture: A Doctrinal Outline which contains the following sections:

The necessity of Scripture
The sufficiency of Scripture
The clarity of Scripture
The authority of Scripture

Skimming the book itself I couldn't find the acronym S.C.A.N., so Tim Ward didn't come up with it himself.  At any rate, the section title order doesn't match S.C.A.N.
Wayne Grudem's book
Going back in time to 1994 we find some similarity in the table of contents of Wayne Grudem's very popular book Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine:

Chapter 4: The Four Characteristics of Scripture: (1) Authority
Chapter 6: The Four Characteristics of Scripture: (2) Clarity
Chapter 7: The Four Characteristics of Scripture: (3) Necessity
Chapter 8: The Four Characteristics of Scripture: (4) Sufficiency

I also cannot find the S.C.A.N. acronym in the book, so Wayne Grudem didn't come up with it either.  The chapter order also didn't match.
Luther's understanding of sola scriptura
A 1960 Concordia Theological Monthly journal article Luther's Sola Scriptura by a historian Lewis W. Spitz (d. 1999), specializing in Reformation who also wrote the well cited 1984 book The Protestant Reformation: 1517-1559 traced the development of Martin Luther's own understanding of Sola Scriptura.
Quote from the journal article (emphasis mine):

Luther's sola Scriptura implies the divine authority, efficacy, perfection or sufficiency, and perspicuity of Holy Scripture, but above all Christ as the center of it all.  For Luther there is no sola Scriptura without solus Christus.  Werner Elert shows that for Luther the divine properties of Scripture are based on the fact that for him the Bible is Christocentric.

So three of the "four attributes" (authority, sufficiency, perspicuity) came from Luther himself.  The "four attributes" adds "necessity" but drops "efficacy".
Wikipedia article
In the Lutheran section of the the Wikipedia article Sola Scriptura referencing pages 27-29 from the 1934 book Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture published by a Lutheran publisher Concordia Publishing House, the author spells out Lutheran Sola Scriptura in terms of "inspiration, authority, clarity, efficacy, and sufficiency".
The "four attributes" drops "efficacy" and "inspiration" but adds "necessity".
Westminster Confession of Faith
Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) begins with the Necessity of Scripture in Chapter 1 (Of the Holy Scripture), Section 1:

Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation: therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.

How Wayne Grudem reorganized the historic characteristics in his book
Wayne Grudem understandably makes explicit this very important "necessity" attribute, which in other systematic theologies are discussed more or less implicitly.  Looking closer at Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology book, I can see that he covers "inspiration" under chapter 4 (authority).  He also covers "efficacy" as Point #1 (Teaching of the Word) along with 10 other means of grace in Chapter 48 (Means of Grace Within the Church).
Conclusion
Comparing Wayne Grudem's "4 attributes" with other list of terms related with sola scriptura we can see how Wayne Grudem came up with his own organization of the characteristics / attributes of Scripture in his Systematic Theology book.  Since Wayne Grudem's book is a very popular systematic theology book among evangelicals which has been around since 1994, I think it is safe to say that the 4 attributes mentioned in a variety of blog articles we encounter post 1994 originated from the theologian Wayne Grudem.  Validating my thesis, I also couldn't find any match when skimming Google search dated before 1994 using the keywords: "scripture" "authority" "clarity" "necessity" "sufficiency".
As for the S.C.A.N. acronym, it's very likely that Justin Taylor came up with it after reading both books and noticing Chapter 4 section titles of Timothy Ward's book and Table of Contents of Wayne Grudem's book!  We don't know for sure of course, but I think there is enough circumstantial evidence to say that Justin Taylor was the inventor since Google search also didn't yield any reference to that acronym before Justin's blog article (Aug 11, 2010).


Must one believe that there is only one True and Living God to be saved? Must one believe that there is only one True and Living God to be saved? Obviously the scripture states in various places that God is one (Deut 6:4, Isaiah 45:5), and I do believe this and I am fully convinced by it, but would it be possible for a new convert not to know this truth and still be saved?

The reason I ask this question is because I am trying to examine presuppositions that I have, and how they influence my interpretation of certain texts.

Please note I would appreciate answers based on Scripture.

When a person recognizes his sinfulness and flees to Christ for the forgiveness of their sins, they believing in God. It is this belief alone that saves:

  If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”  (Romans 10:9-11, NIV)

The basic formula for salvation, faith in Christ, might seem to allow the possibility of faith in more than one God, but properly speaking I do not think it does.  Here is why.

First Christ, which we believe is represented as a single mediator to the One God:

  For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5, NIV)

Second, faith in Christ is not to be understood as based on our human apprehension of Christ, but a knowledge that the Spirit reveals to us that we are enabled to believe. We can see this is the very first and famous confession of Christ by Peter.

  “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
   Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
   Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. (Matthew 16:15-17, NIV)

As faith is obtained not from human reason but revealed by the Father it only makes sense that the Father reveals this knowledge truthfully, that is the one mediator between man and the one God.

Third, it goes without saying that Jesus is the mediator sent from the God of Israel.  This means God the one and only who created all things.

Fourth, faith in Christ is faith in God.

  That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe. (1 Timothy 4:10, NIV)

And we notice Peter's exact confessions was “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Peter did not say your are a savior of some God, but the long awaited Jewish Messiah, who was the Son of God.

It seems a basic understanding of Jehovah in man, i.e. the Christ, must be believed in to be saved. However faith in One God without trusting in Christ can never save anyone (James 2:19)


Why aren't the books of the Bible in chronological order? Don't we have a good idea of when each was written? Wouldn't it make more sense?

Chronology is certainly one really good way to organize the books of the Bible, and some people may prefer this.  There certainly are editions of the Bible in chronological order that are available.  It should be noted that the order of the books of the Bible is not inspired, so you are really free to organize them however you want.

One of the problems with chronology, though, is the overlapping of some accounts. The book of Acts covers quite a bit of history, so the epistles occur throughout it.  Furthermore, there are some books that are not historical in nature, like the Psalms, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.  Sure, they were written mostly by David and Solomon, but there really isn't a lot of reason to place them in between chapters of 1 and 2 Kings.

That being said, there is a common order that does have a purpose.  This historical narratives in the Old Testament are pretty much in chronological order.  The prophets span several kings and are not written historical narrative but has prophetic utterances in history.

One of my favorite representations is found in the Periodic Table of the Bible

The divisions highlighted here are as follows:

Pentateuch (Moses)
History Narrative (chronological, for the most part, with some overlapping)
Wisdom Literature
Major Prophets
Minor Prophets
Gospels (generally chronological, but each overlaps the others)
History (Acts) - chronological
Letters to Churches, named for cities
Letters to Individuals, named for recipient
Letters by People, named for authors
Prophecy

So, again, order them however you want for your personal reading.  If you don't like the common order, that's totally fine.  I remember an old mentor of mine reading through the Psalms backwards, which was an interesting idea.


What is the Catholic interpretation of Romans 14:5? Romans 14:5
  One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.

All kinds of blessings are in the Catholic feast days and sabbath, but here, Paul is talking about the different days that each person holds sacred.

Why should one keep a day holy if it's useless? You don't keep shabbat just to rest, there are blessings, the feast brings spiritual blessing, so if the feasts or days can't give you that anymore, why keep them?

What is the Catholic interpretation of this verse?

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia The sabbath in the New Testament:

  St. Paul enumerates the Sabbath among the Jewish observances which are
  not obligatory on Christians (Colossians 2:16; Galatians 4:9-10;
  Romans 14:5).  The gentile converts held their religious meetings on Sunday
  (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2) and with the disappearance of the Jewish
  Christian churches this day was exclusively observed as the Lord's Day.

Catholics interpret Romans 14:5 as meaning that the Bible supports the Roman Church's decision to move God's holy day from the Sabbath to Sunday.

For denominations that don't follow Rome's teachings, the interpretation is quite different though.  The entire chapter of Romans 14 talks about one common theme:  new Gentile converts and how they should be handled.

New converts are coming from a completely different view of the world.  Many of them are Vegetarians, Ascetics, or other sects that believe that physical deprivation improves the soul.  It will take some time for them to adjust to the new reality of Christianity, and the current Christians should be careful not to push the process too quickly.

For instance, Vegetarians believe that eating meat is a sin.  Christians know that it isn't, but if they try to force meat onto someone that still feels as if it is a sin, they risk causing that convert to leave them.  Paul points out that it is not a sin to refrain from eating meat, so there is no point in pushing this aspect of Christianity.  Instead, one should stick to the more fundamental beliefs of Christianity, and the converts will eventually accept less important aspects of their new life, such as eating meat without feeling guilty.

  Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and
  things wherewith one may edify another.  For meat destroy not the work
  of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who
  eateth with offence. -- Romans 14:19-20

Arguing a Vegetarian into eating meat, even though he (incorrectly) feels that it is wrong, might cause him to reject his new relationship with God.

Similarly some converts might have no concept of a special day of the week, while other might think that the day the Romans dedicate to Apollo the Sun God should be treated specially.  Eventually the new converts will understand the truth, but forcing them to behave in a way they still feel is wrong is going to do far more harm than good.  It is far better to concentrate on teaching the doctrines of salvation first.


Priestly hiring competitions in the Catholic Church In the Archives of the Archbishopric of Durango (Mexico) there are a number of documents about concursos de curatos, or priestly concourses, which were used for hiring into vacant parishes and cathedral positions. I read a blog post about another concurso that required two days of analyzing Church documents in Latin, translating and commenting on them in Spanish. It looks like a formalized, competititive hiring process.

When did these competitions run? Who chose the winners?

Burkholder's Spaniards in the Colonial Empire says: "...competitive examinations (oposiciones) began in Mexico in 1575. Prior to participating, competitors had to document their limpieza de sangre. During the exam they had to demonstrate knowledge of moral theology and administration of the sacraments plus their skill in either Nahuatl or Otomí."

The concourses were announced by circular letter. The qualifications of a learned "opponent", or examiner were printed: "Certificado impreso de los meritos del bachiller don Francisco de la Peña, cura del pueblo de San Pedro Tlasquapan, opositor del concurso de curatos vacantes en el arzobispado de México."

Brading's Una Iglesia asediada describes Michoacan diocesan hiring as follows: Some of the high clergy from the cathedral chapter were synodal judges in charge of hiring. The bishop picked from the three candidates they referred to him, then sought the viceroy's approval.

Still, I doubt the above was unique to Mexico, and for all I know the concourses are still going on.


What are Babylon The Great and the scarlet coloured beast according to Mormons? Revelation 17:3-5 describes a "scarlet coloured beast" and a woman riding it.

The passage, according to King James Version, is as follows (from here):

  3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of
  blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.4 And the woman was
  arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and
  precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of
  abominations and filthiness of her fornication:5 And upon her
  forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of
  Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth.

What (or whom) does the beast and the woman symbolize according to Mormon doctrine?

What does the beast represent?

From the New Testament seminary manual:

[The] beast described in verse 3 may represent Rome in John’s day as well as corrupt kingdoms and nations in the last days (see Revelation 17:8–13).

Further explanation can be found from the New Testament Student Manual

Scholars have historically interpreted the beast with seven heads as an allusion to the city of Rome because Rome was founded upon seven hills, as well as a reference to a number of Roman emperors in the first century A.D. Though these are possible meanings, a broader interpretation may be that Rome represented a seat of corruption in John’s day. As such, this worldly city may be likened to similar centers of corruption in all eras.

Earlier in Revelations 12:3,9 there is a red dragon with seven heads and ten horns which represents the Devil/Satan, this could be the same beast.

Whom does the woman symbolize?

The seminary manual references verse 18:

18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

And then explains:

[The] "great city" (verse 18) refers to spiritual Babylon (see D&C 133:14). Because of the worldliness and corruption of ancient Babylon, and because it was a place where the children of Israel were captive, Babylon is often used figuratively in the scriptures to represent sin, worldliness, the influence of the devil on the earth, and spiritual captivity (see also 1 Nephi 13:1–9; 14:9–10).

From the student manual:

she is the "mother of harlots," which indicates that she gives birth to other prostitutions—organizations, governments, and ideologies that spew forth wickedness

On the verses as a whole the student manual states:

One possible meaning of John’s description in these verses is that in the last days, a lifestyle of sexual immorality, wealth, and violence would permeate the world. Institutions, governments, and people who embrace this lifestyle can be seen as part of Babylon.

On Babylon Elder David R. Stone says:

There is no particular city today which personifies Babylon. Babylon was, in the time of ancient Israel, a city which had become sensual, decadent, and corrupt. ...
That sensuality, corruption, and decadence, and the worshipping of false gods are to be seen in many cities, great and small, scattered across the globe.


Catholicism: Does a second marriage become valid when the previous spouse dies Assuming Ann is Catholic and married to Bob. She later gets a civil divorce from Bob and gets married outside the church to Chris. Bob later dies.

Is Ann's new marriage now valid? If not, can she get a dispensation? Or does she need to marry Chris a second time?

Canon lawyer Cathy Caridi has actually discussed this very question on her blog, Canon Law Made Easy.

To briefly summarize her excellent article, canon law, following Catholic theology, does not recognize divorce as the end of a marriage, and so not recognize the validity of a marriage while either potential spouse is currently married. It follows that Ann and Chris are not, in the eyes of the Church, married at all. And of course it follows from that that there's no second marriage to become valid.

What Ann and Chris need to do to "regularize their situation" (that is, to ensure that they are living within the rules of the Church, but more importantly that they are living their lives rightly before God) is, firstly, to talk to their parish priest. It is likely that he will want to discuss the whole situation with them, and understand how they came to this point and what they understand of the Church's understanding of marriage. They will need to go to Confession and confess their sins, including the sin of adultery (which they committed by living together while Ann and Bob were still married, that is, while Bob was living) as well as fornication (which they committed by living together without marriage after Bob's death).

Then what? They certainly have an existing relationship, which they presumably believed was a real marriage. What they have to do now is to get that "putative marriage" (as it's technically called) validated. This can happen through the processes of radical sanation or convalidation (the likely next step in this case). How this is done is well explained in Andrew Leach's answer here as well as in other answers about validation of a marriage throughout this site.


If Jesus is God then how could he die? According to trinitarian theology, Jesus is both 100% man and 100% God. It is said that Jesus, being 100% God, died. Therefore, God died.

I know that 1/3 of God did not die, because that would be tritheism.

So I've considered two other positions:

100% of the living God stopped living. He died and three days later He rose again.
God did not die in the regular human sense. Just as He is "eternally begotten", He is also "eternally dead".

Neither of these positions make any sense to me, so perhaps there is a third option. Could somebody please explain how God's death should be understood?

This is where the doctrine of the hypostatic union is essential. Jesus the Son of God is one person, but he has two natures: the divine nature, and a human nature. The two natures cannot be divided, but neither are they mixed in the union to become hybrid natures.

The divine nature cannot die, but the human nature can. Jesus died completely in his human nature. But we do not say that only the humanity of Jesus died - because it is a union in one person we must say that whole person of Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God, died.

Jesus is definitely God, and so there is validity to saying that "God died", but when most people hear that they will understand it as meaning that the divine nature died. I would recommend not to say "God died" and instead say "Jesus Christ the Son of God died".


What misconceptions about the LDS church are a product of Mark Hofmann's forgeries? I've heard a lot of strange stories about LDS church history. What I didn't know is that many of them were created by a man who is considered by forensic experts to be the best forger yet caught.

Mark Hofmann, who made many convincing forgeries, including a fake of Oath of the Freeman–which the Library of Congress bid $1.5 million to purchase–also forged a somewhat unknown number of controversial documents and letters that he sold to the LDS church, claiming that they were written by early leaders of the church. Despite the uncertainty of their authenticity, the church agreed to purchase many of these documents based off of the judgements of the examiners that concluded they were genuine.1

It wasn't until Hofmann was arrested as a suspect for murder–after he executed a number of bombings in an attempt to cover up one of his forgery schemes–that it was discovered that he was producing forgeries.

My question is, how many persistent myths about the church's history are a result of Mark Hofmann's forgeries?

1. Recent Events Involving Church History and Forged Documents

The only thing that occasionally pops up is references to the Salamander Letter but most any light search reveals its origins.

Mark Hofmann is usually used by critics of the Church as an example of the failure of the leadership.  Their criticism usually goes like this: "Since the Prophet is supposed to be inspired, why didn't he know that the letters were forged?"  The assumption is that, since God is certainly omniscient, He would obviously have told His earthly prophet not to be fooled by Hofmann's forgeries.

Mormons make no such assumptions.  God is omniscient but He decides what and when to communicate to the Prophet and does so according to His will and pleasure, not ours.


How can the Bible say God was refreshed if he never gets weary? These two passages seem contradictory: the first says that God rested and was refreshed on the seventh day, but the second says God is never tired or weary. How can these passages be reconciled?

It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. (Exodus 31:17, NIV)
Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom. (Isaiah 40:28, NIV)

The simplest explanation is that God did not literally rest, but simply that he "rested from creating."  From a Christian perspective, God did not rest, in the sense that he stopped doing anything, on the seventh day. In fact, he was then very active in his relationship with Adam and Eve, and all the rest of humanity.


Reading the Bible Literally Which denominations believe that the bible should be read "literally?" Do they believe that all of the text should be read this way? Why?

Context: It seems like most of these people would still read parable/poetry as metaphor. But I still hear the argument that the text should "always be taken literally."

Wiki gives us:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism

Look in there, lots of links which will lead you to various denominational groups.

That also clarifies it as a form of biblical hermeneutics aka biblical interpretation.

So then, as this is the Christian exchange, I'll assume you want the
Christian denominations that use it.

All your Christian Fundamentalists use that form. However, not all who are called "fundamentalists" are so. Many Pentecostals are anything but literalist and get called fundamentals all the time. A lot of Evangelicals are in the literalist camp but again, not all. I do know GARBC (the General Assembly Regular Baptist Church denomination) are literalist.

Too many Christian groups are not denominational, or are non-denominational.
Consider John Hagee's groups and ministries. Non-denominational, yet, huge.

Many people consider (and some Hebraic's consider) the Hebraic Roots folks to be in the Christian camp, thus a sort of "denomination" in it. However, they all do not fit nicely, or not, into any particular group, instead running the whole length and breath of Christian beliefs. Some are literalists, some not. Messianics (Jewish believers in Y'shua) run the length and breath, likewise, of Judaism instead, also encompassing Charismatic and Pentecostal as well.


What's the name of this doctrine and (when) did the Eastern Orthodox Church condemn it? "God is merciful and He wants all people to be saved, thus, all the humans, even the worst ones, having fully redeemed themselves from their wrongdoings by spending some adequate time in the hell, will finally make it to the paradise..."

What's the official name of this doctrine? I heard something like "optimistic eschatology", but I am not sure.

And also, I heard that the Eastern Orthodox Church has condemned this doctrine as a heresy. If it's true, when and where (on which counsel) did this take place?

I believe you are looking for the theology called "Universalism".

I'm not sure that it has been explicitly declared a heresy, but the Catholic, Orthodox many Protestant churches have made formal declarations that are in disagreement with it, so they presumably do consider it a heresy. Look at the 'disagreements' section of the article.


What was the organizing principle of Melanchthon's Loci Communes? Herman Bavinck, in his Reformed Dogmatics (BakerAcademic, Vol I, Chapter 1, pp 26 - 27), claims that while Melanchthon when writing his "Common Places" drew material from the book of Romans, his organizing principle was borrowed from Lombard:

  Melanchthon's loci communes owe their existence to two lines of work he was pursuing in the same period: a series of critical comments on Lombard's Sentences and a commentary on Paul's Letter to the Romans. In 1520, as a result of this twofold activity, he conceived the plan to write Locos Communes concerning "law, sin, grace, sacraments as well as other mysteries." In other words, he sought to summarize and discuss under a number of general concepts—in the manner of rubrics, following the instruction of the rhetoricians—the scriptural material he derived from his study of the Letter to the Romans.

However, Ryan McGraw, in his 2013 review of Rick Gamble's Whole Counsel of God claims that the structure of Melanchthon's work also came from Romans:

  Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560) wrote the first Protestant Systematic Theology. Yet far from imposing an arbitrary scheme upon Scripture, he developed a loci method based upon the structure of the book of Romans.

McGraw's citation:

  Lowell C. Green, “Melanchthon’s Relation to Scholasticism,” in Carl R. Trueman and R. Scott Clark, eds., Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (Bletchney, UK: Paternoster, 2005), 273-288.

Did Melanchthon use Romans to structure his Loci, or only to derive doctrinal content? Was his structure actually derived from Lombard?

This answer is drawn from material I received from Chris Engelsma. One question I didn't take into account at first was which of the four editions of the Loci Bavinck is thinking of; however, if we are to go with the 1521, the answer seems to be relatively clear. If we compare the TOC of the Loci with the TOC of Book I and Book II of the Sentences, there is virtually no resemblance. However, looking at the TOC of the Loci, the influence of Romans is obvious.

Some further quotes that are of interest, also sent to me by Mr. Engelsma.

  Melancthon (died 1560.)—This reformer has left us an expository work upon the Epistle to the Romans, in two different shapes. The former appeared in 1532, under the title of Annotationes; the latter in 1532, with the name Commentarii. They consisted of his lectures, and afterwards gave rise to the Loci Communes. Melancthon delivers mere scholia, and as these are generally rather doctrinal than expository, they refer chiefly to the passages in which the doctrines are stated. Their chief excellence lies in the fine development which the author gives of the importance and nature of the doctrine of free grace without the merit of works. (Fred. Aug. Gottreu Tholuck, Exposition of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, trans. Robert Menzies, Second Revised and Corrected Edinburgh Edition. (Philadelphia: Sorin and Ball, 1844), 24.)

And

  The Epistle to the Romans has been an especial object of attention among protestant commentators. It embraces the peculiar and fundamental principles of Christian doctrine, and stands directly opposed to the Catholic and Pelagian errors which so long prevailed. Hence Melancthon adopted it as the basis of his Loci Communes, and Calvin as that of his ‘Institutes.’ Melancthon’s labors extended from the year 1522 to 1532. His object being dogmatic rather than exegetical, his annotations are chiefly confined to dogmatic passages. Calvin’s remark consequently was just. The latter prized the Epistle to the Romans above all the rest, because it so entirely harmonized with his argument, and with his sublime view of God’s grandeur, of his all-comprehending power, and the nothingness of man, who lives only by the grace of God, and owes his freedom wholly to its support. “Works cannot make you righteous, but the grace of God through Jesus, who is your righteousness and your life.” (Paul Henry and Henry Stebbing, The Life and Times of John Calvin, the Great Reformer, vol. 1 (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1851), 220.)

A further reference confirming that both the content and the form of Melanchthon's book was based most heavily on Romans, which I received via Dr. Joel Beeke, is Timothy J. Wengert, "The Rhetorical Paul: Philip Melanchthon's Interpretation of the Pauline Epistles," in A Companion to Paul in the Reformation, ed. R. Ward Holder (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 136.


How does the Jehovah’s Witness view of who Jesus Christ is differ from Protestant Trinitarian Christology? The Protestant Trinitarian view of Jesus Christ is that he is the only-begotten Son of God – begotten, not made.  He is of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made.  He is the Word of God who was with God in the beginning and who is God (John 1:1). He came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, and dwelt among us (John 1:14). He is both fully human and fully divine.  He was bodily resurrected from the dead and has ascended into heaven, from whence he came, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father.  As he ascended into heaven, so shall he return, in great power and glory, and accompanied by all the heavenly hosts, to judge and to rule.

Please note that Protestant Trinitarians believe there is only the One Being of God and that Jesus, the Son, is not the same person as God the Father.

This is NOT about trying to establish who might be theologically right and who is wrong, nor is it a question seeking to establish any particular version of “truth”.   I’m on a fact-finding mission, and not trying to start a theological war.  Please give a biblical basis in support of beliefs held.

My question is how does the Jehovah’s Witness view of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, differ from the view held by Protestant Trinitarians of the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Edit for clarification: I'm looking for JW beliefs about the person of Jesus Christ. I have given a simple overview of the Protestant view of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and want to know if JW’s would disagree, and, if so, what it is they believe about the person of Jesus Christ. Was he created? Is he part of the One Being of God? When he came to earth was he God incarnate? Was he resurrected as a spirit creature or did he ascend into heaven with a physical body? I don't want to get bogged down in theological terminology, just an overview of JW beliefs about the origins of Jesus, who he is and what their biblical basis is.

The Protestant Trinitarian view of Jesus Christ is that he is the only-begotten Son of God – begotten, not made.

JWs believe that there is no distinction between "begotten" and "made". Therefore, "begotten, not made" is meaningless for them.

  He is of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made.

The word "of one substance" (homoousios) is not found in the Bible and therefore not accepted by JWs. JWs believe that Jesus is "in the form of God" (Phil. 2:6) since he is a spirit being like the Father (John 4:24).

  He is the Word of God who was with God in the beginning and who is God (John 1:1).

As you know, JWs believe the the meaning of this verse is more accurately conveyed by the translation "the Word was a god", or "the Word was divine". (compare with John 1:18 - "no one has seen God at any time")

  He came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, and dwelt among us (John 1:14). He is both fully human and fully divine.

JWs believe that Jesus was fully human ("born of a woman", Gal. 4:4) when he was on earth, not "fully divine". There is no scripture that says "fully human and fully divine"; to the contrary, Phil. 2:7 says "he emptied himself, by taking the form of a slave, being born in the likeness of men." ("became human", NWT 2013). He became "like his brothers in all respects, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God." (Heb. 2:17)

  He was bodily resurrected from the dead

JWs believe he was resurrected with a heavenly spirit body, not his human flesh. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit God's Kingdom" (1 Cor. 15:50) Paul addresses the question of "with what sort of body" are the dead raised up at 1 Cor. 15:35-41.

Note that at John 20:26, "Jesus came, although the doors were locked", which would be impossible for a physical human body.

  and has ascended into heaven, from whence he came, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father. As he ascended into heaven, so shall he return, in great power and glory, and accompanied by all the heavenly hosts, to judge and to rule.

JWs agree with this.

JW answers to further questions:

Was he created? Yes.
Is he part of the One Being of God? No. (I do not believe that "part of" is even the traditional Trinitarian expression.)
When he came to earth was he God incarnate? No, for reasons given above.
Was he resurrected as a spirit creature or did he ascend into heaven with a physical body? He was resurrected as a spirit creature. Note that Jesus appeared with several different bodies after his resurrection:

Mary did not recognize him, thinking he was the gardener, until he said her name with his familiar inflection (John 20:15-16)
Jesus spent a whole day with two of the apostles, but "their eyes were kept from recognizing him" until he broke the bread and blessed it. Obviously, this body had no recognizable wounds on it. Then "he disappeared from them", which would not be possible for a normal physical body. (Luke 24:15-31)
At John 20:27, Jesus appears in a locked room, and now he has wounds in his hands, feet and side, specifically for Thomas' benefit (see v. 25).


What is the significance of Bethlehem as the place of Jesus birth? The New Testament records that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea.  In fact, this was a fulfillment of prophecy, as Matthew records:

  Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of
  Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, 2
  saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw
  his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” 3 When Herod the
  king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; 4 and
  assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he
  inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 They told him, “In
  Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet:

  6 “‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
      are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler
      who will shepherd my people Israel.’”  Matthew 2:1-6 ESV

So, what is the significance of Bethlehem and why did God choose this city, and not any of the other cities in Israel, for the birthplace of the Messiah?  It seems that it should be something more than just a random selection.

It is prophesied by Micah 5:2.

Perhaps you're wondering why Micah would prophesy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem in the first place.

Well, "Bethlehem" is from the Hebrew בית לחם (beit-lechem), which literally means "house of bread." The Messiah is the "bread of life" (John 6:35). I say, what better city for him to be born?

  And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never hunger, and he who believes in me will never thirst."


Is Cain saved or he will go into the eternal perdition? This question is about speculations that might have taken place in Christianity on the matter of Cain's destiny - whether he will be in the kingdom of God (which means that he is saved) or he will go into eternal perdition.

Have there been any speculations on this matter in Roman Catholic, Orthodox or main-stream protestant Christianity (by main-stream protestant Christianity I mean those who believe that Jesus is both the Son of God and God - the same God as God the Father is - but don't consider themselves to be a part of Roman Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodoxy)? If yes, can you, please, share them here.

Cain was the first murderer in the human history.

The following verse speaks not in favor of Cain:

  From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished
  between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be
  required of this generation (Luke 11 :51)

However, I don't see any verse in the Bible pronouncing clearly that Cain will go into the eternal perdition. Or, perhaps, I am reading the New Testament in to the Old one here?

The same question can be asked of Judas, Goliath, or any other "villian" in the Bible. According to Scripture:

"The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

The same could also be said of Saul of Tarsus, however, prior to his conversion.

Cain's curse, in particular, is known:

  Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.

Note how the entire curse is restricted to this life, and not the next. (Many would argue that the Old Testament does not have an afterlife, based on somethings that David, Job, and Qoheleth write - but that's a different question.) There is nothing that bears on the afterlife or eternal destiny, so no conclusion can be rightly drawn from Scripture to anything that extends beyond the earth.

Depending on one's soteriology, there are Christian positions that range from "God chooses whomever he wants" to "God will accept whoever turns to him."  The point in all of this is that:

a. We don't know, because we don't have enough evidence
b. We don't know, because God is ultimately in charge
c. We don't know, because we don't know how God chooses.

In short, we don't know.


What is the specific meaning of "believe" in John 3:16? I would like to know the specific meaning of the word "believe" in John 3:16 when it says whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Many people that I know say that they believe in Jesus but they are not Christians but they think that they are going to Heaven because they have a head knowledge or at least believe in a Creator God that created all things. Please tell me what the deeper meaning is of this incredible word. Is there a Hebrew or Greek meaning of this word that differs from what most people are thinking that this word means? The passage in John 3:16 sounds like if you just believe that there is a Jesus that this is all that you need to get to Heaven

To believe in Jesus is not the same as to believe about Him. To believe in Jesus means to trust Him, to entrust and commit ourselves to Him, to lay hold, to lean, and to rely upon Him. This includes believing that whatever He says is the truth.


Why has a Brazilian church built a replica of Solomon's Temple? An Evangelical-Pentecostal church has built a huge replica of Solomon's Temple in Brazil. But why Solomon's Temple? What does it have to do with Jesus Christ and the Christian faith?
It's very odd to me that they are embracing elements that seem more Jewish than Christian like Solomon's Temple, the Ark of the Covenant and a kippah when preaching. But maybe my idea of Christian traditions is too modern. Have these elements ever been part of any Christian faith?

Further information about this replica: It's from the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God that operates in more than 100 countries and was even banned from some African countries. The owner is Edir Macedo, that also appears on Forbes's list of billionaires. He spent 300 M on the construction. Here's the story as covered by The New York Times. Here's the inauguration video, where you can also see how they have used the religious elements I've talked about.

Why Solomon's temple? What does it have to do with the Christian faith?

The temple that Solomon built was magnificent, and the glory of the Lord filled it 2 Chr 7:1 But it was only good because of the LORD. Otherwise it was just big stones and gold plating, valuable sure, but also meaningless, as Solomon himself would attest in Ecclesiastes.

Under Roman occupation, around the time that Jesus was born the Herod the Great was reconstructing the temple. Perhaps for reasons similar to those outlined by Dick Hartfield in another answer: to gain legitimacy. When one of Jesus' disciples noted how magnificent the temple was Jesus answered him: 'Do you see these great buildings? There will not be here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down'. In that passage Jesus foretold of his return and linked it to the even in 70 AD when the Romans destroyed the temple.

Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the temple was also one of the charges brought against him, but actually, he was using the word 'temple' to refer to his own body.

In Christianity we see the temple as a type of the real temple of God, which is Jesus, and indeed any human body in which the Spirit of God dwells. Having an ostentatious building might even be counterproductive in the Christian faith since it focusses our attention on this world, instead of looking toward the invisible God.

I was more interested in a deeper explanation of why they are choosing elements of the Old Testament.

There is a lot in the Old Testament that we ought to attend to: the repeated commands to justice, mercy and righteousness, the commands to fear the LORD, love one's neighbour and so on. But there are some elements that it would be wrong for a Christian to indulge in: cirumcision and animal sacrifice. Given Jesus' expressed disdain for the great temple building project in his day it might be appropriate to add temple building to the list.

And to indulge in a bit of end-times speculation. The temple builder might be trying to make some Jewish folk a bit jealous so that they hasten to build the third temple in Israel and restore the sacrifices until the Antichrist installs himself in the temple, claims that he is God and finally we can get on with the schedule outlined in scripture that culminates in the return of Christ Jesus!

EDIT: 11 Mar 16
Just to add another perspective to the end times speculation, some say that there is a wide misunderstanding of prophecy and the antichrist referred to in scripture, is actually a system of false belief that has been around for a long time. On this reading there is no need to look for a rebuilding of Solomon's temple near the end, for the sacrifice has already been abolished when Jesus performed the sacrifice of his sinless self.


What gift of God did Timothy have? Paul refers to the gift of spirit that Timothy had in both I and II Timothy.

  KJV 2 Timothy 1:6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.

What gift did Timothy have? Was he afraid to use it?  The verse that immediately follows the verse above seems to suggest this.

  KJV 2 Timothy 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

From the following verse, I can gather:

The gift that would be received by Timothy was foretold (given by prophecy)
It was given by Laying on of Hands (Paul's hands by first verse quoted)

  KJV 1 Timothy 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

The Greek text of 2 Tim. 1:6 according to Robert Estienne's Textus Receptus (1550) states,

δι᾽ ἣν αἰτίαν ἀναμιμνῄσκω σε ἀναζωπυρεῖν τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ ὅ ἐστιν ἐν σοὶ διὰ τῆς ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν μου

There a couple facets of the Greek text worthy of discussion.

Does the infinitive ἀναζωπυρεῖν function transitively or intransitively?
Of primary importance, what does τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ refer to?
What is the relation of τῆς ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν μου ("the imposition of my hands") τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ, if any?

ἀναζωπυρέω - Its Meaning and Transitivity
On the Greek verb ἀναζωπυρέω, BDAG states,(1)

ἀναζωπυρέω (ζωπυρέω ‘kindle into flame’) 1 aor. ἀνεζωπύρησα; lit. ‘cause to blaze again’; usu. fig., and in our lit. only so.

trans. (Pla., X. et al.) to cause to begin again, rekindle τὶ someth. (Plut., Per. 152 [1, 4], Pomp. 645 [49, 5]; Iambl., Vi. Pyth. 16, 70; PGM 13, 739; Jos., Bell. 1, 444 [pass. ὁ ἔρως], Ant. 8, 234; Iren. 3, 11, 8 [Harv II 47, 6]) τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ rekindle the gift of God 2 Ti 1:6. ἀναζωπυρησάτω ἡ πίστις αὐτοῦ let faith in God be rekindled 1 Cl 27:3.

intr. (Dionys. Hal. 7, 54; Plut., Timol. 247 [24, 1], Pomp. 640 [41, 2]; Gen 45:27; 1 Macc 13:7; JosAs 19:3 cod B ἀναζωοπύρησαν; Jos., Ant. 11, 240) to take on new life, kindle into flame ἀναζωπυρήσαντες ἐν αἵματι θεοῦ inflamed with new life through God’s blood IEph 1:1.—See Anz 284f.—M-M.

LSJ states,(2)

ἀναζωπῠρέω, rekindle, light up again, in tmesi, ἀνʼ αὖ σὺ ζωπυρεῖς νείκη νέα E.El.1121; θερμῷ τὸ θερμὸν ἀ. Arist.Spir.484a7; τὴν ὁλην φύσιν Jul.Or.4.151c; τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ 2Ep.Ti.1.6:
—Pass., to be rekindled, Pl.R.527d, X.HG5.4.46 (mataph.); to be excited, Iamb.VP25.112.
II. intr. in Act. recover one’s spirits, Plu.Pomp.41, etc.

Thayer states,(3)

ἀνα-ζωπυρέω, -ῶ; (τὸ ζώπυρον i. e. a. the remains of a fire, embers; b. that by which the fire is kindled anew or lighted up, a pair of bellows); to kindle anew, rekindle, resuscitate, [yet on the force of ἀνα- cf. Ellic. on 2 Tim. as below]; generally trop., to kindle up, inflame, one’s mind, strength, zeal, (Xen. de re equest. 10, 16 of a horse roused to his utmost; Hell. 5, 4, 46; Antonin. 7, 2 φαντασίας; Plut. Pericl. 1, 4; Pomp. 41, 2; 49, 5; Plat. Charm. p. 156 d.; etc.): τὸ χάρισμα, 2 Tim. 1:6, i. e. τὸ πνεῦμα, vs. 7. Intrans. to be enkindled, to gain strength: Gen. 45:27; 1 Macc. 13:7, and in prof. auth.; ἀναζωπυρησάτω ἡ πίστις, Clem. Rom. 1 Cor. 27, 3 [see Gebh. and Harn. ad loc.].*

According to all three lexicons, ἀναζωπυρέω functions transitively, which makes sense, as it is followed by a direct object, τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ.
Identification of τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ
In his entry on the verb ἀναζωπυρέω, Thayer states,

τὸ χάρισμα, 2 Tim. 1:6, i. e. τὸ πνεῦμα

In other words, Thayer asserts that τὸ χάρισμα is the Spirit, i.e. the Holy Spirit. If so, then the Holy Spirit is:

that which is in Timothy (ὅ ἐστιν ἐν σοὶ)

This is true.

in Timothy "by the imposition of [the apostle Paul's] hands (διὰ τῆς ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν μου)

This is true.

Is the Holy Spirit elsewhere referred to as τὸ χάρισμα [τοῦ θεοῦ]? Unfortunately, not explicitly. 1 Tim. 4:4 may refer to the Holy Spirit, but yet again, it does not explicitly state so. However, 2 Tim. 1:7 seems to confirm that it is the Holy Spirit, as the apostle Paul writes,

For, God did not give us [the] Spirit of cowardice, but [the Spirit] of power and love and admonition.
οὐ γὰρ ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ θεὸς πνεῦμα δειλίας ἀλλὰ δυνάμεως καὶ ἀγάπης καὶ σωφρονισμοῦ

In his commentary on 2 Tim. 1:6, St. John Chrysostom wrote,

"I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is in you by the imposition of my hands," that is, the grace of the Spirit,(4) which you have received, for presiding over the Church, for the working of miracles, and for every service. For this grace it is in our power to kindle or to extinguish; wherefore he elsewhere says (1 Thes. 5:19), "Do not extinguish the Spirit."
Ἀναμιμνήσκω σε ἀναζωπυρεῖν τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὅ ἐστιν ἐν σοὶ διὰ τῆς ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν μου· τουτέστι, τὴν χάριν τοῦ Πνεύματος, ἣν ἔλαβες εἰς προστασίαν τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, εἰς σημεῖα, εἰς τὴν λατρείαν ἅπασαν. Ἐν ἡμῖν γάρ ἐστι καὶ σβέσαι καὶ ἀνάψαι τοῦτο· διὸ ἀλλαχοῦ λέγει, Τὸ Πνεῦμα μὴ σβέννυτε.

St. Chrysostom notices the obvious parallel. In 2 Tim. 1:6, the apostle Paul reminds Timothy to "rekindle" the gift of God, which invokes the imagery of the gift of God as fire, and then in 1 Thes. 5:19, the apostle Paul exhorts the Thesslonians to not "extinguish" the Spirit, again invoking the imagery of the Holy Spirit as a fire within a Christian. If indeed 2 Tim. 1:6 refers to the Holy Spirit, then the allusion to the Holy Spirit as fire in 2 Tim. 1:6 would be expected and with a precedent.
Relation of Imposition of Hands to τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ
Is there a precedent for an individual receiving the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands (ἡ ἐπίθεσις τῶν χειρῶν)? Of course; in fact, this was the precedent established by the apostles. For example, in Acts 8:17, it is written,

Then they placed their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
τότε ἐπετίθουν τὰς χεῖρας ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς καὶ ἐλάμβανον πνεῦμα ἅγιον

ἐπίθεσις, meaning "placement" or "imposition," is simply the noun form of the verb ἐπιτίθημι, "to place on/upon, set."

Footnotes
(1) BDAG: pp. 62-63
(2) LSJ: p. 104
(3) Thayer: p. 37
(4) The phrase τὴν χάριν τοῦ Πνεύματος, "the grace of the Spirit," is an epexegetical genitive. Therefore, it would be understood as, "the grace, which is the Spirit." This is understood since St. Chrysostom shortly thereafter identifies the Spirit in 1 Thes. 5:9, which is the Holy Spirit. He is evidently tying the two passages together.
References
Arndt, William, Danker, Frederick W., and Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2000.
Liddell, Henry George, Scott, Robert, Jones, Henry Stuart, and McKenzie, Roderick. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.
St. John Chrysostom. Ὑπόμνημα εἰς τὴν πρὸς Τιμόθεον Ἐπιστολὴν Δευτέραν ("Commentary regarding the Second Epistle to Timothy").
Thayer, Joseph Henry. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti. New York: American Book, 1889.


What types of signs are given by the "lights in the expanse of the heavens"? On the fourth day, God created lights in the expanse of the heavens for "signs", among other things.

  Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years. Genesis 1:14 NASB

I understand the astrology seems to be forbidden in the Scriptures:

  You shall not eat anything with the blood, nor practice divination or soothsaying.  Leviticus 19:26 NASB.

So, what specific signs are referred to here?

There is a definite difference between trying to foretell an unknown future and seeing things unfold and knowing what's going on.  I don't have to be a meteorologist to know that when dark clouds start gathering overhead there's a chance it might rain.

A good representation of this is in Revelation:

"I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red, and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind. The heavens receded like a scroll being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.  Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and everyone else, both slave and free, hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. They called to the mountains and the rocks, 'Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can withstand it?'" (Rev 6:12-18 NIV)

Having read this, you would not have to be an astrologer to realize that when the sun goes black, the moon turns blood red and heavenly bodies start crashing to the ground that the sixth trumpet has sounded.  It's already been foretold in the Bible.  You're just recognizing the signs when they come to pass.

Seeing a sign for what it is isn't the same as trying to divine the future.  Divination is trying to see the unknown.  We've already been told in the Bible what to watch for.

We are to be watchful and alert.  Jesus said there would be signs and that "when these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." (Luke 21:7-31 NIV)


Is the beast of Revelation 13 the same as the beast of Daniel 7? There are several similarities between the Beast described in Revelation chapter 13 and the one described  in Daniel chapter 7.

Rev 13:1 and 2 KJV

  And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
  And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

Dan 7:6  and 7  KJV

  After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.
  After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.

Do any Theologians support this idea?

The beasts in Daniel 7 are explained in Daniel 7:17 as four (separate and distinct) kings (kingdoms) which arise out of the earth (mankind). These respectively correspond to the kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome.
They give rise to a little horn (power) which rises up out of the fourth kingdom (Rome).
In verses 11, 20, 21, 24 and 25 of Daniel 7, this power is said to be bombastic (:11), a persecutor of the true saints (:21), one who destroys other contenders or powers (:24), one who claims great titles and glory to itself, crushes the true church almost out of existence and changes times and laws (:25).
Papacy fulfills this description minutely. Any short investigation of the Inquisition would remove the thought of this church system as an holy representation of God on earth. It is anti-Christian in the sense of being a false Christian system which supplants God's Church and it is anti-Christian also in that it has fought to destroy any Christian that disagrees with it.
Daniel chapter 7 is similar to Daniel chapter 11 in that it relays historical happenings yet to occur in a symbolic form.
Is the beast described in Revelation 13 the same as the beasts (plural) of Daniel? No.
Although there are similarities in the description, the book of Revelation was written during the fourth kingdom (Rome) and so, being prophetic like Daniel, it referred to the Papacy only and not to the past "beasts" or kingdoms.
Is the beast/whore of Babylon also said in Revelation to be a persecutor of the saints or the Church? Yes: Revelation 17:6, 18:24, 13:7

The following links refer to the beast/whore of Babylon more minutely and completely than I have outlined here for those who are interested:
Beast of Revelation - Part 1:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gugLOPrWfSM
Beast of Revelation - Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHGtjwZ79Xs

Thank you for the warm welcome and I apologize for not originally following the form of this forum.


Are tithes allowed to be food items in the Mormon church? I know that the Mormon church requires members to tithe regularly. Otherwise, their membership may be restricted, until they tithe. My question is, do members have to tithe in money? Are they allowed to tithe in food items? Maybe a Mormon has a garden of orange trees in his or her backyard, and decides to tithe 10% of the yield to the church. Would the church put a minimum requirement on the quality of the oranges, or is the mere existence of the orange sufficient? Maybe a Mormon is very good at cooking and prepares a wonderful dish of casserole for the church. Are prepared foods allowed? Can they serve as a replacement for tithing in money?

As in the Bible, tithes in the LDS Church were once commonly paid in-kind, that is in livestock, crops, land, etc.

Nowadays, tithing is usually paid with money because (1) that is what most people earn (2) it is easiest to account for and (3) financial contributions are easiest to process/use. (You can't build a church out of oranges.)

That said, the LDS church does accept donations in kind.

LDS Church Donations-in-Kind Office

Address:

Donations-in-Kind Rm 1514

50 E North Temple

Salt Lake City, UT 84150
Phone: 800-453-3860 ext 2-2554, or 801-240-2554
Fax: 801-240-2202
Email: donationsinkind@ldschurch.org

Most often, though, these these will be stocks, bonds, or real estate.

If someone wants to make a local donation (e.g. oranges):

Give the donation to the local bishop.
The bishop sends to the Donations-in-Kind office a letter stating the donor, the date, the description of the item, and the approximate value (for tax and accounting purposes).

As far as quality/quantity, it's the same as in the Bible: give God the best of what you have.

Genesis 4:4

  And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering

Exodus 12:5

  Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats

Also, it's worth mentioning that the LDS Church has very little to say about the details of tithing (before or after taxes, personal business, etc), other than it is "10% of increase/income." No further statement or clarification has been made.


What is the Catholic interpretation of John 19:26-27? What is the Catholic interpretation of John 19:26-27?

John 19:26-27 (RSVCE)

  26 When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27
  Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that
  hour the disciple took her to his own home.1

  Footnotes:
  1. took her to his own home: Joseph must now have been dead.

From say Church Fathers, saints, papal pronouncements, what is the deeper meaning of these words - especially where Jesus says St. John Behold, your mother! - and their application in the Christian life?

Patricia Sanchez from the National Catholic Reporter connects the Eucharist and being at one with God with the events that led up to the Crucifixion.

Basically, Sanchez's logic goes something like this. We (Catholics) are in union with God by means of Holy Communion. This union is special, because it helps us become better people, and because it leads us to do the "right thing", even though the right thing may seem illogical and may cost our lives. The events that led up to the Crucifixion (the verses that lead up to John 19:26-27) show that Jesus's willingness to take the punishment for our sins is illogical, hence noble and admirable in an empathetic sort of way.1

A Catholic reference2 offers two likely interpretations of the verse. One is the literal interpretation: that Jesus is concerned for his mother. The other is the symbolic interpretation: that Mary, mother of Jesus, may be perceived to be the mother of all Christians, personified by the Beloved Disciple. Mary may be a representative to those seeking salvation, and she is supported by the disciple who interprets Jesus' revelation, or perhaps, the verses are about Jewish and Gentile Christianity being reconciled.2

I make a note that the National Catholic Reporter has received significant controversy from the Roman Catholic Church, because it promotes beliefs contrary to what the Vatican teaches. It merely gets its name, because it intends to write for progressive-minded Catholics or cafeteria Catholics.

Source:

Sánchez, Patricia Datchuck. "And I In Them." National Catholic Reporter 46.14 (2010): 27. Academic Search Premier. Web. 17 Jan. 2015.
http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/19:34


Does the Bible say if animals in Eden were carnivorous, or when animals on Earth became carnivorous? Do the canonical writings of any Christian group say if animals in Eden were carnivorous, or when animals on Earth became carnivorous?

The short answer is "yes, sort of".

The only sub-group within Christianity that I'm aware of that cares about whether the animals in the Garden of Eden were originally carnivorous or not are the Young Earth Creationists.

To other groups, it's simply a non-issue.  Only within the young-earth paradigm do you get the idea that there was no physical death before Adam's sin, and thus it's only from that view that there's a necessity to explain what the animals ate before the fall.

Example of the YEC teaching on the subject can be found here.

Going further, understanding the YEC mindset, the only reason to believe in a young-earth creation as literal history is because of the belief that the Bible, including the first portion of Genesis, is meant to be taken literally.

The reason this is important is that the Bible is considered to be the only authoritative source of Truth, particularly among these groups.

So, to these groups, the only thing that can be considered "canon" is the Bible itself.

While the Bible doesn't use the word "herbivore", it does say this in Genesis 1:29-30:

  29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed,
  which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which
  is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

  30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and
  to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I
  have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

So, a literal interpretation of verse 30 implies that all living things were given plants to eat.  It doesn't exactly say "They can't eat meat", but it  does say that God has given plants to eat to every beast of the earth and fowl of the air - and every would include those that are carnivorous today.

Most YEC groups do take this to mean that originally all animals were herbivorous.

With that said, there are dozens of alternate ways that the genesis account is understood.  It could be just as easy to say that God gave them plants but that doesn't mean that it's ONLY plants that they were given. It could be that they were able to eat meat, but that just wasn't mentioned.  And of course, to anyone other than the YEC adherents, it's a non-issue.


Is the Catholic declaration of an extra biblical saint infallible? Is the canonization of a person not found in the Bible (for example, Thomas Aquinas) an infallible decision? By this I mean that their sainthood can never be denied by any of the faithful without meaning a break with the Church's Magisterium.

The opinion on this issue seems to be divided.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, at least by the beginning of the XX century (i.e. pre Second Vatican Council) "most of" theologians thought canonisation involved an infallible claim. This is partly based on St. Thomas Aquinas's view:

"Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error." (Quodlib. IX, a. 16)

However, there are divergent opinions. This much more recent article deals a great length with precisely this question. It starts by recognising the contemporaneity of aforementioned position:

Currently, it is the opinion of a majority of Catholic theologians that the canonization of Saints by the Pope is an exercise of papal infallibility. The Congregation for the Causes of the Saints (CCS) supports this opinion. And some Bishops also believe and teach this idea.

However, the author argues that actually, canonisation is not an infallible act. The author states:

Is the canonization of a Saint a doctrine of faith or morals? No, it is a judgment and decision, make by proper authority in the Church, that a person lived an exemplary holy life and was faithful to the teachings of Christ and His Church. Canonization is not a teaching, so it cannot fall under the teaching authority of the Church.

Why?

... the Magisterium is absolutely limited to teaching the truths found, explicitly or implicitly, in Tradition and Scripture. Therefore, the Magisterium is completely unable to teach that any person is a Saint (except for those persons mentioned in Tradition or Scripture). Neither the Pope himself, nor the entire Body of Bishops united with him, can teach that such a person is a Saint. The Pope cannot teach this infallibly, under papal infallibility, nor can he teach it even non-infallibly, under the Ordinary Magisterium. Likewise, the Bishops united with the Pope, even in an Ecumenical Council, cannot teach that such a person is a Saint. For the Magisterium is unable to teach truths found entirely outside of the Deposit of Faith.
Now the Saints who are mentioned in Tradition and Scripture, such as Saint Peter the Apostle, are a separate case. Since their lives and holiness is attested to in infallible Divine Revelation, the Church can infallibly teach their holiness and can infallibly declare them to be Saints. But most Saints have lived long after the canon of Scripture was closed. For unless the life of a Saint is a part of Sacred Tradition (e.g. the mother of the Virgin Mary), or unless a Saint is mentioned in Sacred Scripture (e.g. the father of the Virgin Mary, called Heli), such a Saint’s canonization cannot be considered a part of the teachings of the Church, nor of the Magisterium, neither infallibly nor non-infallibly.

More details on the article itself.


Is there any historical record of Elizabeth the First's reaction to John Knox's tract on 'the monstruous regimen'? In his tract The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstruous Regimen of Women (see note below about the wording) John Knox appears to be extending Paul's proscription - regarding the place of women in the ecclesia, the church - to the rule of the English monarchy over England.

  γυναικι δε διδασκειν ουκ επιτρεπω ουδε αυθεντειν ανδρος αλλ ειναι εν ησυχια

[I Timothy 2:12. Received Text - Beza, Stephens, Elzevir and Scrivener are all identical.]

  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

[KJV translation]

Laying aside the question of whether, or not, it was appropriate to address the matter in quite the way in which John Knox did so, I am more interested in the reaction of Elizabeth who, although a Queen in favour of the Protestant cause at the time, apparently took offence (not personally, but) at the implications to monarchy contained in John Knox's article.

Wikipedia records that Elizabeth opposed Knox but does not go into detail, nor is there a reference or a footnote to follow on the subject.

Did Elizabeth state her own position on the subject of female monarchy (particularly regarding the examples of Esther and Deborah whose 'rule' was at least in conjunction with, if not in subordination to, male rulers) ?
Did Elizabeth hinder John Knox in his Christian ministry ?

Note on wording :

The article's title employs certain words in spellings and senses that are now archaic. "Monstruous" (from Latin mōnstruōsus) means "unnatural"; "regiment" (Late Latin regimentum or regimen) means "rule" or "government".

Thus I have, here, used 'regimen' (cf 'regime') not 'regiment' (the military application).

My understanding of the concept is '... the unnatural rule ...'.

While in Geneva, John Knox’s work ‘The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women’ was published (anonymously) in 1558.  It appears that his book was written against the female sovereigns of his day, particularly Mary of Guise, Dowager and Queen Regent of Scotland, her daughter Mary (Stuart), who became Queen of Scotland, and Queen Mary (Tudor) of England.  It was published a few months before Elizabeth (Tudor) became Queen of England in 1558.
That is significant because his stance against female rulers backfired when Elizabeth Tudor succeeded her half-sister Mary (Tudor) as Queen of England.  Knox wanted to return to Scotland but Elizabeth denied him permission for passage through England on the way back from Geneva to Scotland.  He was obliged to take the more dangerous route to Leith.

In 1558, Mary Tudor’s half-sister, the Protestant-leaning Elizabeth Tudor, succeeded to the throne of England. Though not the intended target of Knox’s First Blast, Queen Elizabeth took great offense at the publication, and in 1559, repeatedly refused Knox passage to Scotland through England. Knox attempted to apologize to the queen, writing a series of letters to her chief advisor, Sir William Cecil, but again managed as much criticism as praise. Like Mary of Guise before her, Elizabeth Tudor became more agitated with the reformer.
Even Calvin became a guilty party in the eyes of Queen Elizabeth, who rejected his homage, made to her in a republication of his Commentaries on Isaiah, owing to a perceived connection with The First Blast. In truth, Calvin did not approve of Knox’s views and had even advised him against publishing them. In his own letter to William Cecil, Calvin expressed his extreme displeasure with Knox: “By reason of the thoughtless arrogance of one individual, the wretched crowd of exiles would have been driven away, not only from this city [of Geneva] but even from almost the whole world.”
Having endured the controversy of The First Blast, Knox went on to play a key role in Scotland’s opposition to the Catholic monarchy, solidifying Scotland as a Protestant, and Presbyterian, nation for centuries to come. As for his second and third blasts, it would seem that the "Trumpet of the Scottish Reformation" learned an important lesson. Neither was ever sounded.
Source: https://www.history.pcusa.org/blog/2014/10/john-knox-and-monstrous-regiment-women

When Knox heard that Mary (Stuart) Queen of Scotland was looking for scholars to refute his anathema against women rulers he attempted to counter this by writing to Elizabeth, suggesting Mary was aiming at the English throne.  Source: http://tudortimes.co.uk/people/john-knox-life-story/knox-mary-queen-of-scots
20th July 1559 - John Knox’s Declaration to Queen Elizabeth - https://biblehub.com/library/knox/the_first_blast_of_the_trumpet/20_july_1559_john_knoxs.htm
5th August 1561 - John Knox’s Second Defence to Queen Elizabeth - https://biblehub.com/library/knox/the_first_blast_of_the_trumpet/5_aug_1561_john_knoxs.htm
Although various articles suggest that Queen Elizabeth took offence at Knox’s words about female sovereigns and never forgave him, no evidence is provided to support that claim.  None of the articles I found gave any clues as to what Queen Elizabeth might have written to John Knox, either in response to his “First Trumpet Blast” or to both of his subsequent letters.  Although Queen Elizabeth supported the Protestant cause, her refusal to allow Knox passage through England to return to Scotland became an obstacle to Knox’s direct involvement with the Protestant cause in England.  That is possibly the only evidence of what Queen Elizabeth though of John Knox’s views of female rulers.  Nonetheless, both the fiery preaching of John Knox and Queen Elizabeth’s political and religious ambitions eventually resulted in a Protestant King (James VI of Scotland and I of England) being established on the united throne of Scotland and England.


How much time elapsed between Jesus's betrayal by Judas and His crucifixion? How many days and hours separate the moment of betrayal of Jesus by Judas to the beginning of the crucifixion?

This may be difficult to ascertain with any great degree of certainty, but we may be able to get close.

The Time of Betrayal

If, by the "moment of betrayal", you are referring to the Judas' kiss, then there are a few things we know.  We know the disciples were having a hard time staying awake even during the first time Jesus went away to pray, and Jesus went away to pray two more times.  Jesus seems to indicate that he had been praying an entire hour when he returned the first time, so it is at least possible that he went away three times, each for roughly an hour of praying.

  And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then he said to them, "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me." And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will." And he came to the disciples and found them sleeping. And he said to Peter, "So, could you not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, "My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done." And again he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. So, leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words again. Then he came to the disciples and said to them, "Sleep and take your rest later on. See, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand." (Matthew 26:37-46)

So, what time would Jesus have first gone off to pray.  They had already eaten the Passover meal, so this was after that.  However, this is before both daylight savings time and the invention of the incandescent light bulb, so people probably went to bed earlier, rather than staying up in the dark. They probably arose earlier in the morning as well.  Being that is was during Passover, which is typically in March or April.  Sunset would be around 6:00 p.m. (without daylight savings time).  Sundown is typically when the Sabbath began.

If we assume they began eating at sundown and ate for two hours (this was a very significant Jewish festival), then took an hour to get to the garden, then assume three hours for Jesus to pray, we are already at midnight for the kiss of betrayal.  That may be the best we can do.

The Time of Crucifixion

The crucifixion probably began around 9:00 a.m.  There is some confusions about this, but this has to do with the different ways in which the Romans and Jews kept time.  Darkness came over the land around noon to about 3:00 p.m., at which time Jesus committed His spirit into the hands of the Father.

Conclusion

So, if the betrayal occurred around midnight and the crucifixion began around 9:00 a.m., then that would be around nine hours and a total of 15 hours until the time of death.

Part of me likes the idea of symmetry, and it is perfectly reasonable to think that the betrayal was later in the evening.  Thus, it could have been 6 hours from the betrayal to the inception of the crucifixion and another 6 hours to the death of Christ.  That's the best I can offer, though.


Will Agnostics and Atheists go to Hell? (Catholic) Does it state anywhere in the Catholic Doctrine that non-believers and doubters will go to hell?

The Catholic Church teaches that particular judgment is final

You had originally asked a hybrid question: what Catholics believe, and what the biblical basis is for not believing in Jesus and going to Hell.  While a variety of scripture refers to those being with Christ, and those not being with Him, and  the afterlife in parables (the Goats and the Sheep, Rich man Lazarus and the poor man, the thief on the cross) we'll address the Catholic  teaching question.

The Bible: belief in Jesus Christ is required to get to Heaven

In the answer LRL provides, you see two succinct Biblical references in John 3:16 and John 14:6 to a perquisite of going to Heaven being belief in Jesus Christ.  Under Christian soteriology, that is commonly referred to as salvation through Jesus Christ.  (Numerous other scriptural passages refer to that as well).

The Catholic Church teaches that only through Jesus Christ may one get to Heaven.

The modern doctrinal statement is in Dominus Iesus as described in the linked answer by @AthanasiusOfAlex.  There is more to it than simply saying "I believe in Jesus" as shown in Matthew 7:21-23:

  21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.  22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’  23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

The above passage underscores the point that a Christian has to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, in order to come to the Kingdom of Heaven.  An agnostic (doesn't believe nor disbelieve) or an atheist (refuses to believe) will not "talk the talk" although either may now and again walk the walk without doing so as part of a Christian witness.   (Old school Catholic teaching; Council of Trent: there is no salvation outside the church.  We have a Q&A on that somewhere).

Particular judgment and how that relates to Heaven and Hell.

Insofar as Hell being the final disposition for a given soul (rather than simply not going to Heaven) here is the top level teaching of the Catholic Church from the Catechism (note that there are scriptural references):

I. THE PARTICULAR JUDGMENT

  CCC 1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either
  accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.
  592  The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its
  aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but
  also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after
  death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the
  poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good
  thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny
  of the soul--a destiny which can be different for some and for
  others.593

References here are : 592 2d Timothy 1:9-10 ; 593 Luke 16:22; 23:43; Matthew 16:26; 2d Corinthi and 5:8; Philippians 1:23; Hebrews 9:27; 12:23

  CCC 1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification 594 or immediately, 595 -- or immediate and everlasting damnation. 596

References are: 594 Council of Lyons II (1274): DS 857-858; Council of Florence (1439):DS 1304- 1306; Council of Trent (1563):DS 1820; 595 Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336):DS 1000-1001; John XXII, Ne super his (1334):DS 990; 596 596 Cf. Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336):DS 1002.

There is a discrete teaching about Hell in the Catechism

  IV. HELL

  CCC 1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him.  But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death.  Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." 612 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. 613 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

References are 612 1 John 3:14-15; 613 Matthew 25:31-46.

In the case of the atheist, the decision to self exclude from communion with God is willful.  For an agnostic, the case is not as clear since the problem the agnostic faces is as much doubt (not enough basis to believe?) as any willful separation from God by not deciding to believe.  On that basis, there may be some hope of salvation for an agnostic but it's an extreme edge case.  Given all of the scriptural guidance to seek Christ, and the parables that point out that failing to follow Him and to follow His teachings has dire consequences (what you did not do for the least of my children), the agnostic ends up in the same situation as the atheist: one needs to both walk the walk and talk the talk to be with Christ.  For that matter, the Christians who "say it but don't do it" are in a the same boat when particular judgment arrives.  (See the cited verse in Matthew 7:21-23).

Bottom Line; that elevator goes to the basement

There is solid scriptural basis and Catholic teaching that non-believers (atheists and agnostics) have only one destination in the afterlife and it isn't Heaven.  Beyond attempts at evangelization, what Catholics can do is pray for the atheists and agnostics, and to ask our Lord to have mercy on them as we pray that He has mercy on us.  It's the least we can do, and for some it's the most we can do.

{DS = Denzinger-Schonmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum (1965)(Handbook of Creeds and Definitions)}


What do the names of the different hours of the divine office mean? Where do they come from? (Etymology) I was wondering what the different names of the various hours mean in the liturgy of the hours? Where did they come from and what is their significance? They sound badass, but it would be nice to know why they are called what they are called.

The hours:

Matins
Prime
Lauds
Terce
Sext
None
Vespers
Compline

(I have a hunch that "None" is etymologically related to the english word "noon", seeing as this hour is prayed close to noon)

"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.


Did the virgin Mary worship Jesus? I was reading about Jesus Christ and his miraculous birth, and this question came to my mind:

Would have or did the virgin Mary worship Jesus, after his birth or after his death (according to those who hold that Jesus is God)?

She had no doubt He is God; the Archangel Gabriel told her, and, because she knew Holy Scripture, she knew prophecy (e.g., that of Isaias) was being fulfilled through her. After His birth, even the Magi adored Him, so, a fortiori, His own mother certainly did.
After His death, St. John provided Holy Communion for her, and thereby she worshiped her Divine Son:
Art. 5 "The Principal Mysteries which Contributed to Mary’s Increase in Grace after the Incarnation", § "Mary, Model of Devotion to the Eucharist" of Mother of the Saviour and Our Interior Life by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., says:

It is most becoming to insist here a little on what Holy Mass and Holy Communion, received from the hands of St. John, must have meant for Our Blessed Lady.
Why had Mary been committed to St. John on Calvary rather than to the holy women who were also at the foot of the Cross? The reason was that St. John was a priest and had a treasure which they could not give her, the treasure of the Eucharist.