What is the argument AGAINST the position that only Paul's writings are applicable to the church today?

This was actually the Marcionite position - namely that the Gospel of "grace" as revealed by Paul, superceded everything else.
Marcion's Canon consisted of 10 books - 9 of which were Pauline Epistles and the remaining of which was the Euangelion, a "Gospel" of sorts that rejected the bodily incarnation of Christ and understood the Hebrew Bible to be the result of the demiurge - an evil counterpart to the God who was strictly one of grace.  Indeed, Marcion is often considered one of the first heretics - precisely for believing that only Paul's words were inspired.  (On the bright side, it was his canon that eventually led the church to form a consensus on what the full canon was.)
That early Gnostic tendencies are being rediscovered by moderns who have innovative views of Scripture is not overly remarkable.
The answer, of course, is that Paul himself rejected the later Marcionite position. His warnings against false teachers who taught things other than what Jesus and the Dsiciples did.  He writes in 2 Thessalonians:

But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as first fruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. 14 He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[c] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Paul's message shows God's grace, but reminds us as well that God's justice is also a part of his nature.  Indeed, the role of the law is not to be discounted. He writes in Galatians 3:24

So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.

That isn't a rejection of the law at all.  Grace may be greater than Law, but law is still there!


What is the LDS definition of "Divinity"

Perhaps the greatest difference between mainstream Christianity and LDS theology lies in this point:

  The mainline definition of "divinity" includes "Within Christianity it
  belongs to God alone". Since the "mainstream" understanding of who
  Christ is is that Jesus is God, not a physical/spiritual son of God,
  this bears on the doctrine of the Trinity.

As Latter-Day Saints do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity, of course this understanding of divinity is meaningless within LDS theology.

The Nicene Creed teaches that the Son is "begotten, not made" and is "of one substance with the Father."  This is a somewhat odd choice of words if its intent is to convey an understanding of the nature of God, as something that is begotten--the word refers to the act of having a child--has its own physically separate "substance" (body) from that of its parent(s).

By contrast, Mormonism strives for clarity in this area.  One revelation teaches that:

  The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son
  also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a
  personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in
  us.

  - Doctrine and Covenants 130: 22

As the FAIR article linked to in the question notes, Jesus is held to be a spirit son of God, just as all mankind is.  And this is important to understanding the LDS concept of divine nature.  All living beings reproduce and multiply after their own kind.  A giraffe has little giraffes, a cat produces more cats, a tree's seeds grow into the same type of tree, and so on.  But the highest of living beings is mankind, who was explicitly made in God's image and likeness, and our spirits are directly his children.  By the same principle, we carry his divine nature in an immature state, like any child that has yet to grow up.

The divine nature of Jesus is described in Doctrine and Covenants, section 93:

  21 And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the
  Father, and am the Firstborn;

  22 And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the
  glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstborn.

  23 Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is
  Spirit, even the Spirit of truth;

  24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were,
  and as they are to come;

  25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that
  wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

  26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John
  bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even
  of all truth;

  27 And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments.

  28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until
  he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.

  29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light
  of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

We read here that:

Jesus was with the Father in the beginning. Mankind was also, but the distinction is made that Christ was the Firstborn.
Unlike the rest of mankind, Jesus "received a fulness of truth," which can only be received by obedience to the commandments of God.
It is only by being "begotten through me"--what Elder M. Russel Ballard, quoted in the FAIR article, calls being "born again as His sons and daughters in the gospel covenant"--that mankind can partake of his glory.

Here we see the essential difference that makes Jesus more than simply "a son of God," but rather "the Son of God."  He had received a fulness of truth from the beginning.  He is truly divine in every sense of the word, and has been from the beginning.  "By him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God." (Doctrine and Covenants 76:24)

In summary, the question asks:

  The LDS position is that Jesus is a separate being from God, but is
  still divine.

  Clearly this means that the LDS Church must have a different
  understanding of the term "divinity". Divinity must not be applicable
  to "God alone" if Jesus is not God, and Jesus is divine.

To which the Latter-Day Saint would respond that Jesus is a separate being from the Father, but this should not be understood to mean that "Jesus is not God" in any sense, but rather that the Father and the Son (and the Holy Ghost) are separate, distinct beings, who are one in purpose, in knowledge and understanding and will, but not in substance, and work in harmony as God.

However, having clarified that, divinity is still not seen as being applicable to God alone, because it also applies to his children (us), in an immature or embryonic form.  However, that is the subject for another question, as going into it in any depth could make this answer much longer than it already is and take it well off-topic.  It's important to note, though, that Latter-Day Saints hold this to be the very highest part of God's plan:

  For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the
  immortality and eternal life of man.
  - Moses 1:39

Eternal Life is spoken of as here something distinct from immortality (being resurrected to a deathless and physically perfect state); it is defined elsewhere as a quality of life that is like the life of God, who is Eternal, and helping us to achieve this is God's "work and glory."


Why did the temple in Ezekiel have stairs leading up to the altar?

The altar was quite large. Here are some illustrations of Solomon's temple that take biblical and historic record into account:

Image sources:

https://dwellingintheword.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/templebronzealtar.jpg
http://www.katehetski-nadbiskupija-split.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/salomonov-hram.jpg
http://www.crystalinks.com/solomon_temple.jpg
http://www.templemount.org/templesolomon.jpg


Would the Christians Luke was writing for know who Phanuel was?

I don't think you'll get a definitive answer on this one.  There's no other reference in Scripture, so there's nothing to cross-reference.

My hunch is that some people would and some wouldn't, the same way some people in my Church would know who Ray Comfort is, and some wouldn't.

It might simply be the habit of recording familial lines to avoid confusion with another Anna - this was Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, as opposed to another Anna.

I think that we have to assume that at least some (if not all) of the intended audience either was familiar with this person, or would be able to use the familial reference to determine the identity of this person.

Identification of a person as the "son of" or "daughter of" another person is a relatively common method of distinguishing individuals, not just in Biblical times, or even just in the Middle East.  I've heard references like this from Scotland, England, and various other places, both in historical works and in literature.  (I've even heard it in science fiction  i.e. Worf son of Mogh.)

I believe that this was merely a common expression that most of the intended audience wouldn't think twice about.


New Testament terms for the people of God

Interesting question. From what I can tell 'brother' if the most common term, followed by saints and believers, far behind in second place. Christian is what outsiders called the believer so it is last.

Here are the hits based on the greek words;

Χριστιανός Christiania; Christian 3

πιστός pistos -believers,faithful 53

ἅγιος hagios - saints 61

ἀδελφός adelphos -brethren 226
(brother 113)

My take on these is we are to feel bound to one another as a close knit family. However we need not become legalistic about it, for in our Culture I think we have revised the meaning of Christian to hold that same proud bond we share with each other.

Right brothers and sisters?


In Korean Protestantism, what is the position of Kwonsa?

From Buddhist and Protestant Korean Immigrants: Religious Beliefs and Socioeconomic Aspects of Life by Okyun Kwon (LFP Scholarly Publishing LLC, New York 2003):

  Congregational Structure & Female Leadership Positions

  ... An elder takes care of one or two parishes, but he situates
  himself as a nominal lay leader in the parishes he takes charge of by
  exercising a minimal authority in the parish's religious activities.
  The head pastor appoints usually a female deacon to each parish as a
  practical leader who actually takes charge of the parish's religious
  activity.  The appointed practical leader is named as ku-yok-jang in
  Korean, which means a district leader.  This lay leadership position
  has been recently invented by the Pentecostal-line Korean churches.
  The role of the practical parish leader has been recognized by church
  officials in expansion of Christianity in Korea.  Recognizing the
  importance of the role of the practical parish leaders, who are mostly
  female, in recruiting new members, many Korean churches put an
  increasing emphasis on the position.

  Between male elders and female practical parish leaders, another
  female lay leadership position is situated.  This lay leadership
  position is called kwon-sa in Korean, the highest lay position given
  to female members in the majority of Korean Protestant churches.  The
  kwon-sa is expected to mediate, support, and encourage parish members to participate in religious activities at both the parish and
  congregational levels, but like the male elder position in many cases
  it is nominally given to the devout female elderly members.  They are
  expected to be female spiritual leaders in the congregation.  In these
  three layers of parish leadership hierarchy, another intermediate
  level female lay leader, called a kwon-chal, is situated.  The
  kwon-chal, which literally means both supervision and encouragement, has become the second-highest lay leadership position given to female
  members.  as the name of the position implies, the kwon-chal's major
  role is to encourage and support the parish members' religious
  activity participation.

  All these women's lay leadership positions have first been created by
  Korean Pentecostal churches not only to give special recognition to
  women's roles in church formation, but also to provide a leeway for
  women's lay leadership positions in churches as against the already
  existing male-centered church hierarchy.  Soon after these Pentecostal
  churches achieved a high level of success in church growth by
  developing women's leadership roles, many conservative mainline
  churches began to confer female members the same leadership positions
  for the same reason. ...


What are the origins and history of shaking, trembling, jerking, contorting, collapsing, fainting and similar manifestations in Christianity?

The Bible informs us of the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in Jerusalem, at Pentecost, after Jesus’ death, resurrection and return to heaven.  However, there is no mention of the recipients shaking, trembling, jerking, contorting, collapsing, fainting or falling about.  This supernatural event is described in Acts chapter 2 when the Holy Spirit was “poured out” on Jews and proselytes:

The Coming of the Holy Spirit: 1 When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and hit filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues las the Spirit gave them utterance.

5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And mat this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” 12 And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13 But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.”

Peter’s Sermon at Pentecost: 14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. 15 For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day.2 16 But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: (Quotes Joel 2:28-32)

The second occasion was to a group of believing Samaritans (Acts 8) where the gospel was preached and evil spirits were cast out.  The Holy Spirit was given to believers at the laying on of the apostles’ hands.  The third was to a group of believing Gentiles (Acts 10) who had listened to Peter preaching and who heard them speaking in tongues.  Not speaking unintelligible “mumbo-jumbo” but speaking in understandable languages. These events took place circa 33 A.D.
Before we go any further, it is essential that we define who and what Christians mean by the Holy Spirit.  I speak as a Trinitarian Protestant.  The Holy Spirit is the eternal, uncreated and co-equal part of the One Being of God.  His purpose is to bring praise, honour and glory to God.  His being is entirely in harmony with the Father and the Son.  Everything He does, from convicting people of sin and drawing them to God, is entirely good, holy and part of the divine plan of salvation.  This article explains more about what the Holy Spirit does:  https://www.gotquestions.org/names-Holy-Spirit.html  I have no intention of going into the theological aspects of this third person of the Trinity, but you might find it helpful to read this article:  https://www.gotquestions.org/who-Holy-Spirit.html
I wouldn’t know where to start looking for reliable documentation on the activity of the Holy Spirit after the end of the first century, but I do have access to information concerning the Protestant Reformation which dates back to the early 1400’s with men like John Wycliffe and Jan Hus.  Martin Luther is usually credited with starting the movement when he posted his Ninety-five Theses on the door of the Wittenberg Church on October 31, 1517.  Nothing I’ve read about the lives of these men suggests they were invoking the Holy Spirit to cause people to shake, tremble, jerk, contort, collapse, faint or fall about.  Likewise with Protestants such as John Bunyan (who wrote Pilgrim’s Progress) and Charles Spurgeon (a famous Baptist preacher); then we have John and Charles Wesley who introduced Methodism – they were all very sober, upright and disciplined men of God.  Yes, they believed in the power of God as experienced through the Holy Spirit, and they advocated holy living. But I have never read any accounts of meetings they conducted that fit in with what you describe.
Accounts of Christians attending meetings where they were overpowered by some spirit force that resulted in them shaking, trembling, jerking, contorting, collapsing, fainting or falling about came later, towards the end of the 19th century with the event of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Movement.
First came revival in Topeka, Kansas (January 1900), followed by the Azusa Street (Los Angeles) revival meetings in 1906 (Methodist sponsored).  Then, in 1907 came the Latter Rain Movement (Pentecostalism) resulting in the Brownsville/Pensocola revival. This was followed by the Vineyard Movement (1982) and the Toronto Blessing (1994) where expressions such as “slain in the spirit” and “holy laughter” were used to describe what went on.
If here are no records of these strange manifestations during the first 17 centuries of Christianity and they suddenly began to take place from the 18th century onward, then the most obvious and simple explanation must be that this is a relatively new phenomenon.
Bearing in mind the power, authority and purpose of the Holy Spirit, I can only conclude that any manifestations that detract from the holiness of God or that fail to point people to Christ Jesus can not be attributed to Him.  I do not say this to upset or challenge Pentecostals or persons who have experienced such things.  I do not know what the origin of these strange manifestations are, only that the blueprint Christians should adhere to is that given from the Bible.


External reference of Jesus's resurrection?

According to The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell, p125, Josephus, who died after 100AD, wrote of Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities, "...for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and then thousand other wonderful things concerning him." (Antiquities, XVIII, 33).

However, those words are probably a later addition.

The same book notes several creedal formations mentioning Christ's resurrection that made their way into the epistles after first being passed around orally (same book, p127).

Ignatius, whom Christian tradition identifies as a disciple of Peter, Paul, and John, wrote about the resurrection of Jesus (same book, p131). The book goes on to cite several more early writers who wrote of Jesus' resurrection, like Quadratus, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Hegesipus.


Why did Joseph only present five brothers?

Biblical Commentary by Clarke gives us some reasons of why Joseph might have chosen only 5. Two of them are:

Joseph took five of the meanest-looking of his brothers fearing that Pharaoh would detain them for his service, whereby their religion and morals might be corrupted.
Joseph took five of the best made and finest-looking of his brethren and presented them before Pharaoh, wishing to impress his mind with a favorable opinion of the family which he had just now brought into Egypt, and to do himself honor.

My personal opinion is that as Joseph he wanted his brothers to stay in a fertile land in Egypt. He asked them to state to the Pharaoh that their job is to tend livestock. Livestocks are naturally kept in a fertile land during a famine. But the problem is as Joseph himself states, in Gen 46:34, that shepherds are detestable to the Egyptians. So he took only half of his fathers sons so that not to make the Pharaoh detest them.
Or Joseph might have been afraid that if he brought forth all of his 11 brothers at once, the Pharaoh might find them intimidating and Joseph might lose his favor.
In the next verses we also see that Jacob visits him separately. Probably that could be a royal custom to meet a Pharaoh in small groups.
In his commentary Clarke  also continues to say that in Judges 18:2, the word extremity (מקצה miktseh - the word which also appears in Joseph's selection of his brothers) may be understood as implying dignity, valor, excellence, and per-eminence. It is probable they might have followed what Joseph did here because the mission was important.
Here is the full text of Clarke's Commentary on the Bible for Genesis 47:3.


Did Jesus heal a person with a chromosome defect?

The Bible was written down about two thousand years ago, when nothing was known about "Chromosome defects". So the Bible writers didn't record whether any of the people Jesus healed had chromosome defects. Nor did they give us enough information to work our for ourselves if they had them.


What were the specific changes to the canonization process introduced in 1983?

Blessed Pope John Paul II of happy memory changed the process of beatification and canonization dramatically.

  Pope John Paul II changed this process dramatically. First, he put the responsibility for gathering evidence into the sole hands of the local bishop. More importantly, he abolished the entire legal system that had grown up around the canonization process and in its place made critical biographies his primary method for determining sainthood. The news shocked the Catholic hierarchy—lawyers lost their jobs and ecclesiastical historians gained new status. - John Paul II's "Canonization Cannon

More information on the various changes can be seen in this article:  Canonization: Old vs. New Comparison

  It is often noted by those skeptical of modern canonizations that the procedures by which the Church raises saints to her altars have been "changed" since the Second Vatican Council. What were these changes? Pope Paul VI began the process in 1969. His decree Sacra Ritua Congregatio split the Congregation of Rites into two congregations: the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. The latter congregation was sub-divided into three offices, which led in turn to a restructuring of the canonization process. Between 1969 and 1983, the process in a sort of flux. In 1983, St. John Paul II's Divinis Perfectionis Magister further streamlined the procedure, eliminating much of the back-and-forth that characterized the pre-1969 procedure, as well as famously downgrading the office of Promotor Fidei ("Devil's Advocate") to make the office less adversarial.

  But in what other ways do the pre-1969 and post-1983 procedures differ? How much has really changed in this process?

  To help answer this question, we have prepared a side by side comparison of the pre-1969 procedure (which had remained relatively unchanged since 1588) with the post-1983 restructuring. Please note, because the years between 1969 and 1983 were a kind of interim period where the process was in flux, it is not included here, although a study of the changes in procedure during this period would be very illuminating. We present merely the pre-Paul IV system contrasted with the revisions made by John Paul II in 1983, revisions which characterize the current procedure followed in beatifications and canonizations.

  Essentially, while the modern canonization procedure maintains the nuts-n'-bolts of the pre-1969 system, the aspect of "checks and balances" that characterized the pre-1969 procedure is weakened. The rigid oversight is missing in the contemporary system. We will not review this entire argument, but recommend the reader consult our lengthy article "History of the Devil's Advocate"  for more on how the character of canonization has changed.


Justification for Marriage without State

The first marriage in the Bible involved a man, a woman, and God.

  Genesis 2:23  And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh
  of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of
  Man.

This might be seen as the minimum requirement. Various cultures at various times have added layers of family, friends, church, village, wedding planners, caterer, photographers, musicians, etc.

The government started to get involved when things that might be actionable in court began to come into play like property rights, inheritance, child custody, etc.

There are many people who not only do not have the government involved, but also do not want God involved. For people like this, governments often pass "common law" legislation so that rights can be adjudicated in court in case of death, divorce, or other changes in legal status.

The precept of "obey the law" could be applied to marriage unless the law extended into areas such as forcing you to marry someone or telling you you could not marry someone.

  Romans 13:1  Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For
  there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

I can understand the desirability of being free of government influence. However, I am not aware of any Biblical basis to reject legal requirements such as taxing through licensing or registering a marriage.


It is, indeed, presumed to be the Holy Spirit.  There is the idea that the Spirit did not indwell people in Old Testament times, but did "come upon" them.  The indwelling did not take place until after redemption has been accomplished with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

  Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit
  within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own  1
  Corinthians 6:19 ESV

A key question would be what Spirit could it be if it is not the Holy Spirit.  There really are no other legitimate candidates for that.  The word "spirit" is typically used of our own spirits and of the Holy Spirit.  Since this particular use of "spirit" is distinguished as that of the Lord (and not ours), the best conclusion appears to be that it is, in fact, a reference to the Holy Spirit.

It is interesting to note that David specifically prayed that God would not take the "Holy Spirit" from him after his sin with Urriah and Bathsheeba:

  Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Holy Spirit
  from me.  Psalm 51:11 ESV


How are justification and sanctification related to salvation?

JUSTIFICATION: BEING DECLARED RIGHTEOUS

Think of justification as a legal term, which is--in a sense--what it is.

God, the judge of all humankind, has every right to demand satisfaction for our having broken his laws. We are culpable, each one of us, and as the Scripture says,

  "Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

And,

  "The soul that sinneth, it shall die . The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him"
  (Ezekiel 18:4; and 18:20 KJV).

Each of us, therefore, has what might fairly be called a sin debt. We deserve to be cast into debtor's prison until someone pays our debt. The good news is that Jesus, through his cross-death, burial, and resurrection, paid our sin debt in full. The bill of particulars against us was nailed, as it were, to the cross where God's Lamb bore away the sin of the world. When we believe in our heart that Jesus died for our sins, God declares us righteous.

In other words, the judge of all humankind says to us,

  "Not guilty! Your debt has been paid in full!"

By being declared righteous in God's sight (which is what justification is), our sins are imputed to Christ, and his righteousness is imputed to us. This "double imputation" is perhaps what the apostle Paul was thinking of in 2 Corinthians 5:21,

  "[God] made [Christ] who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (NASB, Updated).

Justification, then, is a work of God, from beginning to end. All we need do on our part is believe it is so. When we do, we are then saved by faith. I guess you could say that justification is for each of us the starting point of salvation.

SALVATION: STEPPING FROM DARKNESS INTO THE LIGHT OF LIFE

Whether or not we can pinpoint the exact date and time of our conversion, saving faith is the first step through the narrow gate and onto the narrow path leading to life (see Matthew 7:13-14). The narrow gate is a metaphor for saving faith, in part because one of the requirements of entering by that narrow gate is repentance. Repentance is hard but worth it. I think Jesus likens saving faith to a narrow gate because repentance requires us to become small in our estimation--which is the essence of humility--so that God's grace and mercy can loom large.

Once we humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God, we can be assured that God will exalt us, if not in time, then in eternity. Positionally, in fact, once we are saved, God has

  "made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved--and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 2:5b-7 ESV).

We are seated together with Christ because the work of salvation was accomplished when Jesus cried out with a loud voice from the cross:

"It is finished!" (John 19:30, where the phrase is one word in Greek; namely tetelestai--finished, accomplished).

In other words, there is nothing else Jesus needs to do, nor is there anything else we need to do to be saved, for Jesus has done it all. He and we are therefore seated, which is to say we are at rest. No more struggling is needed on our part to earn God's salvation, since we already possess it freely by faith. Our standing in Christ is assured.

SANCTIFICATION: THE NARROW ROAD LEADING TO LIFE

The "narrow path" Jesus referred to in Matthew chapter 7 is the working out of our faith through the process of sanctification. As Paul put it,

  ". . . work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:12-13).

Centuries ago, the Reformers were known to say:

  "Justification is by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone."

While Christians cannot ADD a whit to the salvation God proffered to us, he does expect us to

  "be transformed by the renewing of [our] minds" (Romans 12:2).

The goal of this transformation is conformity to Christ.

  "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren" (Romans 8:29 NASB Updated).

This renewal is a life-long process through which we become more Christ-like. God does not expect us to become clones of his Beloved Son; rather, he wants us to

  ". . . put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and [not to] give thought to the flesh to do its desires" (Romans 13:14 BBE, my emphasis).

I suggest that when we "put on Christ" we in effect put to death our fleshly desires. As we allow the life of Christ to inform and shape our lives through our yieldedness to the Holy Spirit, we begin to reflect Christ's character, attitudes, and perspectives, and we find ourselves engaging in some of the "greater works" of which Jesus spoke (see John 14:12).

James, Jesus' half-brother, in the letter bearing his name, struck the correct balance when he said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,

  "faith without works is dead" (2:26).

Christians are saved by faith. As we grow from spiritual babies into fully grown adults in the faith, however, God expects us to prove that we have saving faith. Think of the good works in which we engage as fruit of the Spirit of Christ who indwells us (see John 15:1-5). Simply put: works do not save us; they simply prove we are saved. Moreover, even our good works are of no avail if they are done in the power of the flesh. Jesus reminds us,

  ". . . for apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5b).

In order to qualify for rewards at the Judgment Seat of Christ (see 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, and 2 Corinthians 5:10), our works' motives must first be tested by the purifying fire of God's judgment. The wood, hay, and weeds will be burned up. Those are the works done in the power of the flesh or for the glorification of us and not God (see Matthew 6:2, 5, and 16). The works which survive the flames of judgment are the gold, silver, and precious stones. Those are the works done in the power of the Spirit and for the glory of God.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, salvation is a gift of God's grace. It is received by faith, and it is "worked out" by faith. The working out of our faith contributes not one scintilla to God's salvation. If it did, we would have grounds for boasting (Ephesians 2:8-9). Our sanctification, on the other hand, is a lifelong process of transformation, and when submit consistently and faithfully to the sanctifying work of the Spirit of Christ within us, we are assured that our

  "entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to [us]" (2 Peter 1:10-11 NAS).

That will be our reward for sanctification: an abundant entrance into the eternal kingdom; or as other versions put it, a "rich entrance" into God's kingdom. In that sense, then, God's salvation has a future aspect or component to it. That is, salvation is not only a once and for all transaction between us and God (i.e., our sin for his righteousness, our old things for his new creation, and our death for his life), but it is also

  "a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 Peter 1:5).

At that time, according to the apostle's Peter's long view of salvation, we will be

  "obtaining as the outcome of [our] faith the salvation of [our] souls" (1 Peter 1:9)

Until then, through all the highs and lows of life, which include the occasional and even "besetting" sin (Hebrews 12:1), the continually maturing Christian believer, who is a mere clay pot, is nevertheless being transformed into a vessel which is both fit for the master's use and also a thing of beauty. As Paul put it,

  "All of us are looking with unveiled faces at the glory of the Lord as if we were looking in a mirror. We are being transformed into that same image from one degree of glory to the next degree of glory. This comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit" (2 Corinthians 3:18 CEB).

And,

  "Now in a great house there are not only articles of gold and silver, but also others of wood and of earthenware; and some are for specially honourable, and others for common use. If therefore a man keeps himself clear of these latter, he himself will be for specially honourable use, consecrated, fit for the Master's service, and fully equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 2:20-21 WNT).


What do Catholic traditions say was the real name of St. Thomas?

The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia article on St. Thomas the Apostle says:

  The principal document concerning him is the "Acta Thomae", preserved to us with some variations both in Greek and in Syriac, and bearing unmistakeable signs of its Gnostic origin (...) it represents Thomas (Judas Thomas, as he is called here and elsewhere in Syriac tradition) as the twin brother of Jesus. The Thomas in Syriac is equivalant to didymos in Greek, and means twin.

So we have an ancient Syriac-language tradition which gives St. Thomas a birth name of Judas — which is the name of at least two other apostles, Judas Thaddaeus and Judas Iscariot. Since, however, we have a lot of repeated names among the Gospel characters, this is not an issue.

The Church does not regard the names that St. Thomas might have had or not particularly important to the Gospel message, so Catholics are free to believe or disbelieve in this Syriac tradition; but at any rate it exists.


Scripture explanation: spiritual person can evaluate everything

I think the passage is clearer when the prior two verses are included:

  1 Corinthians 2:13–16 (HCSB)

    13 We also speak these things, not in words taught by human wisdom,
    but in those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to
    spiritual people.

    14 But the unbeliever does not welcome what comes from God’s Spirit,
    because it is foolishness to him; he is not able to understand it
    since it is evaluated spiritually.

    15 The spiritual person, however, can evaluate everything, yet he
    himself cannot be evaluated by anyone.

    16 For who has known the Lord’s mind, that he may instruct Him? But we
    have the mind of Christ.

Verse 14 explains that those who are unspiritual have no discernment and cannot understand any spiritual matter, and thus are equipped to evaluate neither spiritual things or spiritual people.

Verse 13 explains, on the other hand, that spiritual people are taught by the Spirit to discern spiritual things. In Galatians Paul contrasts desires of the flesh with desires of the Spirit (5:16-17).  Thus, the ability to discern things of the Spirit necessarily requires one to discern them against things of the flesh.  Hence, I believe, the phrase "all things" is appropriate in verse 15.

Regarding your second question, I do not think any of the above is inconsistent.  The preceding verses refer to "spiritual things" and not "all spiritual things".  Those spiritual things that relate directly to us and our personal salvation are those that we are able to discern.  That does not mean to say, however, that we somehow possess the knowledge that God possesses.  John Chrysostom wrote (in the 4th century):

  We know the things which are in the mind of Christ, which he has
  willed and revealed to us. This does not mean that we know everything
  which Christ knows but rather that everything which we know comes from
  him and is spiritual.

  Homily VII on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians

This is also reinforced elsewhere in Scripture (e.g. Romans 11:34; Isaiah 40:13).


Is there a special significance attached to a Latin Mass?

"Mass in Latin" vs. "Latin Mass"

It's important to understand that the term Latin Mass is almost always a colloquial and somewhat imprecise reference to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

This is the form of the liturgy that, in its essentials, was used by almost all Western Christians from at least the early Middle Ages until the Reformation, was codified for the great majority of Roman-Rite Catholics in 1570, and has remained fairly fixed up to and including the latest edition, which was published in 1962.

The older form of the mass is relatively rare and hard to find these days (though it is enjoying a gradual resurgence) -- most Catholics instead use the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, which was first published in 1970 as the initial answer to the Second Vatican Council's call for a reform and revision of the Church's worship.

The official texts of both forms are promulgated in Latin by the Vatican, but the older form must, by law, be celebrated in Latin (with a tiny bit of Greek), whereas the newer form may be celebrated in Latin, but rarely is.

Hence the informal term "Latin Mass", which really signifies the ritual more than the language, but does so by way of the most immediately-obvious distinguishing feature.

Why anyone cares

The two forms are strikingly different. They share the same overall structure and have many elements in common, but also many significant areas of divergence in structural detail, ceremonial rules, vesture, and the particular texts and music prescribed for various parts of the mass and various days of the year. Typically, though not in every single case, these divergences culminate in a strikingly different atmosphere of worship at church on Sunday morning.

This is not perhaps the place to discuss whether one form is better than the other, but it's plain that some people energetically prefer one form to the other.


As far as I know, angels are different beings from us as they do not procreate. Matthew 22:29,30 says:

  Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of
      God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be
      like the angels in heaven.

Because they do not procreate, gender really is irrelevant.

EDIT: I will add; I believe that in the Bible they take the shape of a man, but as in human shape. We know not if this is a female or male shape. Just like in the Garden of Eden:

  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and
      female created he them.

So man can be used to refer to mankind, instead of just male.


Why do the faithful have to say "And with your spirit " in the Catholic Mass?

The simple answer is that "thy spirit" is a Hebraism for "you" (to be specific in this case, "you," but more 'endearing,' 'elevated,' or 'prayerful;' cf. Lk. 1:46). St. Paul uses this blessing in 2 Timthy 4:22: "The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit..."
This was almost certainly imported into, or was always part of, the Roman liturgy very early, and it has remained in it ever since.
Indeed, it appears that all the apostolic Liturgies involve this Hebraism, explainable only by the primitive apolostic foundation each of the Liturgies have.
For example, the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the most popular Liturgy in the East, one hears the priest say, "Peace be with you all," and the deacon responding, "And with thy spirit." The Liturgy of St. Mark (Alexandrian Liturgy) also has this, as does St. James' (Antiochian) Liturgy.
As to why the laity (or the deacon on their behalf) are to respond to the blessing of the priest, the theological reason is that at Mass, there is to be kept a close unity of offerer and the others who offer by him, the Eucharist as well as the sacrifice of their praise and prayers.
For example, in many Liturgies we find this common prayer or ones very similar:
Liturgy of St. Thomas/Malankra/Indian Rite

Priest. Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.
Deacon. May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name for our good, and the good of his Church.

Roman Liturgy of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass

Priest. Pray, brethren,  that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.
Deacon. May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of  his name, for our good and the good of  all his holy Church.

The laity, via the Deacon (or servant), are to be always united and prayerfully attentive to the priest's intercessory prayer and offering of the Eucharist. That is why when blessed, they return the blessing, as it were: "The Lord be with you: and with thy spirit [also]!" eagerly awaiting what comes next. It involves the laity in the Sacrifice they are otherwise unable to offer themselves, via union with the priest who offers.


Is there a converse of "judge not, lest you be judged?"

Proverbs 27:17 says:

  As iron sharpens iron,
      so one person sharpens another.

Hebrews 10:24 says:

  And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds,

And, the whole concept of mutual exhortation essentially reinforces the notion that

  We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. (Romans 15:1)

So, in general, yes, the duty of one Christian to another is to exhort and encourage one another to live a life worthy of the calling we were given.

This is more of a thing for believers to call one another too, however, rather than an injunction to tell the world to shape up.


Does Paul ever actually quote Jesus anywhere as a primary source?

The short answer is possibly.

Since Paul was not a personal witness of Jesus' words, how could he quote him directly from his public ministry.

However, St. Paul is possibly seen as quoting Jesus on the Road to Damascus when he was converted but the author of the Acts wrote in the third person: Acts 9:3–9.

Although written in the third person here it is:

  As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

  "Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.

  "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."

  The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Paul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

It is very conceivable that the Apostle St. Paul passed on this information first hand to the author of the Acts of the Apostles. Did St. Paul recount this event directly to St. Luke presumed author of the Acts of the Apostles does not mention. It is nevertheless possible.

Yet it does that the Apostle St. Paul did in fact quote Our Lord in 1Corinthians 11: 23-26. But this would have been recounted to him from one of the Apostles or Disciples of Jesus:

  For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

For some people, it does seem that St. Paul does not directly quote Jesus:

  Christians have long assumed that Luke’s Acts of the Apostles and Paul’s letters were written to illustrate and apply the things Jesus taught through His words and deeds. Both Acts and the epistles of Paul are Jesus-centered and consistent with all that Jesus taught. Acts describes the emergence of the apostolic church and Paul explains the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ in ways that made them easily accessible to the diverse Gentile communities of the Roman Empire. In neither case would it have been practical for Luke or Paul to duplicate the detailed records of Jesus’ teaching and ministry that were cherished and carefully preserved by the church.

  This argument that Paul must not have been concerned with Jesus as a real person because he didn’t quote Him is based on the underlying assumption that the Gospels’ description of Jesus isn’t accurate. Assuming that a miracle-working Jesus who claimed to be the Son of God with the authority to forgive sin could not really have existed, it offers an alternative explanation for how the Jesus tradition came into being. It claims that Paul created an entirely new religion about Jesus based on his own religious experience expressed in terms common to the religious and philosophical language of his day, transforming a popular teacher into a godlike mythological figure. It postulates that the whole Christian community eventually began to view Jesus in Paul’s mythologized way so that when the four Gospels were eventually written they didn’t contain accurate historical recollections of Jesus’ real life and deeds, but a collection of stories constructed around Paul’s imaginary Jesus.

  Paul’s conversion occurred only two or three years after Christ’s ministry. Recent orality studies (studies of how group memories and traditions are preserved in predominantly oral cultures) have also shown that when a group considers a tradition worthy of preservation, it selects individuals to be the official representatives (tradents) of the tradition. These tradents are the experts entrusted with the responsibility to preserve and transmit the tradition. In the case of the early church, tradents listed by Paul himself in his epistles were apostles and eyewitnesses of Christ’s ministry. They included Peter, John the son of Zebedee, the rest of the Twelve, Jesus’ half brother James, Barnabas, Andronicus and Junia, and Silvanus. All of these eyewitnesses would never have allowed Paul to begin teaching something that changed or distorted the Jesus narrative. - Why Didn’t Paul Quote Jesus?

As for your question about Hebrews 10: 5-9, St. Paul would be quoting what one of the other Apostles passed on to him. Jesus himself is quoting Psalm
40: 6-8. Remember this was written for the Hebrew brethren.

  5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

  “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
      but a body you prepared for me;
  6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
      you were not pleased.
  7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
      I have come to do your will, my God.’”[a]
  8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second.


How did John the Baptist have the "spirit and power of Elijah"?

The similarity between Elijah and John the Baptists is understood the same way by most Protestant Commentaries including John Wesley’s.

This is understood to mean:

  With the same integrity, courage, austerity, and fervour, and the same power attending his word (John Wesley's Notes, Luke 1:17)

However to understand this brief comment by Wesley one really has to appreciate the history of Elijah to see how truly John the Baptist was almost exactly like him. The problem is simply that nowadays people are not that familiar with Old Testament figures and how the fit it into salvation history.

Anyone, after reading the history of Elijah in the Old Testament setting would probably make these sorts of observations.

He was a large looming figure, surpassing the greatness of most prophets, if not all.  He was almost along the lines of Moses, which makes his appearance with Moses at the Mount of Transfiguration not so surprising as.  Elijah’s greatness is probably due to the impression that the world and especially the apostasy of Israel had reached its lowest point. Prophets were essentially defenders of Jehovah and of the Laws of Moses. Elijah, ‘suddenly’ appeared on this deplorable state of the world, desperately needing reform, with a ‘ferocity’ and ‘stern ruggedness’ that leaps out of the scriptures in fiery, rebukes, challenges and contests. He essentially stands alone saying ‘Repent!’ to Israel with unmoving faithfulness and unflinching fearlessness, like a man with a face of flint.

This unbending, unfaltering spirit of sternness and severity, like a man cracking the whip of God, was predicted to come again to usher in Messiah’s entrance into the world. This expectation was a central one in the Jew’s mindset about the coming kingdom. For details refer here: What kind of Elijah did the Jews expect.

Even his and the Baptists appearance ‘with an upper garment of black camel’s hair with a leather belt’ (2 Kings 1:8) so aptly represented their spirit:

  John had his raiment of camels' hair - Coarse and rough, suiting his character and doctrine. (John Wesley's Notes, Mathew 3:4)

I think it is under this perspective that miracles play no part in the idea of ‘spirit and power’, for although miracles are powerful to persuade people that God is speaking it is really the words and message that these men had to Israel, which reflects all the power they had in their spirit.  Furthermore as the Baptist's mission was meant 'to decrease' while Christ’s 'increased', miracles would have not served the spirit of his mission. His main duty was to call every Jew to a Baptism of repentance in preparation of Christ ‘whose sandals he was not worthy to untie'.  Just as Elijah called Israel back to Jehovah as a lost people under God’s anger, so the Baptist called the Jews to be baptized like Gentile converts, fully emerging into a new life of reformed expectation for a great salvation.

It is all these ideas that bring Wesley to make his brief notes on the subject as he does.


What does the Catholic Church think John the Baptist was referring when making the statement on greatness of Jesus?

St. John the Baptist, in John 3:30, demonstrates his profound humility as the Precursor to Christ. Another example demonstrating St. John the Baptist's profound humility is Mt. 3:11:

  …he that shall come after me, is stronger then I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear…

The Catholic Haydock Commentary has this to say about John 3:30:

  Ver. 30. He (Christ) must increase, not in virtue and perfection, with which he is replenished, but in the opinion of the world, when they begin to know him, and believe in him: and in like manner, I must be diminished, when they know how much he is above me. (Witham)

St. Thomas Aquinas's Catena Aurea (Golden Chain), a collection of excerpts from the Fathers' commentaries on the Gospels, says:

  St. CHRYSOSTOM. He next dismisses the motions of envy, not only as regards the present, but also the future, saying, He must increase, but I must decrease: as if he said, My office has ceased, and is ended; but His advances.

  St. AUGUSTINE. What means this, He must increase? God neither increases, nor decreases. And John and Jesus, according to the flesh, were of the same age: for the six months’ difference between them is of no consequence. This is a great mystery. Before our Lord came, men gloried in themselves; He came in no man’s nature, that the glory of man might be diminished, and the glory of God exalted. For He came to remit sins upon man’s confession: a man’s confession, a man’s humility, is God’s pity, God’s exaltation. This truth Christ and John proved, even by their modes of suffering: John was beheaded, Christ was lifted up on the cross. Then Christ was born, when the days begin to lengthen; John, when they begin to shorten. Let God’s glory then increase in us, and our own decrease, that ours also may increase in God. But it is because you understand God more and more, that He seems to increase in you: for in His own nature He increases not, but is ever perfect: even as to a man cured of blindness, who begins to see a little, and daily sees more, the light seems to increase, whereas it is in reality always at the fall, whether he sees it or not. In like manner the inner man makes advancement in God, and it seems as if God were increasing in Him; but it is He Himself that decreases, falling from the height of His own glory, and rising in the glory of God.

  St. THEOPHYLACT. Or thus; As, on the sun rising, the light of the other heavenly bodies seems to be extinguished, though in reality it is only obscured by the greater light: thus the forerunner is said to decrease; as if he were a star hidden by the sun. Christ increases in proportion as he gradually discloses Himself by miracles; not in the sense of increase, or advancement in virtue, (the opinion of Nestorius,) but only as regards the manifestation of His divinity.


Did early Christians believe the world was about to end?

The text you link to, Matthew 16:28, is so very closely linked to the next verse, '... and after six days' that its natural interpretation is that the those present actually saw the coming of the Son of man on the mount of transfiguration and that Jesus' words relate to that experience, not to the end of the world.

But it is evident that the early church viewed the return of Christ as immediate. That is to say, as imminent in their own, personal apprehension.

Paul says to Titus :

  ... the grace of God that bringeth salvation ... looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the Great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ. [Titus 2: 11, 13 KJV.]

The urgency and immediacy of the expectation was a hope and a desire. Faith looked in hope for the coming of the Lord Jesus. Love longed to see him as he really is, either again or for the first time.

The women who went to the tomb went there in love, to anoint the body of Jesus. Mary was bereft without him, longing just to find his deceased body, frustrated because someone appeared to have stolen him, John 20:15.

After his ascension, the disciples had to be exhorted to activity by no less than angels as they were standing around looking at the spot in the sky into which Jesus had disappeared, Acts 1:10 and 11.

Paul had to exhort some of the Thessalonians that if a man will not work neither let him eat as it appears some had given up working because of the imminence of the Lord returning and the world ending. Paul had to remonstrate with them that it was irresponsible to respond in that way, II Thessalonians 3 : 6-15.

At the end of his life, Paul exhorts Timothy :

  Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day : and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing, [II Timothy 4: 8 KJV.]

It was love that prompted the early church to look for the appearing of the Lord.

Towards the end of that era, as scripture closed, John the apostle, aged then between ninety and more than an hundred years old - at the very end of his Revelation and at the close of the first century, writes :

  Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus. [Revelation 22:20 KJV.]

Yes, I see that "early Christians viewed the end of the world as imminent". And I believe that the bible itself as a "source" demonstrates that views about the apocalypse did not change at all during the first century.

For further generations, faith and love and hope should be unchanged, despite the passage of time, despite the passing generations. For with the Lord, a day is as a thousand years, and just a couple of days have passed since he ascended. And the Lord is not slack concerning his promise, II Peter 3:8.

Faith and hope and love still gaze upwards, imminently expecting the return of the Lord Jesus.


Is church attendance and/or participation in Communion a requirement for Roman Catholics?

Attending church on the Lord's Day (Sunday) and other holy days of obligation is a requirement for Roman Catholic Christians.
According to the Code of Canon Law (CIC) 1247 (cp. Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), 2180),

On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass.

Frequent participation in the Communion (i.e., Eucharist, Lord's Supper) is encouraged, as long as the pre-requisites for participation are satisifed (CIC, 912-923).
According to the Code of Canon Law, 898,

The Christian faithful are to hold the Most Holy Eucharist in highest honor, taking an active part in the celebration of the most august sacrifice, receiving this sacrament most devoutly and frequently, and worshiping it with the highest adoration. In explaining the doctrine about this sacrament, pastors of souls are to teach the faithful diligently about this obligation.

In particular, Roman Catholic Christians are obliged to participate in Communion annually.
According to Code of Canon Law, 920 §1-2,

§1. After being initiated into the Most Holy Eucharist, each of the faithful is obliged to receive holy communion at least once a year.
§2. This precept must be fulfilled during the Easter season unless it is fulfilled for a just cause at another time during the year.


Why was no one able to recognize Jesus as Messiah using prophesy, yet we believe end times prophesy will be easier to clarify?

It is important to note the nature of the prophecies themselves. The Old Testament gives very conflicting prophecies about the Messiah. To briefly look over them, here's an outline of a few of them:

He was to be a rejected Messiah
He was to be a betrayed Messiah
He was to be a ruler of all nations
He was to come in power 'on clouds'
He was to come in weakness 'on a donkey'
He was to be a teacher of the Gentiles
He was to be a Sacrifice for the sins of Israel.

If you notice, many of these prophecies seem to contradict each other. So to reconcile these apparent contradictions Christians, who believe Christ to be the Messiah for His fulfillment of so many of these prophecies and most importantly His death and resurrection, hold that these prophecies speak of one Messiah who exists and reveals Himself in two capacities, or at two different points in time, under distinct conditions.

In order to answer your question regarding why most people did not realize Christ to be the Messiah until such was revealed to them, it is important to recognize what prophecies were being fulfilled by Christ in His first appearance, or in other words what type of Christ was to be seen in the first coming; the humble and betrayed or the glorified and praised. The answer to this question is clear; Christ fulfilled the prophecies of the 'suffering servant' who faced rejection, betrayal, death and resurrection. As such, Christ's main purpose in His first coming to this world was not to bring about the final elucidation, peace and clarity (which can be assumed to occur in the second coming, along with other prophecies that have yet to occur) but rather to establish His Church through His suffering and crucified body of ministry and power, so that we might grow in the Spirit and in the way we love what the Savior has done through the mystery of the Sacraments. It is through the events that occur now that the world is being prepared for the final coming of the Savior, who shall come in full recognition to all people 'on clouds' to raise the living and the dead to their respective judgement.

With this understanding in place, one can still question why so many free willed people that Christ crossed paths with did not know Him to be the Messiah, if He indeed was the Messiah, and to answer such a question requires a brief explanation of grace. The only way in which truth of any kind is revealed to any soul is through the will of God. If God wills that we not know a certain truth, it is fully within His capacity to hide such knowledge from people. This, however, does not eradicate nor interfere with free will, for what comes to pass is still essentially through the reality of our free interaction. So it is that prophecies are secured to pass in the way that they do. Christ's purpose for coming was not to be glorified, but rather to be ridiculed, and as such, He was left with the task of avoiding glorification and renown recognition. Thus, Christ encouraged others not to speak of Him as the Son of God:

Matthew 8:4

  And Jesus said to him, "See that you tell no one; but go, show yourself to the priest and present the offering that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them."

Mark 1:34

  Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.

Matthew 16: 20

  Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

We as a human race did not collectively recognize Christ because it was not in God's will for us to glorify Him. His purpose in the first coming was not to be glorified by all, but to die humbly in submission to the Father for our sins.


The term Dinosaur was first used in 1842 by Richard Owen and means "terrible, powerful, wondrous, potent" + "lizard". As we all know the Bible has been written before the 1800's.

The Bible mentioned creatures like a behemoth (Job 40:15-24), sea monsters (Psalm 74:13), and other beasts (Isaiah 43:20) that don't necessarily fit our description of a dinosaur.

Although the first bones might have been found in China almost 2000 years ago, the first recognized thigh bone was found in 1676 and described as a species just in 1824. (Source.)

The interpretation of those facts is up to one self, it doesn't prove or disprove the Bible itself.


Why do Catholics have to go to regular confession to have their sins forgiven if they pray The Lord's Prayer and ask for forgiveness daily?

The Church teaches by Canon Law that a penitent must go to confession for mortal sins (see 1 Jn 5:16-17).  I have also included the prior canon providing an explanation of the proper disposition and intention of the pentitent.

  Canon 959 In the sacrament of penance the faithful who confess their
  sins to a lawful minister, are sorry for those sins and have a purpose
  of amendment, receive from God, through the absolution given by that
  minister, forgiveness of sins they have committed after baptism, and
  at the same time they are reconciled with the Church, which by sinning
  they wounded.

  Canon 960 Individual and integral confession and absolution constitute
  the sole ordinary means by which a member of the faithful who is
  conscious of grave sin is reconciled with God and with the Church.
  Physical or moral impossibility alone excuses from such confession, in
  which case reconciliation may be attained by other means also.


To what degree could a person be "pro-polygamy" yet still obey the LDS church?

Edits: So, after the question changed... here's the answer to the new question; my original answer is below... though they do mingle some similar points and should both be considered.

This answer reflects my own thoughts on the matter, but I'm of course no clergy in the LDS Church...

New Answer

The LDS Church doesn't hold opinions against anyone. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion. However, as Christ teaches, we are on safer and higher moral ground when we align our thoughts, hopes, desires, and actions with those of the Savior's. When these are in harmony, there is peace and happiness. When there is friction, often there is temptation and a slippery slope.

The LDS Church teaches to stay away from the edge, not see how close you can get to it. In general, I would expect this thinking/hoping to be strongly discouraged by the LDS Church...

Your question (now) is more about whether the thoughts/desires are transgression of the law or acting out is transgression of the law. However, still the same as my answer below about excommunication, it varies per circumstance and no one can judge but a judge in Israel (again, in LDS theology this is a bishop) and the Lord.

I see little difference between this type of thinking and the thinking of something like, "I hope that I can lay with that woman" -- or -- "I want God to tell me to sleep with her." These thoughts, of course, are (implicitly) adulterous, and this in the heart is also a sin.

A prophet in the Book of Mormon warns:

  30 But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not.

Finally, and this makes reference to a piece from earlier and below, the temple recommend interview questions include a question about sympathizing with groups or individuals who have teachings contrary to the Church. For Mormons to be able to enter the temple, they must make sure this is not the case.

Original Answer

I see this question as more about excommunication than polygamy, essentially wondering, "How close to the edge can you get without falling off?"

Naturally, LDS Church leaders have taught against this mentality: stay well within the bounds of the Lord's commandments. Some risks are just not worth taking. Jesus taught this in His higher law: Don't merely love your friends and hate your enemies, but bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you. Also His command to not merely not kill somebody, but do not even be angry with them. Stay well away.

Above, you present 3 ways in which somebody might tread too close. In situations 1 and 2, the thoughts or desires of the person is contrary to God's commandments, but is not actually acting outright, as the person still apparently wants to stay within the bounds the Lord has set. This behavior of course, requires repentance, as the person is asking either for permission to break God's law or for God to change His law. Martin Harris did the same thing during the restoration of the Church with the 116 pages which became lost in consequence. God commanded both Him and Joseph Smith to repent.

In all of the above situations, especially the third, the person could potentially be acting out publicly: by means of political activism, or groups or "clubs" or other various ways of expressing his opinion publicly or to rally others for a cause.

In the temple recommend interview questions, a person is asked something like if they are affiliated with, support, or sympathize with any groups or individuals which oppose Church teachings. Of course, temple worthiness is on the far opposite end of the spectrum from excommunication: one who may not enter the temple may not be near disciplinary action. This question is in place for a very important reason, though (obviously) -- one cannot have one foot in Zion and another in Babylon: a house divided against itself will fall. The person, acting in public on his desires, and thus acting upon the temptation to desire that which is contrary to the Lord's commandments, is probably committing sin...

Now, excommunication is a personal ordeal for which its reasons vary widely, but in general it is done only to help the person repent and suffer less condemnation in the process. I cannot say whether the person in any of the 3 scenarios above would be excommunicated, except that I think, probably not, unless the person knew full well what he was doing was contrary to the Lord's commandments and he was coming out in open rebellion against God, was setting a bad image for members of the Church and the Church itself, and was essentially ruining his own life and trying to bring others down in the process.

This is rarer than than common for sure, as everyone is tempted to do evil: it is acting on it, and the degree and circumstances upon which we do the action, that is all considered to be needful of repentance, and only the Lord and His appointed judges in Israel (in LDS teaching, the Priesthood leaders such as bishops) can really judge. I'm sure that a bishop would counsel with a member who is indulging in such thought or activity, but disciplinary action entirely depends on the situation, and again, is more rare than common.

For more information:

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1 (Official Declaration 1, about practicing polygamy, by Wilford Woodruff.)

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/topic/polygamy (Newsroom article: Polygamy)

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/why-is-a-mormon-excommunicated (About excommunication)

http://mormon.org/faq/topic/polygamy (Do Mormons practice polygamy?)


What is the Catholic explanation as to why God has revealed himself in "male" terms?

The Catechism has

Christ's true body
476 Since the Word became flesh in assuming a true humanity, Christ's body was finite.112 Therefore the human face of Jesus can be portrayed; at the seventh ecumenical council (Nicaea II in 787) the Church recognized its representation in holy images to be legitimate.113
477 At the same time the Church has always acknowledged that in the body of Jesus "we see our God made visible and so are caught up in love of the God we cannot see."114 The individual characteristics of Christ's body express the divine person of God's Son.

Scripture has a number of relevant references:

For to what angel did God ever say, "Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee"? Or again, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"? — Heb 1:5
I will be his father, and he shall be my son. When he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men; but I will not take my steadfast love from him... — 2 Sam 7:14
I will be his father, and he shall be my son; I will not take my steadfast love from him... — 1 Chr 17:13
I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my son, today I have begotten you." — Ps 2:7

Given that throughout scripture God has revealed the Messiah as His Son, the individual characteristics of Christ's body express the divine person of God's Son.
That would not be particularly understandable by mortal man if God's Son was female, so He chose to make it easy.

112 Cf. Council of the Lateran (649): DS 504.
113 Cf. Cal 3:1; cf. Council of Nicaea II (787): DS 600-603.
114 Roman Missal, Preface of Christmas I.


In Catholicism, what are the arguments for the reasonableness (see body) of an eternal hell?

Faith & Reason

Not all divinely revealed truths can be known without Divine Revelation. For example, the fact that God is triune (Three Persons of one Divine Substance) cannot be known by natural reason,¹ even though it is not against reason. The existence of God, however, can be known by natural reason,² and so can His divinity.³
¹St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica I q. 32 a. 1 article "Whether the trinity of the divine persons can be known by natural reason?"²ibid. q. 2 a. 2 "Whether it can be demonstrated that God exists?"³Rom. 1:20: "For his invisible things, from the creation of the world are seen, being understood by those things that are made: his eternal power also and Divinity: so that they are inexcusable."

This is an ambiguous statement: "the Church teaches that the truths of the faith are intelligible in the light of natural reason"

What it should say is: "the Church teaches that some of the truths of the faith are intelligible (i.e., "discoverable" or understandable) in from the light of natural reason, and none of them are against reason," although most are above human reason.

St. Thomas Aquinas gives two uses of reason in his Summa Theologica I q. 32 a. 1 article "Whether the trinity of the divine persons can be known by natural reason?":

  Reason may be employed in two ways to establish a point:

  …for the purpose of furnishing sufficient proof of some principle…

  and

  not as furnishing a sufficient proof of a principle, but as confirming an already established principle, by showing the congruity
  of its results

Way #1 is not possible for all truths of the faith. Way #2 is how reason is employed for understanding the Trinity and other truths of the Faith not "discoverable"/understandable/intelligible by human reason alone.

See the First Vatican Council's document on faith and reason, Dei Filius.

Determining Whether a Dogma is Reasonable using Human Reason Only

Proving the Reasonableness of a Dogma

Apart from faith, there are at least the following ways to show that a dogma is in accordance with reason:

Come up with a proof of way #1 reasoning. This is the strongest reasoning on a merely human level.Such a proof is not known to exist for the dogma of hell's eternity, but that does not necessarily imply someone will not discover such a proof in the future. It is also not defined dogma that such a proof cannot be found.
Show that reason is in accordance with the dogma in every possible way.* This isn't humanly possible because there might be an infinite number of ways to show.*This would be "to prove a negative, which isn't possible," as per earlier DJClayworth's comments.
Offer individual examples of way #2 reasoning showing where this dogma is in accordance with reason.This is the weakest way of reasoning because it only offers probable reason to believe the dogma does not contradict reason.

Proving the Unreasonableness of a Dogma

Apart from faith, there is least the following way of showing that a dogma contradicts reason:

Come up with a counterexample showing that it does contradict reason (e.g., Carol Meyer's reasoning that the eternity of hell contradicts God's love*).*This is easily disproved by noting that God is infinitely just. Plus, is her reasoning even "apart from faith"?

Showing the Eternity of Hell is in Accordance with Reason

It is a de fide ("of faith") dogma that hell is eternal.

A few such "individual examples of way #2 reasoning" are the following:

1) One can prove from natural reason the eternity of the soul* and conclude from that that it is reasonable that a soul could exist eternally in a state deprivation of the Beatific Vision in hell.*St. Thomas Aquinas argues that the human soul is "subsistent" (eternal) in Summa Theologica I q. 75 a. 2.

2) As just kings have prisons with life sentences or impose capital punishment [there is no coming back from that]; so must God, a King, Who is infinitely just, have hell with eternal sentences (cf. this).

3) Since the will of the damned is set in its ways toward evil, we could ask: "Could someone's will never change toward the good?" Analogously, we could also ask: "Could someone be blind forever?" In answer to this, St. Thomas Aquinas would say "Yes." He compares God's withdrawal of His grace from the damned to the lack of sight of a blind man, in Summa Theologica I-II q. 85 a. 2 ("Whether the entire good of human nature can be destroyed by sin?") ad 3:Even in the lost [i.e., the damned] the natural inclination to virtue remains, else they would have no remorse of conscience. That it is not actualized is owing to their being deprived of grace by Divine justice. Thus even in a blind man the aptitude to see remains in the very root of his nature, inasmuch as he is an animal naturally endowed with sight: yet this aptitude is not actualized, for the lack of a cause capable of actualizing it, by forming the organ requisite for sight.Thus, just as it is possible for a blind man to lack sight, so is it reasonable that the damned lack grace.

4) The preservation of moral and social order would not be sufficiently provided for, if men knew that the time of trial were to be continued after death. (cf. this). Or that no matter how long, the punishment would eventually end.

The more arguments "of way #2 reasoning," the closer we approach to the more perfect reasoning of the second list point under the heading "Proving the Reasonableness of a Dogma" above.


Do JW teach that Luke 23:43 was corrupted? On what basis?

As one who formerly (in ignorance) used to promote the same argument (not being a Jehovah's Witness, but somewhat associated with the Arian theology), the argument is not that the Greek text was corrupted, but rather, that the comma in the English translation should be placed after "today" rather than before it. They are able to make this argument because the original Greek manuscripts, and those for centuries thereafter, lacked any sort of punctuation as well as miniscular letters. For example, the Codex Sinaiticus is dated to the 4th century A.D. The following is the Greek text of Luke 23:43 therein:

As you can see, there are no miniscular letters and, more importantly, no punctuation.

The notion that the Lord Jesus Christ did not go to Paradise (whether it be a place in heaven or in a compartment of Hades) that same day via his soul is important to Jehovah's Witnesses who believe in "soul sleep" or "mortalism." Succinctly stated, they assert that man does not have an [immortal] soul that continues to exist after the death of the body. Rather, man is a soul,(1) and as the dead are said to sleep upon their death, then the soul (man himself) also sleeps.

The Watchtower Online Library entry on "sleep" states,

  Death Compared With Sleep. There is evidence that people sleep in cycles. Each cycle is made up of a deep sleep followed by a lighter sleep. During periods of deep sleep it is very difficult to awaken a person. He is completely unaware of his surroundings and the things that may be occurring about him. There is no conscious activity. Similarly, the dead are “conscious of nothing at all.” (Ec 9:5, 10; Ps 146:4) Therefore death, whether that of a man or of an animal, is like sleep. (Ps 13:3; Joh 11:11-14; Ac 7:60; 1Co 7:39; 15:51; 1Th 4:13) The psalmist wrote: “From your rebuke, O God of Jacob, both the charioteer and the horse have fallen fast asleep.” (Ps 76:6; compare Isa 43:17.) Were it not for God’s purpose to awaken persons from the sleep of death, they would never wake up.

Therefore, since the soul of Jesus, i.e. himself, was dead and buried three days and nights in the grave, the Lord Jesus Christ could not have went anywhere during the interim, including Paradise. If this be the case, they reason, the comma could not logically be placed before the word "today" in the English translation. Furthermore, they assert that those modern Greek texts which place the comma between σοι and σήμερον are simply the result of scribal bias.

To summarize, Jehovah's Witnesses base their assertion on the fact that the original Greek manuscripts lacked punctuation and the placement of the comma by some scribes or translators after the Greek word σήμερον or English word "today" is simply a result of the scribe or translator's bias. Because man is a soul, and man sleeps upon his death, then the soul of our Lord Jesus Christ could not have went anywhere while he was dead for those three days and nights in the grave. This is the summary of their argument.

As you did not request a refutation thereof, I have not included one. But, in the event you edit your original question and request one, I would have no problem including one.

Footnotes

(1) They emphasize Gen. 2:7 for support of this assertion, which states that man became a [living] soul and not that man has a soul.


Does Christianity approve wars for faith?

Pretty much, No.
In general, most Christians reject any idea of coercion in regards to "spreading the faith." Orthodoxy (from Orthos meaning right, and doxa meaning belief) is typically considered more important.
No less a luminary than Martin Luther, in commenting on Romans 12:1, for example, wrote:

“Paul does not say: I command you; for he is preaching to such as are already Christians and godly by faith, in newness of life. These must not be coerced by means of commandments, but admonished to do willingly what has to be done with the old sinful man in them. For any person who does not do this willingly, simply in answer to kind admonitions, is not a Christian; and any person who wants to achieve this result by force applied to such as are unwilling is not a Christian preacher or ruler, but a worldly jailer. A preacher of the Law comes down on men with threats and punishments; a preacher of divine grace coaxes and urges men by reminding them of the goodness and mercy which God has shown them. For He would have no unwilling workers nor heedless service; He wants men to be glad and cheerful in the service of God. Any person who will not permit himself to be coaxed and urged with sweet and pleasant words, which remind him of the mercy of God abundantly bestowed upon him in Christ, to do good joyfully and lovingly to the honor of God and for the benefit of his fellow men, is worthless, and all that is done for him is labor lost. If he is not melted and dissolved in the fire of heavenly love and grace, how can he be softened and made cheerful by laws and threats? It is not a man’s mercy, but the mercy of God that is bestowed on us; and this mercy Paul wants us to consider in order that we may be incited and moved by it to serve God.”

Historically, Just War Theory as promulgated by the famous fifth century theologian Augustine, said that a war should only be fought when protecting others from egregious harm - an extension of God's protection for the widow and orphan, as well an extension of the Golden Rule.
A good summary of jus ad bellum, meaning just causes for war are as follows:

Just Cause: War is permissible only to confront “a real and certain danger,” i.e. to protect innocent life, to preserve conditions necessary for decent human life existence, and to basic human rights.
Competent Authority: The right to use force must be joined with the common good; war must be declared by those with responsibility for public order, not by private groups or individuals.
Right Intention: War can be legitimately intended for only the reasons set forth as a just cause.
Last Resort: For war to be justified, all peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted.
Proportionality: The destruction to be inflicted and the costs incurred by war must be proportionate to the good expected by taking up arms. Destruction applies in both the temporal and spiritual sense.

Those incidents in which the faith was either "protected" or "extended" by coercion (say, the Inquisition, incidents during colonialization) are typically considered to be negative things by modern Christians today. Even the most right-wing and fundamentalist types like Bob Jones and Jerry Falwell never advocated for a return to these methods. Even Fred Phelps uses "Crusades" as a perjorative! Typically, the most common example of a "faith war" would be the Crusades, and to be sure, religion did play a part in those wars.  Grant you,

(a) that was nearly a thousand years ago and
(b) the Fourth Crusade in particular, in which Christian forces from Italy sacked the Christian capital of Byzantium (1204), shows that there was a lot more involved than just religion,

but it is usually the argument.  Most other "Christian" conflicts, like the Thirty Years War, fall into the same category - they were political conflicts as much as religious ones.


Why did Calvin reject these Catholic doctrines about Mary?

Calvin did not like appealing to any tradition or authority other than Scripture. He asserts that the Bible teaches that all have sinned and that all continue to sin, and on that basis each facet of Mariology falls down like dominoes (except perpetual virginity, which he neither defends nor denies based on what he perceives as Scriptural silence).  In addition, it is clear that his concerns for a Christocentric soteriology drive him to reject the Roman doctrines regarding Mary. To elevate her to the position they give her would be to deny Christ of his proper place.

Immaculate conception

In his comments on canon 23 of the Council of Trent, Calvin rails against those who say that any person other than Christ is sinless, including Mary:

  We condemn those who affirm that a man once justified cannot sin, and likewise those who deny that the truly justified ever fall: those in like manner who assert that a man regenerated by the Spirit of God is able to abstain even from the least sins. These are the delirious dreams of fanatics, who either with devilish arrogance deceive, or with hypocrisy fascinate the minds of men, or plot to lead them to the precipice of despair. As to the special privilege of the Virgin Mary, when they produce the celestial diploma we shall believe what they say: for to what do they here give the name of the Church, but just to the Council of Clermont? Augustine was certainly a member of the Church, and though he in one passage chooses, in order to avoid obloquy, rather to be silent respecting the blessed Virgin, he uniformly, without making her an exception, describes the Whole race of Adam as involved in sin. Nay, he even almost in distinct terms classes her among sinners, when writing to Marcellinus, he says, They err greatly who hold that any of the saints except Christ require not to use this prayer, “Forgive us our debts.” In so doing, they by no means please the saints whom they laud. Chrysostom and Ambrose, who suspect her of having been tempted by ambition, were members of the Church. All these things I mention for no other end but to let my readers understand that there is no figment so nugatory as not to be classed by these blockheads among the Articles of Faith.

Assumption

The only mention of the assumption of Mary that I can find in Calvin's writings implies that he thought the doctrine false. Writing on relics he says:

  The belief that the body of the Virgin was not interred on earth, but was taken to heaven, has deprived them of all pretext for manufacturing any relics of her remains, which otherwise might have been sufficiently abundant to fill a whole churchyard.

Perpetual virginity

Calvin denies that Mary's words in Luke 1:34 necessitate a vow of virginity, but doesn't thereby take a firm stance one way or the other on her perpetual virginity:

  The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure.

In his commentary on Matthew 1:25 he stakes out a firmly agnostic position on the doctrine:

  It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.

Intercessory role

In his commentary on John 2:4, he says that Mary did wrong by telling Christ what to do:

  Though she was not moved by ambition, nor by any carnal affection, still she did wrong in going beyond her proper bounds. ... Christ, therefore, addresses his mother in this manner, in order to lay down a perpetual and general instruction to all ages, that his divine glory must not be obscured by excessive honor paid to his mother.

In his 1544 satirical attack on the Catholic faculty in Paris, he rejects the necessity and propriety of praying to Mary:

  To flee to the Virgin, passing by Christ, and in prayer to address her instead of God, who sees not to be a profane practice? It is assuredly altogether alien from the Word of God. ... What access have we to the Virgin, for the purpose of holding conference with her? Besides, why use the salutation at the time when they implore the influence of the Spirit, unless to pervert it into a form of prayer?


What was the reason why the Jews specifically used the substitute Adonay/Kyrios for the Tetragrammaton?

Here is an answer from a Jewish perspective.

The Bible calls G-d Y-h-v-h, which is called “the Tetragrammaton,” which means a four-letter word. While the Tetragrammaton appears on Torah scrolls, even today, Jews say it as Adonai whenever they read the Torah (more on that later).

Many think that this is the name of G-d in the Hebrew Bible, but this is not true. It is a description of how G-d functions in the universe. Thus, when Moses asks G-d in 3:13, the people “will say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what should I say to them?” G-d replies, “‘I am that I am’." Virtually all Jewish commentators and rabbis understand verse 14 to be saying that this is describing how G-d functions or acts. It is not a name.

Since ancient times, Jews have avoided using the Tetragrammaton out of respect around 250 BCE. When they translated the Bible into Greek in Egypt, they substituted the Tetragrammaton for the Greek word Kurios, which means “Lord.” Around 250 the Jews began to substitute Kurios for the Hebrew version of Kurios, Adonai, which also means “Lord.” Eventually, Jews began to treat Adonai as the Tetragrammaton and reverted to the new circumlocution Hashem, meaning The Name. Out of respect, Jews no longer use Adonai, substituting Hashem in its place. Yet others went as far as to write the word "God" as G-d.

Similarly, the word “Elohim” is not a name for G-d but a function. In English it is G-d. The word el is the singular of Elohim, which means “powerful.” Idols, too, is called el, because the ancients felt that these idols were also powerful. G-d is called Elohim (plural) in the Bible because G-d is more powerful than anything else.