Did reformation leaders throw out the Summa Theologica? St. Thomas Aquinas's seminal work the Summa Theologica was an attempt to catalog all the theological arguments ever conceived.

Much of the reasoning is rooted in the Natural Law and it's what Catholics believe today. It's the reason we've got such strong opinions on abortion, birth control, embryonic stem cell research, homosexual "marriage" and more even though private interpretation of the Bible could potentially lead one to believe otherwise.

What I wonder, is how much of a common ground is the Natural Law (specifically as it relates to the Summa) and how did the reformers (Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc.) decide whether or not to accept it?

I can only speak for Calvin. AFAIK, he never explicitly interacts with Aquinas or the Summa. In Institutes he does reference "The Schoolmen" many times, but he seems to have in mind mostly later-medieval theologians rather than the angelic doctor himself. That's a shame, because Aquinas would have been a much more worthy opponent.

Protestants in general tend to be skeptical of natural-law arguments. Calvin himself believed that our only reliable knowledge about God comes from special revelation and he is very hard on the "Papists" for making stuff up (i.e., the incredible detail some writers claim to know about the kinds and hierarchies of the angels).

That said, I believe Calvin would have come down on the same side as the Catholic Church on the issues you mentioned. He certainly would have opposed contraception.

Edit

Here are a few google results, suggesting that Calvin probably did not have access to the Summa:

Calvin on Aquinas

Luther, Calvin and Aquinas: On Grace

Kant, a Protestant, although not mentioning the Summa by name, harshly criticized its arguments—e.g., he does not believe cosmological arguments, such as what St. Thomas used to prove God's existence, are valid. Kant also criticized the medieval "Schools" that were associated with Thomism. See this quote from Kant's Critique of Pure Reason regarding the "Monopoly of the Schools".

The Summa threatens even 20th century Freemasonry, many of whom are Protestants:

  The difficulties between Church and State in Italy had culminated seven years before in the nomination of Crispi, a man wholly hostile to the Church [and a friend of Garibaldi, another Freemason], as Prime Minister. On the eve of the elections in 1890 his friend Semmi, like himself a Freemason and Grand Master of the Italian lodges, had spoken strongly on the necessity of destroying the Great Enemy [i.e., the Catholic Church]. "We have applied the knife to the centre of superstition," he wrote in a wonderful combination of mixed metaphors, "and the very presence of ***** at the head of Government is a guarantee that the Vatican will fall beneath the blows of our vivifying hammer. Let us work with all our strength to scatter its stones, that we may build with them a temple to an emancipated nation. The enemy is the Pope; we must wage a relentless war against him. The Papacy, although but a phantom presiding over ruins, yet reflects a certain glory, waving as it does in face of, and in defiance of the world, the Cross and the Summa Theologica. A miserable crowd still prostrates itself to adore. It must be war to the knife."

—The Life of Pius X by F. A. Forbes, imprimatur 1918, pp. 45-46 (my emphasis)


How do YECs respond to the lack of non-Christian buy-in to their "creation science"? The history of science is full of cases where a new, sound scientific theory didn't catch on right away, and was ridiculed by the scientific community, sometimes for decades or centuries, before becoming accepted theory.

The theory of the Flat Earth, orbits of the planets, even the theory of relativity... all were met with scientific resistance initially.

So it seems conceivable that "creation science" is solid science that simply hasn't yet taken hold in the mind of the masses.

But if this is true, one would expect there to be at least some non-Christian scientists who hold that the "creation science" theories are valid.

How do "creation science" proponents explain the lack of non-Abrahamic (non-Christian, non-Jewish, non-Muslim) scientists who buy into these "creation science" theories?

Creationism is built on the assumption that there is a God, and the assumption that this God is the God described in the Bible.

If you don't believe either of these things are true, then you cannot logically believe creation science.

However, if you believe that both these things are true, then creation science becomes a logical possibility (although not the only possibility).

Atheists do not believe there is a God. Therefore they cannot logically believe in creationism.

Hindus do not believe in the God of the Bible. Therefore they cannot logically believe in creationism. (They may formulate their own version of creationism, but it will not be the same as Christian creationism.)

Christians believe there is a God, and that this God is the God of the Bible. In the same way that secular scientists use the framework of naturalism (i.e. the idea that all things have been created by currently observable processes) to structure and inform their hypotheses, creation scientists use the framework of the Bible to structure and inform their hypotheses. In both cases, the hypotheses can be tested by observing available evidence.

In theory, it should be possible to perform creation science in a rigorous manner. However, for every rigorous creation scientist, there are probably 10 000 mis-informed bloggers spreading their own unsubstantiated theories. In addition, some popular creationists have used fairly weak arguments. This has led to the popular belief that all creationists are stupid or wrong.

I am personally a creationist, but I try to approach it in a logical fashion. I am very wary of popular creationists, and try to determine whether their arguments are logical before I accept them.

Your questions was "How do "creation science" proponents explain the lack of non-Abrahamic (non-Christian, non-Jewish, non-Muslim) scientists who buy into these "creation science" theories?"

In answer to this, I believe that most people do not realise that creationism can be logical. In addition, some current creation theories appear to be inconsistent with the evidence. For instance, there is no creationist consensus on the problem of distant starlight. Back in the 80s, it was popular to suggest that "God made the light so it looked like it came from billion year old stars." However, modern creationists have realised that this suggestion is problematic, because if this were true, it would mean there were millions of stars which we can see which never existed!! Most non-Christians would see this as instant proof that creation theory is wrong. I am happy to wait and see if they can come up with better theories, because creationism makes the Bible more internally consistent.

Note: I don't believe you have to be a creationist in order to be a Christian.

Creationism is a system that interprets the evidence science gathers from the perspective that God not only can but does intervene in the world. It says that God created the world through spectacular miraculous means, not through the business-as-usual scientific laws we experience today. It says God sent a world wide flood which changed the world for good. We shouldn't be surprised then that people who reject an active God reject creationism too. Creationism is only logical if God exists, so creationists have no expectation that non-Christians will agree with their interpretations.

Creationists themselves do not believe creationism is solid science, but that it's closer to history. They sometimes call the difference that between "operational science" that makes computers and rockets, and "historical science" that builds models to extrapolate from the present to the past. Historical or "origins" science can't be investigated with experiments or the scientific method, and some don't consider it to be true science. They believe evolution is historical science too, despite what most evolutionists say.


What did Augustine mean by "The OT is the NT concealed. The NT is the OT revealed."? I've read this quote by Augustine several times over the years. Can you give me any examples of both parts of the quote to clarify it for me?

The Old Testament points forward to the coming of the promised Redeemer, the Serpent-crusher of Genesis, the Prophet like Moses, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, the Son of David, the Messiah of Daniel, and the Humble King of Zechariah.

Four hundred years after God spoke to the prophet Malachi, God spoke again. The message was that the prophecy of Malachi 3:1 was soon to be fulfilled, that a prophet was to prepare the way for the Lord. The Messiah was on His way. That prophet was John the Baptist.

The New Testament Gospels reveal the promised Messiah, the Christ, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The Old Testament lays the foundation for the teachings and events found in the New Testament. The New Testament is only completely understood in the light of the events, characters, laws, sacrificial system, covenants, and promises of the Old Testament. In this way the promises contained in the Old Testament are revealed in the New Testament.

Great question with some great answers. You do have the quote turned around, but I think everyone knows what you meant. The actual quote is “The new [testament] is in the old concealed; the old [testament] is in the new revealed.”


Do all Christian traditions expect a second coming of Christ? My background is mostly in Evangelicalism and premillenialism. I am aware of other "Churches" (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, cults, etc.) and other eschatological frameworks (amillenial, postmillenial, etc.), but I don't know much about them.

Here I am just wondering if a second coming of Christ is one of the points that is agreed upon by all of the major Christian traditions, or if there are specific traditions which do not anticipate His return.

I am only looking for a "yes" or "no" with some evidence from the major relevant traditions.

Yes.  Every significant Christian tradition affirms the return of Jesus.

The Nicene Creed, adopted by the Universal manifestation of the assembled church in 325AD and accepted by just about every mainline Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox church with which the average Westerner will most readily identify affirms:

  He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.

This is about as direct a reference as one can get- and it is pretty explicit.

Of the non-Nicene denominations (Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, Christadelphians, etc...) all of the major ones also see Jesus' return as a given. It is clear in Scripture, and thus the only denominations that are even on the fence about it are those which do not believe the Bible to be a relevant source of theology.

This would include Unitarians and that bugaboo of this site, Christian Atheists. (If you haven't heard of the latter, don't worry, Id never heard of them either)

In practice, some liberal theologians, like John Dominac Crossan and Bishop John Shelby Spong do not believe in a literal return of Christ (they are 100% amilennial), but then again, they don't believe in a literal resurrection either.

Finally, it should be noted that without an actual return of Jesus, salvation itself becomes a past tense thing- and could (should?) be viewed as reneging on a promise. When Jesus says he goes to prepare a place for us, then if he doesn't ever come back for us, it's a rather hollow promise.

No, I don't believe in a second coming and there are churches that don't.
I not believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible and that the natural needs to be considered to understand the spiritual. The Bible should be interpreted spiritually or allegorical. The Bible is understood in a Natural and Spiritual way and Spiritual interpretation is preferred. The stories in the Bible are not historical events, but are lessons that have to be interpreted in the same way as the parables in the Gospels.
I belong to the Old Apostolic Church but some of there views I disagree with


Why was Solomon chosen as King instead of one of his brothers? 1 Kings tells us that, when David was elderly and impotent, Adonijah considered himself as heir-apparent and crowned himself, but Nathan the Prophet and Bathsheba approached David:

  She said to him, “My lord, you yourself swore to me your servant by the Lord your God: ‘Solomon your son shall be king after me, and he will sit on my throne.’ But now Adonijah has become king, and you, my lord the king, do not know about it.

Why would David have chosen Solomon, the younger candidate, as a successor?

David chose Solomon as his successor because “the word of the Lord came to [him]” telling him to do so. David, due to his many sins, was unworthy of building God’s temple. God chose Solomon from before his birth as the one who would build the temple and reign over Israel.

1 Chronicles 22:6-10

  6 Then he called for Solomon his son and charged him to build a house for the Lord, the God of Israel. 7 David said to Solomon, “My son, I had it in my heart to build a house to the name of the Lord my God. 8 But the word of the Lord came to me, saying, ‘You have shed much blood and have waged great wars. You shall not build a house to my name, because you have shed so much blood before me on the earth. 9 Behold, a son shall be born to you who shall be a man of rest. I will give him rest from all his surrounding enemies. For his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. 10 He shall build a house for my name. He shall be my son, and I will be his father, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever.’

The answer above is actually not correct. The Bible says David was not disqualified for his "many sins" but because he was a man of war and the temple needed to be built by a man of peace,  Solomon.  David had repented of his sins and had received forgiveness for them.  It wasn't a matter of what David had done,  it was more a matter of what he brought with him.


What were the findings of the Acts Seminar? The Seminar on Acts of the Apostles sat for ten years until 2011, examining the Acts of the Apostles. What were its main findings and how were they arrived at?

The Acts Seminar was one of several seminars set up by The Westar Institute as "large-scale, collaborative research projects" on various topics in early Christian history. Fellows attending and voting at the Seminars are academics in theology, Bible studies and cognate fields.  The voting system was based on traditional scholarly practice, whereby each member of the Seminar assigned a colour to his or her response to a question after full discussion, as described by the institute's Wikipedia page:

  RED: This information is virtually certain; it is supported by a preponderance of the evidence and is accepted as historical.
  PINK: This information is not certain but is probably reliable; it fits well with evidence that is verifiable and so is regarded as
  borderline historical.
  GRAY: This information is possible but unreliable; it is not a clear fabrication but lacks supporting evidence and so is regarded as
  dubious.
  BLACK: This information is improbable; it does not fit verifiable evidence or seems to be a fabrication and is regarded as
  nonhistorical.

As described by the Seminar summary report, the goal was to go through the canonical Acts of the Apostles from beginning to end and evaluate it for historical accuracy.  The Seminar announced that its principal findings were:

  The use of Acts as a source for history has long needed critical
  reassessment.
  Acts was written in the early decades of the second century.
  The author of Acts used the letters of Paul as sources.
  Except for the letters of Paul, no other historically reliable
  source can be identified for Acts.
  Acts can no longer be considered an independent source for the life
  and mission of Paul.
  Contrary to Acts 1-7, Jerusalem was not the birthplace of
  Christianity.
  Acts constructs its story on the model of epic and related
  literature.
  The author of Acts created names for characters as storytelling
  devices.
  Acts constructs its story to fit ideological goals.
  Acts is a primary historical source for second century
   Christianity.

"The Seminar has not found a core historical story of Christian beginnings in Acts", which is "not to say that Acts is totally unhistorical but to observe that it is less helpful in the historical reconstruction of Christian beginnings than previously assumed."

The full report of the Seminar is published as  Acts and Christian Beginnings: The Acts Seminar Report (Polebridge Press, 2013), edited by Dennis E. Smith, Joseph B. Tyson.


How would Jesus have addressed St. Joseph? At Luke 2:48 we read of  St. Mary's complaint to Jesus for giving them a scare, by `getting lost'at the Temple:

"His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”

We see Jesus addressing Mary as `woman' on two occasions viz.  At the wedding of Cana and on the Cross (Jn 2:4 and Jn 19:27).

We do not see any occasion in the Gospels where Jesus directly addresses St. Joseph. He, however, addresses God the Father as Abba (Mk 14:36).

Be that as it may, I am eager to know how Jesus addressed  St. Joseph. Do the teachings of Catholic Church mention the possibility of Jesus having addressed St. Joseph as Abba?

How would Jesus have addressed St. Joseph?

Answer

Jesus by being humble and meek of heart and grew-up in an atmosphere of love and prayer would certainly be a loving child. Joseph and Mary since Jesus emptied himself will have to learn the ways of man thru his parents guidance. Since Jesus spoke Aramaic, whatever the child in his time accustom to call their father & mother, Jesus would also call their parents the same way logically to embraced the Jewish customs of respect.

  The Aramaic term for father is אבא (abba).

Here is a good article relating the aramaic, hebrew and arabic of Father & Mother.

  immah
  Interesting etymology. Something similar happened in Hebrew and some of the other Semitic languages. The Hebrew word for mother is emm, the Aramaic word is immah, and the Arabic word is umm. The liturgical word amen, which at its core means “confirmation, support”, is derived from the words for “mother”.

  "Av is Hebrew for father. Abba is Aramaic for father. Ab is Arabic for father. I know that P and B are considered pretty much the same in historical linguistics, so we’re not too far here from papa, pappas, and the like. [The only difference between [p] and [b] is that we vibrate our vocal cords when pronouncing the latter. –RB] The noun abbot, referring to the Christian religious authority, comes from Aramaic abba."

  Mothers and Fathers in European and Semitic Languages

Jesus no doubt even without the Catholic Church officially entered in Catechism how He called Joseph and Mary certainly by virtue of the fourth commandment, Jesus would call them "Abba & Imma" lovingly and tenderly with the highest respect.

Others

You've mentioned this example;

At Luke 2:48 we read of St. Mary's complaint to Jesus for giving them a scare, by `getting lost'at the Temple:

"His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”

Others or perhaps most Christians interpreted this as Joseph and Mary is at fault, but let us not forget that Mary is "full of grace" already and still growing in virtues while in the mystery of "Finding Jesus in the Temple", the gospel describes Jesus still need to grow in "wisdom and stature" meaning not yet "full of wisdom". That's why Jesus eagerness to do His mission troubled the heart of Mary and Joseph because he was too young to start His redemptive mission.

Lastly, you also stated this example:

We see Jesus addressing Mary as `woman' on two occasions viz. At the wedding of Cana and on the Cross (Jn 2:4 and Jn 19:27).

St. John gospel mentioned Jesus calling Mary as the Woman instead of the aramaic word for mother "immah" is not really hard to comprehend as the mystery in the "Wedding at Cana" marked the start of Jesus Redemptive Mission and He pointed out the role of Mary in the Divine Plan of God by calling Her "Woman" in relation to God's Holy Decree in Genesis 3:15.

  And I will put enmity
      between you and the woman,
      and between your offspring[a] and hers;
  he will crush[b] your head,
      and you will strike his heel.”

The Wedding at Cana signifies by the word of Jesus to Mary calling Her "Woman", means the battle had begun.And the other instance is At the Foot of the Cross were Jesus gave us His greatest gift to humanity, the means of salvation of mankind that encompasses the Wisdom of God after He finished the work of redemption. The Salvation of all the Redeemed will be "entrusted" to the Woman just like the Abba Father "entrusted" Jesus His only begotten Son to Mary the Woman in John 19:27 to form & accompany all the redeemed to become the perfect image of Jesus Christ by embracing the "Way of the Cross".

  "Woman behold your son, Son behold your Mother"

"Joseph, son of David" is how "the Angel of the Lord"* addressed him in Matt. 1:20.

*traditionally understood to be St. Gabriel

Angels are messengers / ambassadors of God, and it would be inconceivable that such an angel would address St. Joseph differently than how God (=Jesus) wanted him to address him.


How could the Egyptian magicians do what God did through Moses? In Exodus when God performed miracles through Moses and Aaron, the Egyptian magicians did the same things that God did, How is that possible ?

The first time:

  Exodus 7:10-13

  So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the Lord
  commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his
  officials, and it became a snake. Pharaoh then summoned wise men
  and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by
  their secret arts: Each one threw down his staff and it became a
  snake. But Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs. Yet Pharaoh's
  heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the Lord
  had said.

The second time:

  Exodus 7:20-24

  Moses and Aaron did just as the Lord had commanded. He raised his
  staff in the presence of Pharaoh and his officials and struck the
  water of the Nile, and all the water was changed into blood. The
  fish in the Nile died, and the river smelled so bad that the Egyptians
  could not drink its water. Blood was everywhere in Egypt.

  But the Egyptian magicians did the same things by their secret
  arts, and Pharaoh's heart became hard; he would not listen to Moses
  and Aaron, just as the Lord had said. Instead, he turned and went
  into his palace, and did not take even this to heart. And all the
  Egyptians dug along the Nile to get drinking water, because they could
  not drink the water of the river.

The third time:

  Exodus 8:5-7

  Then the Lord said to Moses, "Tell Aaron, 'Stretch out your hand
  with your staff over the streams and canals and ponds, and make frogs
  come up on the land of Egypt.'"

  So Aaron stretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt, and the
  frogs came up and covered the land. But the magicians did the same
  things by their secret arts; they also made frogs come up on the land
  of Egypt.

But lastly they couldn't do like Moses:

  Exodus 8:16-19

  Then the Lord said to Moses, "Tell Aaron, 'Stretch out your staff
  and strike the dust of the ground,' and throughout the land of Egypt
  the dust will become gnats." They did this, and when Aaron
  stretched out his hand with the staff and struck the dust of the
  ground, gnats came on people and animals. All the dust throughout the
  land of Egypt became gnats. But when the magicians tried to produce
  gnats by their secret arts, they could not.

  Since the gnats were on people and animals everywhere, the
  magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh's
  heart was hard and he would not listen, just as the Lord had said.

I don't have my notes on hand but the bible contains multiple examples of Satan performing God like signs to fool Gods people. The book of Revelations is the obvious example this, but there's more.

As far as men performing magic, you also had Bar Jesus.

Long story short, although it's not exactly a popular opinion, Satan is illustrated as a being with similar (although lesser) powers as God, and it has been written that he has and will use these powers through mankind to gather people to him.

Satan is illustrated as having powers on a similar level as the Angel Michael which makes sense as he was a great angel (even though Satan was/is  dark on the whole), but in regards to the first answer these powers are not of earthly origins, nor can they be assumed to he bound by earthly restrictions (physics, etc).

Turning water to blood and creating frogs and causing a staff(not a stiff snake)into a serpent is no illusion or trick.its power and all power had a source.ignoring it or calling it taboo makes Christians and Christianity seem very weak and unintelligent.God used this source to create the world Satan used the source to mimick God.Adam and Eve dabbled in the source and were thrown out of the garden.God has repeatedly prevented people from gaining knowledge of the source.more power to those who look passed the superstitions and ask the real questions.

.......don't get me wrong.I believe God is the soul Creator of this source.but I also believe its accessible to many.used for good or evil.this is not spoken from one who is young and ignorant.I am 40 yrs old and have spent most of my life working in the penticostal circles and churches.many of wich were more occultic and superstitious than that of pegans


How common were blasphemy accusations and trials among the Jews during the time of Jesus? I am curious if any critical scholarly work has attempted to study the frequency with which blasphemy accusations occurred within the Jewish community at the time of Jesus, and if possible, how many of those trials led to executions as Jesus' did?

Based upon the Talmudic statement that if a Bet Din (high court) convicted one person to death they were a bloody body, it would seem to me that killing someone even for blasphemy was uncommon and loathed.
The Mishnah states that a sanhedrin that executes one person in seven years — or seventy years, according to Eleazar ben Azariah — is considered bloodthirsty.[3][4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_and_corporal_punishment_in_Judaism

Furthermore in the gospels it is recorded that the Jews had lost the right to capital punishment and that is why Jesus was sent to Pilate.

The Sanhedrin stopped issuing capital punishment either after the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 CE or alternatively, according to passages in the Talmud and New Testament, in 30 CE when the Sanhedrin were moved out of the Hall of Hewn Stones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_and_corporal_punishment_in_Judaism

When Caponius was appointed Procurated (around 7 A.D.), the legal power of the Sanhedrin was restricted and adjudication of capital offenses was lost. Cf. Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 2:8; Antiquities 20:9.
http://forums.jewsforjesus.org/thread-9793.html

Rabbinic sources can shed light on this. For instance, Mishnah Sanhedrin 7 and Talmud Sanhedrin 56a detail exactly what needs to happen if someone is accused of blasphemy. Both documents mandate the death penalty for someone convicted of the charge. t. Sanhedrin 65 gives a more exact definition of what constitutes blasphemy. t. Mo'ed 26 gives more detail about how the trial should be conducted. With such a procedure worked out in tradition and halakhic texts, it's fair to say that such trials were common.


Why is Lust a sin in Matthew, but praised in Proverbs? Jesus says in the gospel of Matthew [paraphrasing] "if you look at a woman and lust for her, you have already sinned in your heart."

In proverbs, they say, [again, paraphrasing] "let her [the companion of your youth] breasts satisfy you."

Is that not lust?  Aren't these two messages contradicting each other?

The context of Matthew is adultery--relations with a woman who is not your wife.  The context of Proverbs is marriage--relations with the woman who is your wife.  The difference is quite substantial.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.  Matthew 5:27-28 ESV
Let your fountain be blessed,
And rejoice in the wife of your youth.
19 As a loving hind and a graceful doe,
Let her breasts satisfy you at all times;
Be exhilarated always with her love.  Proverbs 5:18-19 NAS

God actually created sexual intimacy to be fully enjoyed within the marriage relationship.  Adultery, however, is a corruption of that holiest of relationships which destroys intimacy.  Thus, it is strictly forbidden in both thought and deed, for our own good.
So, there is no contradiction at all.

There is a difference between lust and desire.  Lust is objectification and a need for gratuitous power.  Lust is when a man has a lot of toys, like guns, boats, lawn mowers, and one of those toys is a woman (or women).

Desire is a natural feeling one has towards someone or thing which causes that person to fully know himself(herself).

Within the context of marriage any attempt at lust, whether towards one's spouse or another person will finally result in the lust(ee) facing his or herself and the emptiness that causes them to want power.  Desire is more an attempt to know and be known.


Are Catholics married in a civil ceremony still permitted to receive communion? A couple was married in a civil ceremony.  They attend Catholic Church and are Catholic.
Are they permitted to receive Communion at Mass, per Catholic Church teachings?

A Catholic "married" in a civil ceremony is not in a valid marriage—unless they have regularized their marriage, thereby respecting the 6th precept of the Church on obeying the Church's marriage laws. If that Catholic is cohabitating and having sexual relations, he or she is committing fornication, which is a mortal sin. Receiving Communion outside of the state of grace (i.e., with a mortal sin on one's soul) is very dangerous:

1 Cor. 11:27:

  Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of our Lord unworthily, he shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of our Lord.

Catholic teaching is that anyone who receives communion should be in a state of grace.
Who Can Receive Holy Communion?
Someone who has had sexual intercourse in an invalid marriage (among many other things) and not gone to confession is not in a state of grace, and therefore ought not to receive communion according to Catholic teachings.
A 'valid marriage' requires a properly authorized Church minister be present at the marriage, unless a specific exemption is given.
Catholic Marriage FAQs

However, the couple can convalidate their marriage, a straightforward ceremony which would make their union valid.
What Is a Marriage Convalidation?


Did a married couple live in fornication if annulled? (Catholic) I read here point 33.

If a marriage is declared null, does it mean that the marriage never
existed?
Not exactly. It means it did not exist in the way the Church
says that marriages exist. A declaration of nullity does not deny that
a relationship existed. It simply states that the relationship that
existed was not what the Church means by marriage.

If it never existed according to what the Church means by marriage does this make their previous "relationship" full of fornicating after the church declare the annulment? Does the annulment make their previous cohabitation full of fornications?

The short answer is, “not exactly,” and they are probably not culpable for their sexual relations. In fact, to the degree that each party thinks he is fulfilling his marital obligation to the other, such acts, far from being sinful, would actually be meritorious.

The first observation to be made is that the text from the Diocese of Oakland, it seems to me, needs some clarification. A declaration of nullity (the term “annulment” is never used in Church legal jargon) makes no judgment regarding the sincerity  of the parties involved. The marriage tribunal simply analyzes the relationship in question and asks, “Is this relationship a marriage?” If the answer is “yes,” then it is declared “valid;” if the answer is “no,” then it is declared “null” (invalid).

So, in fact, a declaration of nullity affirms that no marriage existed between the parties, or, if you prefer, that the conditions for a marriage were never in place.

As regards the O.P.’s question, as Geremia pointed out, sexual relations between two persons who are not married is called fornication not adultery:

  Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 2353).

On the other hand,

  Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations—even transient ones—they commit adultery (CCC 2380).

However, before coming away with the idea that couples in a putative (but invalid) marriage are living in sin, it is important to recall that couples in a putative marriage usually believe sincerely that they are married while that putative marriage lasts. In that case, they are not (to use the terminology from moral theology) formally committing acts of fornication. In other words, they are not guilty of any personal sin for the mere fact of having sexual relations.* Indeed, since each party probably believes that he is fulfilling his marital obligation to the other (and to the degree the each one is convinced of that), the actions would actually be meritorious.

(It should be noted that one of the possible grounds for a declaration of nullity is the existence of a previous marriage, kept secret from the other party. In that case, the sexual relations would, objectively speaking, be a kind of adultery. Naturally, the degree of culpability would depend on the knowledge and deliberateness with which each party acted.)

* According to Catholic moral theology, three conditions must be fulfilled in order for a person to commit a grave (mortal) sin: (1) the action itself must be gravely immoral, (2) the person must know fully what he is doing, and (3) the person must give full consent of the will (he must be not be motivated by grave fear). Regarding condition (2), the lack of knowledge can be about the particulars of the situation (e.g., when a soldier mistakes a fellow soldier for an enemy and accidentally shoots him), or else about the norm itself (e.g., many Catholics are not aware that contraception is gravely immoral). See CCC 1857. In the case of a putative but invalid marriage, there is clearly a lack of knowledge of the particulars of the situation, even though, objectively speaking, any sexual act would be a kind of fornication (or adultery in a few cases). In such a case, the sexual act would not even entail venial sin (and, to the degree that each spouse thought he was fulfilling his duty to the other, would even be meritorious).

Annulment is a man made rule. once you are married you are married. Annilment basically is encouraging adultry, read the bible where Jesus says 'anyone who divorces his wife and remarries commits adultry' furthurmore anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultry...if a marriage is for life then its for life...we all have a choice believe what you want, but we will all stand before God...i encourage anyone to read his word and decided for yourself...


Are Jehovah's Witnesses allowed to marry outside the faith? Some Christian denominations allow their members to marry whomever they please, others discourage it, and others just don't allow it (you are either disfellowshipped or the church refuses to perform the marriage).

What position do Jehovah's Witnesses hold on interfaith marriage?

If it is allowed, is the ceremony different in any way?
If it is discouraged, is it for social reasons (interfaith marriage
is hard) or doctrinal reasons (the Bible says...)?

I feel that the previous answer might be a bit one sided.

0) First of all, persons who are not baptised as a JW, but only raised as a JW, are free to live their lives as they see fit (there is no infant baptism among JW's). They are not considered as JW's and the society can not officially sanction any of their life style choices. The same goes for disfellowshipped persons or persons who disassociated themselves from the JW's.

So many persons who are raised as a JW, do not consider themselves JW's (although the outside world might perceive them this way) and they live with partners whom they choose 'freely' (of course one has to take into account some pressure from family, peer pressure and pressure from society in general, which limits the free choice of most persons).

1) Since many JW's are married and belong to a different religion before they get baptized as a Jehovah's Witness, interfaith marriages are not so rare among JW's (typically only the wife converts to JW's).
In those situations Paul's advice to the Corinthians apply. Basically he advises to stick with your partner (1 Cor. 7:10-16). So in that case, JW's are married with non-witnesses and have to do everything in their power to make the marriage work.

2) Persons who are unmarried adults and baptised as a JW, are encouraged to marry only other baptised JW's (of a different gender). Again this is based on the advise of Paul to the Corinthians.

1 Cor. 7:39: '...she is free to be married to whom she wants, only in (the) Lord'.
2 Cor. 6:14-15: 'Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers. For what fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what sharing does light have with darkness? (...) Or what portion does a faithful person have with an unbeliever?'

Baptised male JW's who do not follow this advise, might lose some 'privileges' (e.g. they may not teach the audience in public anymore).
It is however not a disfellowshipping offence to date or marry a non-JW.

I do not know if there are any official sanctions against female JW's who marry non JW-men (the position against women is more relaxed, I think).
When they do marry, the same advice as given in 1 Cor. 7:10-16 apply.

3) Many persons who are baptised as a JW, fade away and become inactive (this means they do not go knocking on doors anymore for a period of 6 months or more).
According to some studies 2/3 of the children who are raised as a JW, do not consider themselves as a JW when they reach adulthood (this is apparently the lowest retention rate of all the religions).

Most of time, the inactive single persons are also free to do whatever they like, because the congregation of JW's will probably not keep track of what they are doing.

It is also possible that two partners are baptised and only one of them (very often the husband) becomes inactive (and has a different outlook on life, becomes agnostic, atheistic,...). In that case, the same advice as given in 1 Cor. 7:10-16 applies.
Often the JW partner is quite disappointed in the decision of the partner and this can put a strain on the marriage, but in many cases the relationship continues as usual. Also the relationship with other JW's can continue as usual, however some JW members might not be so cordial anymore with a person who has become inactive. So sometimes situations might arrive where e.g. JW's give a party and only invite the JW partner and not the 'inactive' mate.

It is also not very uncommon that young persons who are raised as a JW (and baptised) marry each other and once they are married both stop practising the religion.

So in these cases you have relationships between real JW's (who go door to door and to all the meetings) and only 'name' JW's (inactive ones who do basically nothing).

The bottom line is that JW's are allowed to marry outside the faith, but it is discouraged.

Are they allowed to marry is a bit tricky, but the answer is most likely no, only because, if a person is dating a non-believer then their belief is probably weak, and will be suspect. Also, the church elders can step in and order that the couple break up, else the JW member will be disfellowshipped, which is more extreme than just being excommunicated, more like being kicked out of an extended family and given the silent treatment for life.

These links will not be official answers from the JW, but I expect that they won't be too forthcoming on much of this (see source at end of answer).

See here for an idea on what the rules are on being friends with a JW member.
See here to get an idea on disfellowship you can look at:
See here for 141 things JW can't do, and look at #4 for.
Here are two questions where people are dating or engaged to a JW.

If a person is a member of good standing with the JW then where is the free time to date outside of their religion?

So, I would guess that the ceremony won't be any different since it probably wouldn't be recognized.


What crime was committed by the "thieves" crucified with Jesus? During yesterday's sermon, the pastor mentioned the theory that the thieves crucified next to Jesus likely weren't simple thieves to warrant such a sentence, but were probably "thieves with a cause."  He suggested today they would likely have been considered religious or political zealots, or "terrorists."

The pastor's suggestion seems a little far-fetched to me, based on how the thieves responded to Jesus:  One mocking him, the other asking pardon.  These don't seem like the sorts of attitudes that religious or political zealots sentenced to death are likely to exhibit.  I would expect "terrorists" to more closely identify with their cause.

Do we have enough information, historically or textually, to draw any conclusions about these thieves' crimes?  Was crucifixion used to punish "simple thieves?"

Survey of Roman law
A now deleted (near) duplicate of this question asked if a claim that the Roman law forbid the crucifixion of thieves, so I'll start with that question, which is highly relevant to our exegesis of the Gospel accounts.
There are a lot of claims on the Internet and in popular-level books about Roman crucifixion.  Some common claims included that women couldn't be crucified, that crucifixion was reserved for the most severe crimes (such as treason and murder), and that Roman citizens were exempt.  What all these claims seem to have in common is that they are never backed by references, let alone primary sources.  All three are false.  I suspect the claims are based on a combination of over-generalization (the majority of crucifixions were on non-citizen men, for example) and it "making sense" to the modern reader's sense of justice.
The non-citizen-only claim is not relevant for this question (few people in Jerusalem would have been Roman citizens in 30 AD).  The male-only claim is obviously not relevant (but is answered in this History.SE question).  I will address the major-crime-only claim here, looking primarily at cases of theft.
The real truth about Roman crucifixion is that it was commonly used as punishment for all types of crimes committed by slaves and the lower classes.  According to Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World, it was the primary punishment used on slaves.1  Jeffrey Ross agrees, writing:2

In the writings of most Roman authors, crucifixion appears to be reported as the normal punishment for disobedient slaves.

Crucifixion was regularly used on liberti (former slaves) and peregrini (non-citizens), and not just for major crimes.  Crucifixion was occasionally used on citizens as well.1
In Against Verres, Cicero describes a farm owner who, upon discovering the fraud of the farm manager, should inflict summum supplicium (extreme punishment), a phrase Cicero clearly ties to crucifixion in the same work.  A farm manager would generally be a position held by a freedman or slave.  Similarly, in Digesta seu Pandectae (in English usually called simply Digest), the compendium of Roman legal code, Pomponius describes a night prefect being properly punished with summum supplicium for theft.  Elsewhere in Digest, the penalty for grave robbing is given as summum supplicium for the humilioris, a term used for all lower class persons (e.g. anyone who didn't own property).  Although there is no formal definition of the term in Roman legal code, Garnsey investigated its usage and concluded it refers to "crucifixion, burning alive, and perhaps condemnation to the beasts."1
In the play Bacchides, the main character, a slave who has stolen some gold, imagines himself in the future, carrying not the gold, but rather a cross.2 A fragment of a legal code known as lex Puteolana says that a salve owner has the right to have the state crucify a slave for any crime whatsoever, as long as the owner pays the cost of the execution.1
In Digest, the jurist Callistratus describes certain thieves being subject to crucifixion:1

The practice which has been approved by most authorities has been to fasten (or nail) notorious brigands to the cross in the place they used to haunt

There is no indication of the punishment applying only to some social groups.  In the Lex Fabia, a legal code concerning run away slaves, crucifixion is listed as a possible penalty for aiding the slave (and thus "stealing" the master's property), among the humiliores.3
Severus Alexander is said to have had a disgraced public official (so an upper class citizen) crucified after being convicted of theft:1

the kings were asked what penalty thieves suffered at their hands, and they replied "the cross," and at this reply the man was crucified.

Meaning of the Gospel accounts
We have now established that thieves could be and were crucified by the Romans.  Thus, we can turn to the Gospel narratives without risk of biasing our translation by what we know about the Romans.
Matthew 27:38 reads:

Τότε σταυροῦνται σὺν αὐτῷ δύο λῃσταί, εἷς ἐκ δεξιῶν καὶ εἷς ἐξ εὐωνύμων.
Then two robbers (λῃσταί) were crucified with him, one on the right and one on the left.

Mark 15:27 writes:

Καὶ σὺν αὐτῷ σταυροῦσιν δύο λῃστάς, ἕνα ἐκ δεξιῶν καὶ ἕνα ἐξ εὐωνύμων αὐτοῦ. (NA27)
And with him they crucified two robbers (λῃστάς), one on his right and one on his left. (ESV)

Luke 23:32 has:

Ἤγοντο δὲ καὶ ἕτεροι κακοῦργοι δύο σὺν αὐτῷ ἀναιρεθῆναι.
Two others, who were criminals (κακοῦργοι), were led away to be put to death with him.

and John 19:18 reads:

ὅπου αὐτὸν ἐσταύρωσαν, καὶ μετ' αὐτοῦ ἄλλους δύο ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐντεῦθεν, μέσον δὲ τὸν Ἰησοῦν.
There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them.

Luke's just uses the nondescript "criminals" and John is even less specific saying simply "others".  That leaves Matthew and Mark who both use a form of λῃστής.
According to A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (BDAG), λῃστής has two meanings.  The first is "robber, highwayman, bandit".  A good example of this usage is Luke 10:30:

Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers (λῃσταῖς), who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead.

Here it is clear that more than shoplifting is in mind - this is about violently taking property.  Further, John 10:1 (see also 10:8) shows that the cannot merely be a close synonym for thief:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief (κλέπτης) and a robber (λῃστής)."

If there was no distinction between κλέπτης (the ordinary word for thief) and λῃστής, Jesus' words would be silly, but they are not.  He is saying the man is both taking "property" (literally sheep, but in the context of the parable, souls) and committing an act of violence (in context, against God).
The second usage of λῃστής is "revolutionary, insurrectionist, guerrilla."   This is most likely the usage intended in John 18:40:

They cried out again, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a robber (λῃστής).

While the ESV has chosen to translate it as "robber," the context clearly suggests a very serious crime is in mind.  If Barabbas was a robber, he must have been a violent one - and John does not need to use an adjective to express that.  Mark 15:7 backs up that John means insurrectionist by λῃστής, as he describes Barabbas as a rebel who committed murder in an insurrection.
This is probably also the intended meaning in Matthew 26:55 and parallel accounts - one does not need "swords and clubs" to capture a petty thief, nor would one expect a mob to seize a bandit.  One would, however, expect a crowd to attack an unpopular revolutionary or insurrectionist.
For the latter definition, BDAG also cites numerous passages in Josephus that suggest insurrectionists/guerrilla fighters.
Given the fact that Barabbas was in custody for his part in an insurrection, it seems likely that the two λῃστής crucified with Jesus were also insurrectionists.  If not, they were at least violent robbers - the meaning of λῃστής does not allow for ordinary thieves.
Conclusion
People were crucified for all kinds of crimes under Roman law.  Social status was a far bigger factor in whether one was crucified or not than the nature of the crime.  There are plenty of Roman documents that suggest thieves could be and often were crucified.  There is thus no legal difficulty in saying the criminals executed with Jesus were thieves.
The nature of the word λῃστής, however, suggests that the men crucified with Jesus were violent.  They were either ruthless bandits/highway robbers or insurrectionists.  The context of Barabbas' release and the description of him using the same word suggests that insurrectionists is the most likely meaning.  This conclusion also fits with the fact that Jesus was said to be a revolutionary by those who sought to justify the need for execution with the Romans.
The best conclusion, then, is that Jesus was crucified alongside two rebels (so NIV)/revolutionaries (so NLT).  Or, if one wishes to keep the theft connotation, "bandits" (ISV, NRSV) is a pretty decent translation.  The more common translations of "robbers" or "thieves", in my opinion, do not properly convey the violent nature of the crime committed by the criminals.

References
1 Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World (2014) by John Granger Cook
2 Religion and Violence: An Encyclopedia of Faith and Conflict from Antiquity (2015) by Jeffrey Ian Ross
3 New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (1997) by By S. R. Llewelyn

The men were adjudicated by Roman Law.  They stole that which is most sacred.  They stole the lives of men.. they were not thieves of bread or even gold but thieves of men's lives.  Yes, they were convicted murderers.
They paid with their lives as prescribed by law.   Barnabas killed a Roman Allae or Allied Auxiliary and was also under sentence of death.  The crowds cried louder than those of Jesus.


What are the different names of God in the Bible and what do they mean? I see that our current-day Bibles only refer to God as LORD.  Can you explain to me what the different names of God are and what they mean?

Elohim
Genesis 1:1 (ESV)

1
In the beginning, God [Elohim] created the heavens and the earth.

Pslam 19:1 (ESV)

1 The heavens declare the glory of God, [Elohim]
   and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

The name "Elohim" means "God" and is a reference to God's power and might.
Adonai
Malachi  1:6 (ESV)

… And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the LORD of hosts [Adonai] to you, O priests…

Adonai means "Lord" and refers to the Lordship of God.
Jehovah/Yahweh
Genesis 2:4 (ESV)

4  These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created,in the day that the LORD God [Jehovah-Yahweh] made the earth and the heavens.

Translated as I am, I am who am, or I am who I am, and indicates God's personal, eternal, non-contingent nature. It is given to Moses by God when prompted for His name.
Jehovah-Maccaddeshem
Exodus 31:13

13"You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, 'Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, [Jehovah-Maccaddeshem] sanctify you.'"

Means "The Lord thy sanctifier"
Jehovah-Rohi
Psalm 23:1 (ESV)

1The LORD [Jehovah-Rohi] is my shepherd; I shall not want.

Jehovah-Shammah
Ezekiel 48:35 (ESV)

35The circumference of the city shall be 18,000 cubits. And the name of the city from that time on shall be, The LORD Is There. [Jehovah-Shammah]"

Means "The Lord who is present"
Jehovah-Rapha
Exodus 15:26 (ESV)

"…I will put none of the diseases on you that I put on the Egyptians, for I am the LORD, your healer. [Jehovah-Rapha]"

Means "The Lord our healer"
Jehovah-Tsidkenu
Jeremiah 23:6 (ESV)

6In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: 'The LORD is our righteousness.'

Means "The Lord our righteousness"
Jehovah-Jireh
Genesis 22:14 (ESV)

14So Abraham called the name of that place, "The LORD will provide"; as it is said to this day, "On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided."

Means "The Lord will provide"
Jehovah-Nissi
Exodus 17:15 (ESV)

15And Moses built an altar and called the name of it, The LORD Is My Banner,

Means the "The Lord is my banner"
Jehovah-Shalom
Judges 6:24 (ESV)

24Then Gideon built an altar there to the LORD [Jehovah-Shalom] and called it, The LORD Is Peace. To this day it still stands at Ophrah, which belongs to the Abiezrites.

Means "The Lord is peace"
Jehovah-Sabbaoth
Isaiah 6:1-3 (ESV)

3And one called to another and said:

       "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!"

Means the "Lord of hosts"
Jehovah-Gmolah
Jeremiah 51:6 (ESV)

6
…Be not cut off in her punishment,
              for this is the time of the LORD’s [Jehovah-Gmolah] vengeance,
               the repayment he is rendering her.

Means "The God of Recompense"
El-Elyon
Genesis 14:17-20 (ESV)

19And he blessed him and said,

       "Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
       Possessor[a] of heaven and earth;
20and blessed be God Most High,
      who has delivered your enemies into your hand!"

Isaiah 14:14 (ESV)

14I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
    I will make myself like the Most High.'

Means "The most high God"
El-Roi
Genesis 16:13 (ESV)

13 So she called the name of the LORD [El-Roi] who spoke to her, "You are a God of seeing," for she said, "Truly here I have seen him who looks after me."

Means "The strong one who sees"
El-Shaddai
Genesis 17:1 (ESV)

1
When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty [El Shaddai]; walk before me, and be blameless,

Psalm 91:1

1 He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High [El-Shaddai]
   will abide in the shadow of the Almighty.

Means "The God of the mountains" or "God Almighty"
El-Olam
Isaiah 40:31 (ESV)

31but they who wait for the LORD shall renew their strength;
     they shall mount up with wings like eagles;
they shall run and not be weary;
     they shall walk and not faint.

Means "The everlasting God"
I am not sure if this is what you are looking for, but here are some other names of God:
•   ABBA.............................Romans 8:15
•   ADVOCATE.........................I John 2:1 (kjv)
•   ALMIGHTY.........................Genesis 17:1
•   ALPHA............................Revelation 22:13
•   AMEN.............................Revelation 3:14
•   ANCIENT OF DAYS..................Daniel 7:9
•   ANOINTED ONE.....................Psalm 2:2
•   APOSTLE..........................Hebrews 3:1
•   ARM OF THE LORD..................Isaiah 53:1
•   AUTHOR OF LIFE...................Acts 3:15
•   AUTHOR OF OUR FAITH..............Hebrews 12:2

•   BEGINNING.........................Revelation 21:6
•   BLESSED & HOLY RULER..............1 Timothy 6:15
•   BRANCH............................Jeremiah 33:15
•   BREAD OF GOD......................John 6:33
•   BREAD OF LIFE.....................John 6:35
•   BRIDEGROOM........................Isaiah 62:56
•   BRIGHT MORNING STAR...............Revelation 22:16

•   CHIEF SHEPHERD.....................1 Peter 5:4
•   CHOSEN ONE.........................Isaiah 42:1
•   CHRIST.............................Matthew 22:42
•   CHRIST OF GOD......................Luke 9:20
•   CHRIST THE LORD....................Luke 2:11
•   CHRIST, SON OF LIVING GOD..........Matthew 16:16
•   COMFORTER..........................John 14:26(kjv)
•   COMMANDER..........................Isaiah 55:4
•   CONSOLATION OF ISRAEL...............Luke 2:25
•   CONSUMING FIRE......................Deut. 4:24, Heb. 12:29
•   CORNERSTONE.........................Isaiah 28:16
•   COUNSELOR...........................Isaiah 9:6
•   CREATOR.............................1 Peter 4:19

•   DELIVERER..............................Romans 11:26
•   DESIRED OF ALL NATIONS.................Haggai 2:7
•   DOOR...................................John 10:7(kjv)

•   END....................................Revelation 21:6
•   ETERNAL GOD............................Deut. 33:27
•   EVERLASTING FATHER.....................Isaiah 9:6

•   FAITHFUL & TRUE........................Revelation 19:11
•   FAITHFUL WITNESS.......................Revelation 1:5
•   FATHER.................................Matthew 6:9
•   FIRSTBORN (3)........................................Rom.8:29,Rev.1:5,Col.1:15
•   FIRSTFRUITS............................1 Cor.15:20-23
•   FOUNDATION.............................1 Cor. 3:11
•   FRIEND OF TAX COLLECTORS & SINNERS.....Matthew 11:19

•   GENTLE WHISPER.........................1 Kings 19:12
•   GIFT OF GOD............................John 4:10
•   GLORY OF THE LORD......................Isaiah 40:5
•   GOD....................................Genesis 1:1
•   GOD ALMIGHTY...........................Genesis 17:1
•   GOD OVER ALL...........................Romans 9:5
•   GOD WHO SEES ME........................Genesis 16:13
•   GOOD SHEPHERD..........................John 10:11
•   GREAT HIGH PRIEST......................Hebrews 4:14
•   GREAT SHEPHERD.........................Hebrews 13:20
•   GUIDE..................................Psalm 48:14

•   HEAD OF THE BODY.......................Colossians 1:18
•   HEAD OF THE CHURCH.....................Ephesians 5:23
•   HEIR OF ALL THINGS.....................Hebrews 1:2
•   HIGH PRIEST............................Hebrews 3:1
•   HIGH PRIEST FOREVER....................Hebrews 6:20
•   HOLY ONE...............................Acts 2:27
•   HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL.....................Isaiah 49:7
•   HOLY SPIRIT............................John 15:26
•   HOPE...................................Titus 2:13
•   HORN OF SALVATION......................Luke 1:69

•   I AM....................................Exodus 3:14, John 8:58
•   IMAGE OF GOD............................2 Cor. 4:4
•   IMAGE OF HIS PERSON.....................Hebrews 1:3 (kjv)
•   IMMANUEL................................Isaiah 7:14

•   JEALOUS..............................Exodus 34:14 (kjv)
•   JEHOVAH..............................Psalm 83:18 (kjv)
•   JESUS................................Matthew 1:21
•   JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD................Romans 6:23
•   JUDGE................................Isaiah 33:22, Acts 10:42

•   KING.................................Zechariah 9:9
•   KING ETERNAL.........................1 Timothy 1:17
•   KING OF KINGS........................1 Timothy 6:15
•   KING OF THE AGES.....................Revelation 15:3

•   LAMB OF GOD...........................John 1:29
•   LAST ADAM.............................1 Cor. 15:45
•   LAWGIVER..............................Isaiah 33:22
•   LEADER................................Isaiah 55:4
•   LIFE..................................John 14:6
•   LIGHT OF THE WORLD....................John 8:12
•   LIKE AN EAGLE.........................Deut. 32:11
•   LILY OF THE VALLEYS...................Song 2:1
•   LION OF THE TRIBE OF JUDAH............Revelation 5:5
•   LIVING STONE..........................1 Peter 2:4
•   LIVING WATER..........................John 4:10
•   LORD..................................John 13:13
•   LORD GOD ALMIGHTY.....................Revelation 15:3
•   LORD JESUS CHRIST.....................1 Cor. 15:57
•   LORD OF ALL...........................Acts 10:36
•   LORD OF GLORY ........................1 Cor. 2:8
•   LORD OF HOSTS.........................Haggai 1:5
•   LORD OF LORDS.........................1 Tim. 6:15
•   LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS..............Jeremiah 23:6
•   LOVE.................................1 John 4:8

•   MAN OF SORROWS.........................Isaiah 53:3
•   MASTER..................................Luke 5:5
•   MEDIATOR................................1 Timothy 2:5
•   MERCIFUL GOD............................Jeremiah 3:12
•   MESSENGER OF THE COVENANT................Malachi 3:1
•   MESSIAH................................. John 4:25
•   MIGHTY GOD...............................Isaiah 9:6
•   MIGHTY ONE...............................Isaiah 60:16

•   NAZARENE.................................Matthew 2:23

•   OFFSPRING OF DAVID.......................Revelation 22:16
•   OMEGA....................................Revelation 22:13
•   ONLY BEGOTTEN SON........................John 1:18(kjv)
•   OUR PASSOVER LAMB........................1 Cor. 5:7
•   OUR PEACE................................Ephesians 2:14

•   POTTER...................................Isaiah 64:8
•   POWER OF GOD.............................1 Cor. 1:24
•   PRINCE OF PEACE..........................Isaiah 9:6
•   PROPHET..................................Acts 3:22
•   PURIFIER.................................Malachi 3:3

•   RABBONI (TEACHER)........................John 20:16
•   RADIANCE OF GOD'S GLORY..................Heb.1:3
•   REDEEMER.................................Job 19:25
•   REFINER'S FIRE...........................Malachi 3:2
•   RESURRECTION.............................John 11:25
•   RIGHTEOUS ONE............................1 John 2:1
•   ROCK.....................................1 Cor.10:4
•   ROOT OF DAVID............................Rev. 22:16
•   ROSE OF SHARON...........................Song 2:1
•   RULER OF GOD'S CREATION..................Rev. 3:14
•   RULER OVER KINGS OF EARTH................Rev 1:5
•   RULER OVER ISRAEL........................Micah 5:2

•   SAVIOR...................................Luke 2:11
•   SCEPTER OUT OF ISRAEL....................Numbers 24:17
•   SEED.....................................Genesis 3:15
•   SERVANT..................................Isaiah 42:1
•   SHEPHERD OF OUR SOULS....................1Peter 2:25
•   SHIELD...................................Genesis 15:1
•   SON OF DAVID.............................Matthew 1:1
•   SON OF GOD...............................Matthew 27:54
•   SON OF MAN...............................Matthew 8:20
•   SON OF THE MOST HIGH.....................Luke 1:32
•   SOURCE...................................Hebrews 5:9
•   SPIRIT OF GOD............................Genesis 1:2
•   STAR OUT OF JACOB........................Numbers 24:17
•   STONE....................................1 Peter 2:8
•   SUN OF RIGHTEOUSNESS.....................Malachi 4:2

•   TEACHER...................................John 13:13
•   TRUE LIGHT................................John 1:9
•   TRUE WITNESS..............................Revelation 3:14
•   TRUTH.....................................John 14:6

•   VINE......................................John 15:5

•   WAY........................................John 14:6
•   WISDOM OF GOD..............................1 Cor. 1:24
•   WITNESS....................................Isaiah 55:4
•   WONDERFUL..................................Isaiah 9:6
•   WORD.......................................John 1:1
•   WORD OF GOD................................Revelation 19:13

the question was "what are the different names of god in the bible and what do they mean?" However, IN TH BIBLE there is only ONE name for god! best identified from the tetragrammaton "YHWH" Yahweh which means "hayah asher hayah" translated "I AM THAT I AM" in Exodus 3:14. To which many bible scholars and teachers admit. This name speaks to the awesomeness of the creator's power to be self existent. Nowhere in the bible refers to the NAMES of God only NAME (singular). It has been a very common error for persons to use the creator's "TITLES" for names. Man-given titles such as god, lord, Lord God are common in the bible and the man-given name Jehovah. As someone previously posted, there is no J in the Hebrew alphabet. The name was first given in Hebrew. The letter J was not a part of the english alphabet until around the middle to late 1800s. So what was the creator's name before that time?...could not have been Jehovah.


Is Jesus speaking in Isaiah 40-48? In Isaiah chapters 40-48 there are several different titles for God, for example Creator, Redeemer, Savior, The First and the Last, King of Israel. After considering these titles I came to the conclusion that God in these chapters was referring to Jesus Christ and not God the Father because they all match titles given to Christ and never specify the father. What evidences are there of Jehovah being Jesus Christ in these verses, and what evidences are there against it? Answers from believers in the trinity, or not are both welcome.

The answer to your question is a qualified yes. If we are to accept that all Scripture is inspired by God, then we can logically deduce that Jesus gave these predictions to Isaiah to write. Whether or not those exact words are the utterances of a pre-incarnate Jesus or not is not worth arguing in that they are so accurate that whether they came from Isaiah or from Jesus they are predictive of him.

Isaiah gave the most and the most accurate predictions of Christ of all the Prophets, however; much of his writings were to bolster the spirits of those exiles to Babylon, and even those prophesies concerning Christ were given to show that God would not abandon his people.

This excerpt is from the commentary known as the ‘Treasury of Scriptural knowledge.’

  Isaiah has, with singular propriety, been denominated the Evangelical Prophet, on account of the number and variety of his prophecies concerning the advent and character, the ministry and preaching, the sufferings and death, and the extensive and permanent kingdom of the Messiah.  So explicit and determinate are his predictions, as well as so numerous, that he seems to speak rather of things past than of events yet future; and he may be rather called an evangelist than a prophet.

In addition the following will help in understanding Isaiah’s prophesies when compared to the Gospel accounts and come from the same source:

(Compare Isa_7:14 with Mat_1:18-23, and Luk_1:27-35; see Isa_6:1-13; Isa_9:6; Isa_35:4; Isa_40:5, Isa_40:9, Isa_40:19; Isa_42:6-8; compare Isa_61:1, with Luk_4:18; see Isa_62:11; Isa_63:1-4); his miracles (Isa_35:5, Isa_35:6); his peculiar character and virtues (Isa_11:2, Isa_11:3; Isa_40:11; Isa_43:1-3); his rejection (Compare Isa_6:9-12 with Mar_13:14; see Isa_7:14, Isa_7:15; Isa_53:3); his sufferings for our sins (Isa_50:6; Isa_53:4-11); his death and burial (Isa_53:8, Isa_53:9); his victory over death (Isa_25:8; Isa_53:10, Isa_53:12); his final glory (Isa_49:7, Isa_49:22, 33; Isa_52:13-15; Isa_53:4, Isa_53:5); and the establishment, increase, and perfection of his kingdom (Isa_2:2-4; Isa_9:2, Isa_9:7; Isa_11:4-10; Isa_16:5; Isa_29:18-24; Isa_32:1; Isa_40:4, Isa_40:5; Isa_42:4; Isa_46:13; Isa_49:9-13; Isa_51:3-6; Isa_53:6-10; Isa_55:1-3; Isa_59:16-21; 60; Isa_61:1-5; Isa_65:25); each specifically pointed out, and pourtrayed with the most striking and discriminating characters.  It is impossible, indeed, to reflect on these, and on the whole chain of his illustrious prophecies, and not be sensible that they furnish the most incontestable evidence in support of Christianity.

I have highlighted those verses which are contained in your question, but It is well worth taking the time to study Isaiah in relation to the Gospels.

Gnostic Light

To correctly answer this question the titles need sorted into the two logical descriptors of God. Does the title apply to that of Existence (The Father) or does the title apply to that of Understanding (The Son of Existence). Though as a quick answer, because all understanding does exist. All that is understood comes from Existence. Since Jesus is the Father as well. Jesus indeed is speaking in Isaiah 40-48, in fact no speech occurs that is not of God the Father (otherwise it does not exist: Simple Right!).

For titles that apply to that of Existence (The Father)
Since the Laws of Existence are the Laws of Physics, titles that portray the absolute perfection of the Laws of Opposite Equal Reaction. Can be attributed to that of the Father. Also titles that focus on God's "Oneness".

For titles that apply to Understanding (The Producer of Love)
Titles that portray Communication, and Love. Can be attributed to that of the Son.

Titles for the Father

Existence: (Defined as LORD because everyone must follow the physical laws of Motion) (Isaiah 40:2)
The Breath of Existence (Otherwise known as the Holy Spirit) (Isaiah 40:13)
The Holy One (With references to the One this speaks of the All of Existence) (Isaiah 40:25)
I am Existence the First and the Last (Isaiah 41:4)
The everlasting God, the Lord, The Creator of the ends of the earth (Isaiah 40:28)
the Holy One of Israel (Isaiah 41:14)
the Hand of Existence (This could be an arguable choice considering Jesus being the body ^^, yet he is all the same God right! Anyways..) (Isaiah 41:20)
King of Jacob (Selected since the Lord at this time was the Opposite and Equal Reactions, as explained through Moses) (Isaiah 41:21)
The Creator of Israel, your King (Isaiah 43:15)
Lord of hosts (Isaiah 44:6)
the Rock (Isaiah 44:8)
He who formed you from the womb (Isaiah 44:24)
the God of Israel (Isaiah 45:3)
Elohim: (Defined as God, however I find this word to mean objects, an object is part of Existence, this is why it is plural, meaning objects) (Isaiah 40:1)

Titles for the Son

Comfort: Although not used as a title for the text it is a title. (Isaiah 40:1)
The Breath of Existence (Otherwise known as the Holy Spirit) (Isaiah 40:2)
Redeemer (For the answer to the problems of the knowledge of error, is faith in understanding) (Isaiah 41:14)
My Elect One (Isaiah 42:1)
your Savior (Isaiah 43:3)


What happens if the Pope is automatically excommunicated? Some actions incur automatic excommunication.  While it is debated whether a Pope can lose the office via heresy, what happens if a pope commits a sin other than heresy, such as abortion or violating the seal of confession, which carries an equal penalty?  Is the Pope subject to the automatic excommunication?  If so, would the election of a new Pope be called for?  What would then happen (in terms of the Papacy) if the excommunicated Pope repented and rejoined the church?

As the article here states (linked in the comments), the short answer is that the current legislation of the Church (i.e. the Canon Law) does not foresee such situation to occur. Perhaps it does not do so because under its own beliefs, God will never allow that to happen.

On the one hand, some excommunications (ferendae sententiae) are not automatic. They require a legal procedure in the form of a judicial investigation. One thing this investigation aims to find out is if all the conditions for an excommunication were met, e.g. that the person knew about the penalties of the sinful action to be conducted. These investigations are carried out by a judge, which is designated by the bishop. Canon Law states:

  Can.  1419 §1. In each diocese and for all cases not expressly excepted by law, the judge of first instance is the diocesan bishop, who can exercise judicial power personally or through others according to the following canons.

The bishop has himself the right to be the judge, and to reserve some cases to himself:

  Can.  1419 §2. The judicial vicar constitutes one tribunal with the bishop but cannot judge cases which the bishop reserves to himself.

Thus, ultimately it is the Pope, as Bishop of Rome, who can decide if he is to judge himself or not, as the matter cannot be delegated to a superior.

Now, recall that the purpose of excommunication is to make the person reconsider his/her error, and reconcile with God/Church. Thus, these types of excommunications could be quickly irrelevant if the Pope were to repent. All he need to do is to design himself as the judge for his case, and take notice that he repented, following the ordinary legal procedures (upon which he has full authority). Yet, if he were not to repent, it could well be the case that the Pope could block an excommunication process against him, or appoint himself as judge and dictate in favour of himself (e.g. that he was not aware of the penalties), and thus, there would be no excommunication. In other words, even if he committed a sin such a s to deserve excommunication, he might not excommunicate himself. Therefore, nothing will happen.

On the other hand, if the excommunication were to be automatic (latae sententiae), then, as point 1.3 of Canon 1331 states, an excommunicated person is forbidden:

  to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance.

This is the real conundrum. The See of Rome is de facto without a Bishop. More importantly, as explained in this answer, most of dioceses have an adjunct bishop, which takes office if the principal bishop leaves the place (e.g. if he dies). However, precisely because the See of Rome is the primus inter pares, and the see of the Pope, this one does not have an adjunct bishop! In other words, the See of Rome would be sede vacante! This means a new process for electing a pope must take place.

However, recall again that the excommunicated Pope (so no longer the Pope) can repent, and ask to the corresponding authorities (in order to make the process valid under the Canon Law) for reintroduction into the Church. Only if he is not willing to repent then the election process would go ahead. It would not be the first time in history where one "invalid Pope" claims to be the real Pope. Now, if a new Pope is elected and then the old one decides to ask for repentance, then that would be the ultimate bug in the software. Surely God will spare the Church from that ever occurring!

I will answer the imaginary question on two ways, one is biblical and the other is by citing the church critics and enemies.

It's not a commonly accepted that a Pope can lose the office via heresy for the prime reason that those who accuse the Pope of heresy must be a member of the Church (Clergy and faithfuls). But the most that they can do is seek clarification following the evangelical guidelines of Donum Veritatis.

The problem of the accuser in the Church right now is the one who accuse Pope Francis for example is they are bound by Canon 751 which manifested in their opposition and unsubmission to Papacy.
Therefore they are the one who incurs automatic excommunication first. And ceases to be a Church member anymore and had no right in participating in the life of the Church.

Canon 751

  Definitions

  The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines these three sins against the faith in this way:

  2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.

  "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

  apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;

  schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." [Code of Canon Law c.751]

Church Crisis of confusion today regarding Pope Francis can be traced to church critics and enemies. As Pope Francis simply said "we know them". Pope Francis warn us of "fake news & gossiping"  the deceptive tool that most of the accuser of Papal heresies uses in this times. This group of accuser are schismatics as Stephen Walford even said kinda "satanic in nature" and therefore by their actions they cease to be a member of Church anymore and by Canon law are guilty of schism incurs automatic excommunication.

  “The abuse from many, including those who run websites and Traditionalist blogs aimed at the Holy Father and those who are loyal to him, is nothing short of satanic. You are their role models and that is an intolerable situation. In reality, there is no confusion but only outright rejection and defiance towards the legitimate Pope and his magisterial teachings.”

https://wherepeteris.com/interview-with-catholic-author-stephen-walford-part-1/

  Excommunication

  When it comes to Catholics who are formally guilty of heresy, apostasy or schism, the Church applies the penalty of excommunication. The 1983 Code of Canon Law, repeating the sanctions of the earlier 1917 Code, states,c. 1364

  With due regard for can. 194, part 1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication and if a cleric, he can also be punished by the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, part 1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
  If long lasting contumacy or the seriousness of scandal warrants it, other penalties can be added including dismissal from the clerical state.
  This canon is saying that once a person willingly repudiates Christ, embraces a heresy, knowing it to be contrary to divine and Catholic faith, or refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff (or communion with the members of the Church subject to him), by virtue of the law itself they are automatically excommunicated. No ecclesiastical act is necessary and  no public notice.

www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm

To answer biblically, I will cite the faith condition of Peter prior to Jesus appointing him as Pontiff and prior to receiving the anointing of gifts of the Holy Spirit at the Upper Room.

Peter like the rest of Apostles and Disciples are subject to satan attacks and can be subject to satan cunning deception and evil inspirations as seen in Matthew16:23

  "But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

We can see Peter thoughts was inspired by satan himself.

Jesus knowing the vulnerabilty of Apostles to satan deception and attacks. a
After appointing Peter, by giving him the Key to the Kingdom had promised two powerful protection.

One directly to Peter (Luke 22:32) and the other to the Church (Matthew16;18)

  "But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you
  have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”(Luke22:32)

  "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."(Matthew16:18)

Also, we can see in Acts Chapter 5, Peter was indwelt by the Holy Spirit, a lie spoken to Peter is a lie spoken directly to the Holy Spirit.

  Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and withhold some of the proceeds from the land? (Acts5:3)

So biblically speaking Peter was protected by Jesus powerful promised of protection in Luke22:32 and as Vicar of Christ the Papacy is indwelt and guided by the Holy Spirit in Acts5:3.

Not only that, Traditions upheld that a Pope cannot teach errors in matters of "faith & morals"

In a letter addressed to Dubia Cardinals by Stephen Walford, he enumerates the solid foundation that a Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit in teaching the flock.

  Your Eminences, I would like to draw your attention to the teachings found in several magisterial documents of great importance.

  In Donum Veritatis (no 17) we read: “It is also to be borne in mind that all acts of the Magisterium derive from the same source, that is, from Christ who desires that His People walk in the entire truth. For this same reason, magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful.”
  Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum stated: “This metaphorical expression of binding and loosing indicates the power of making laws, of judging and of punishing; and the power is said to be of such amplitude and force that God will ratify whatever is decreed by it. Thus it is supreme and absolutely independent, so that, having no other power on earth as its superior, it embraces the whole Church and all things committed to the Church.”
  I would humbly suggest that we cannot come to any other conclusion than Pope Francis– as the beneficiary of the Holy Spirit’s charism of assistance even in his ordinary magisterium— (as taught by St. John Paul II) has legitimately made possible the reception of Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried in certain carefully considered cases where grace is working in their souls, and a sincere desire to strive for holiness is present. If we cannot accept this premise, then we are not accepting the teachings of previous popes. If Tradition teaches us one thing, there is a hermeneutic of continuity in understanding the spiritual authority of the papacy in matters of faith and morals, and as the First Vatican Council pointed out: “Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error.” Pope Innocent III stated: “The Lord clearly intimates that Peter’s successors will never at any time deviate from the Catholic faith, but will instead recall the others and strengthen the hesitant” (Apostolicae Sedis Primatus), while Pope Benedict XVI taught: “the Petrine ministry is a guarantee of freedom in the sense of full adherence to the truth, to the authentic tradition, so that the People of God may be preserved from errors concerning faith and morals”(Homily for the Feast of St. Peter and Paul, 2010)

http://www.lastampa.it/2017/06/27/vaticaninsider/open-letter-to-the-four-dubia-cardinals-nIsyPMFIjp2M5wjLZ1CHJO/pagina.html

Lastly, to entertain your imaginary acts that a Pope can commits "what happens if a pope commits a sin other than heresy, such as abortion or violating the seal of confession, which carries an equal penalty?Is the Pope subject to the automatic excommunication? If so, would the election of a new Pope be called for?

Personally viewing the scenario if Pope Francis commits the imaginary acts you've presented.(it's hypothetical but for the sake of entertaining your question based on "what if".)

One scenario is, the Clergy and Church faithful loyal to Pope Francis would first seek clarification guided by Donum Veritatis and will show first and foremost love, mercy and compassion and follow Jesus words on Matthew7:1 "Do not judge". Also, this would mean Jesus failed on His powerful promised of protection to His Church and Vicar of Christ would reflect deeply first thru prayers and silence.

Second scenario, the church critics and enemies would push for Pope ouster and schismatics would spearheaded the call for election.
Since the Pope election will be initiated by schismatics, church critics and enemies the elected Pope is surely an Apostate Pope by virtue of the people characters behind the ouster.

(Note: this is also a hypothetical answer based on your imaginary question)

In conclusion, since the question is an imaginary acts the Biblical promised of Jesus prevails. Luke 22:32 and Matthew16:18 must be embraced and upheld.**

  "The gates of hell shall not prevails against it!"(Matthew16:18)

The question if a Pope can be automatically excommunicated, therefore in the heart of the Church Doctrine does not exists as no one can judge the action of the Pope, and the Pope is directly answerable to God.

The Donum Veritatis serves to protect the Church and Pope from evil attack by adhering to Evangelical Guidelines in the spirit of charity & humility.

We should be guided by Motter Vugel revelation;"Mutter Vogel's Worldwide Love,St.Grignion Publishing House,Altotig,south Germany(29,6.1929)

  "NEVER ATTACK A PRIEST" (Pieta Prayer booklet;page 68) much more a Vicar of Christ.