How have Christians who affirm traditional sin doctrines handled 'pathological' guilt in their preaching?

My answer is option 3, that pathological guilt can stem from a preaching that neglects a Theology of the Cross. Here is an example of Martin Luther, writing to his friend George Spalatin, who had become distraught over the sin of giving really bad moral advice. The conversation is best recorded in Chapter 12 of Walther's Law and Gospel. The following text contains commentary from Walther himself, interspersed with a letter by Luther. It is the context of Luther's "sin boldly" quote, which you may be familiar with.

Summary

  Had you fully realized the awful corruption of your heart in its relation to God, you would not be so inconsolable; for you would say to yourself: Alas! the fountain is so polluted; that is why such filth has to flow from it.

Full quote

  Let me now cite you from Luther's writings, not so much passages in which he insists that the Gospel, pure and unalloyed, must be proclaimed to poor sinners, but rather a particular incident which illustrates how Luther brought consolation to a person who had fallen into a great and grievous sin. The party in question was that splendid man Spalatin (born 1482), who had a great share in the work of the Reformation. He became Ecclesiastical Counselor to the Elector of Saxony and lived at Altenburg. He was Luther's intimate friend. He had been party to an advice given to a certain pastor to marry the stepmother of his deceased wife. The marriage was absolutely contrary to God's Word, and the advice was the more appalling since the Apostle Paul, in dealing with a similar offense in 1 Cor. 5, had declared that it involved fornication such as is not so much as named among the Gentiles. When the truth dawned on good Spalatin, he refused to be comforted. Luther learned that he had fallen into melancholy. No comfort offered him would take effect. He imagined that no consolation of Scripture could apply to a man like him who had known the Word of God so well and had derived so much consolation from it.

  How did Luther proceed to comfort this man? He wrote him a letter, which began as follows: (St. L. Ed. X, 1729 ff.):

    Grace and peace from God in Christ and the consolations of the Holy Spirit to my worthy master in Christ, George Spalatin, superintendent of the churches in Misnia, most faithful pastor of Altenburg, my beloved in the Lord. Amen.

    My dearest Spalatin, I heartily sympathize with you and earnestly pray our Lord Jesus Christ to strengthen you and give you a cheerful heart. I should like to know, and am making diligent inquiries to find out, what your trouble may be or what has caused your breakdown. I am told by some that it is nothing else than depression and heaviness of heart, caused by the matrimonial affair of a parson who was publicly united in marriage to the stepmother of his deceased wife. If this is true, I beseech you most urgently not to become self-centered and heed the thoughts and sensations of your own heart, but to listen to me, your brother, who is speaking to you in the name of Christ. Otherwise your despondency will grow beyond endurance and kill you; for St. Paul says, 2 Cor. 7, 10: 'The sorrow of the world worketh death.' I have often passed through the same experience and witnessed the same in 1540, in the case of Magister Philip, who was nearly consumed by heaviness of heart and despondency on account of the landgrave's affair. However, Christ used my tongue to raise him up again. I say this on the supposition that you have sinned and are partly to blame for the aforementioned marriage, because you approved it.

  Observe that Luther grants that Spalatin had committed a grievous wrong by approving the marriage, by advising in favor of it before it was contracted. Luther proceeds:

    Yea, I shall go further and say: Even if you had committed more numerous and grievous sins in this present and other instances than Manasseh, the king of Judah, whose offenses and crimes could not be eradicated throughout his posterity down to the time when Jerusalem was destroyed, while your offense is very light, because it concerns a temporal interest and can be easily remedied; nevertheless, I repeat it, granted you are to blame, are you going to worry yourself to death over it and by thus killing yourself commit a still more horrible sin against God?

  Luther means to say: This marriage can be dissolved, for it is not legitimate. It would be a greater sin now to despair of the mercy of God than it was to advise this marriage. For despairing of God's mercy is always the most horrible sin, because it means that we declare God to be a liar. Luther goes on:

    It is bad enough to know that you made a mistake in this matter. Now do not let your sin stick in your mind, but get rid of it. Quit your despondency, which is a far greater sin. Listen to the blessed consolation which the Lord offers you by the prophet Ezekiel, who says, chap. 33, 11: 'As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.' Do you imagine that only in your case the Lord's hand is shortened? Isa. 59, 1. Or has He in your case alone forgotten to be gracious and shut up His tender mercies? Ps. 77, 10. Or are you the first man to aggravate his sin so awfully that henceforth there is no longer a High Priest who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities? Heb. 4, 15. Do you consider it a new marvel when a person living this life in the flesh, with innumerable arrows of so many devils flying about him, is occasionally wounded and laid prostrate?

  Luther means to say: Why are you surprised at your grievous fall? That is a common occurrence. The terrible part is only that we refuse to rise again and, like miserable reprobates, crawl back to the throne of grace. Luther continues:

    It seems to me, my dear Spalatin, that you have still but a limited experience in battling against sin, an evil conscience, the Law, and the terrors of death. Or Satan has removed from your vision and memory every consolation which you have read in the Scriptures. In days when you were not afflicted, you were well fortified and knew very well what the office and benefits of Christ are. To be sure, the devil has now plucked from your heart all the beautiful Christian sermons concerning the grace and mercy of God in Christ by which you used to teach, admonish, and comfort others with a cheerful spirit and a great, buoyant courage. Or it must surely be that heretofore you have been only a trifling sinner, conscious only of paltry and insignificant faults and frailties.

  There are only two ways in which Luther can explain to himself why Spalatin refuses to be comforted. Either he has hitherto failed to perceive his misery and wretchedness unders sin; he has not been aware of the fact that he is a great sinner by nature; his grievous fall had to occur in order that his eyes might be opened to these facts. Or Satan must have hidden every consolation out of Spalatin's sight. Practically Luther says to Spalatin: Had you fully realized the awful corruption of your heart in its relation to God, you would not be so inconsolable; for you would say to yourself: Alas! the fountain is so polluted; that is why such filth has to flow from it. To return to Luther:

    Therefore my faithful request and admonition is that you join our company and associate with us, who are real, great, and hard-boiled sinners. You must by no means make Christ to seem paltry and trifling to us, as though He could be our Helper only when we want to be rid from imaginary, nominal, and childish sins. No, no! That would not be good for us. He must rather be a Savior and Redeemer from real, great, grievous, and damnable transgressions and iniquities, yea, from the very greatest and most shocking sins; to be brief, from all sins added together in a grand total.

  To the company of real, great, abominable sinners to which Spalatin is invited Luther feels that he belongs himself. He argues that by making our sins small, we make Christ small. That would practically amount to saying: Christ can forgive small, but not great sins.


Why do images of saints often depict them with unusual hand gestures?

Wordpress:
Ancient Greek and Roman orators used an established series of hand gestures when speaking.  Since some of the oldest Orthodox statuary originated in Rome, it is likely their hand gestures were adapted from those of the Greek and Roman works when depicting religious figures to emphasize the message the painter or sculptor wished to convey.  Since orators of the time often raised their hand when speaking to assert authority, paintings and statues of Jesus and the saints might have adapted this to convey authority and a  blessing.  We see this today when the Pope blesses a crowd of the faithful.

Gesture of the Orator:
Illustrations of various hand gestures from antiquity with explanation of their meaning.

Roman & Greek sculptures:  Photos showing hand gestures.


Do different Christian denominations think each other will be saved?

From a conservative Baptist perspective, which I no longer am but with which I am very familiar, the only people who are 'saved' are those who, in acknowledgement of their sin, have relinquished faith in any and every other thing including good works and religious activity and personally assign their entire hope to the sacrificial death of Christ for the atonement of their sin and to the resurrection of Christ for the imputation of Christ's righteousness to their account.
CB's believe that 'salvation' is an intensely personal and not a corporate affair and is not imparted by a creed or a baptism, nor conferred by a priest or any ritual.
CB's believe that this is what constitutes being 'born again' or 'born from above' and that it is a permanent translation from death to life.  CB's believe that sitting under accurate biblical teaching (especially about the person of Christ) certainly increases the likelihood that a person might respond (and most Baptist churches seem to believe that they teach the most accurately...or maybe that's just all churches) but that church attendance, bible reading, denominational adherence, sacramental participation, and theological training guarantee nothing.
In short, CB's believe that only those who are born again are actually Christian and are saved, regardless of denomination or self-designation.


When God works 'all things' for the good, is anything excluded in the word 'all'?

Clearly this verse is saying, ‘we know ----‘ because ‘God foreknew, predestined, etc.’ Therefore, from a basic standpoint there is no controversy in this verse at all. It is simply saying that since an infinite powerful God has planned before time to bless us then nothing in this world, or in time, can properly harm us as we are destined to be rich in glory.  Imagine an infinite God with bags of riches determined to hunt you down and give all of it to you. Would you not in some sense say then that those things in your life, good, or bad, are somehow working a final positive result in your eternal status?  Of course you would unless grossly misunderstanding the Bible along many fronts.

All one has to do is look at some sample Bible Commentaries like these, and one will immediately find that most see this involving God’s power, good will, grace and sovereign control over the affairs of this world.

For example from this link, just looking at the first two already set the stage:

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

  All things - All our afflictions and trials; all the persecutions and calamities to which we are exposed. Though they are numerous and long-continued yet they are among the means that are appointed for our welfare.

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

  God's providence is working, his Spirit is working, and they are working Together with him. And whatever troubles, or afflictions, or persecutions may arise, God presses them into their service; and they make a part of the general working, and are caused to contribute to the general good of the person who now loves God

Now the question is not that God is doing this, but that how far can we say he is doing it, are there any exclusions or limits to this positive view of our own life which faith in God provides.

For here we can simply let the scripture interpret itself. First there is the implicit argument derived from this that whatever dangers we face, they can’t break this love we are are 'clutched by' as nothing can harm us but what God permits and at the sime time protects from destroying us:

  For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (NIV Romans 8:38)

Second there is the positive aspect that if God is working everything out to our benefit then in a sense we have been made possessor of everything. What is the rich man but our servant? What is the great teacher but our servant? What is the government, the moon, the starts but things put into place to serve us in our entrance ito great riches and glory?

So then, no more boasting about human leaders! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future —all are yours (NIV 1 Corinthians 3:21-22)

Third this wealth and comfort rest entirely in God as a Lord of the universe disposing all things in such a way as to execute a grand design, all planned before to the minutest detail before we were born.

  In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will (NIV Ephesians 1:11).

Whether Calvinist or Arminian there is no reason to reject the comfort of this truth, however we explain God’s election it is something in conformity with his will which as we are bound under his love by grace can mean nothing but our good. Technically an Arminian can still believe in eternal security from this standpoint as God could simply ensure all who would reject their own faith, die before that happens since God is working out the time of their death to their benefit.

Fouth without such a positive and hopeful view that faith in God alone can bring, how else would we ever begin to practice this verse?:

  Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds (NIV 1 James 2:2)

So we see there are no doubts that all, means all without restriction.  The only reason why the question seemed doubtful is that I added a speculation about how winning a million dollars plays into this formula. However, this can neither be answered in the affirmative, or the negative, because we can’t pretend to fathom God’s sovereign will to such formulistic details. We can only have faith allowing his infinite wisdom to contain the answers on how he rules the world for our benefit and rejoice in that, knowing he is unstoppable, unmovable, unchangeable in his relentless will to bring us into everlasting glory ultimately unharmed by all the malice of the world, devil and sin.

How great is our God! Who can fathom it?


Are funerals a way to reduce the time of the dead in purgatory

The short answer is that prayer can help shorten the time someone spends in Purgatory, but, as was pointed out, funerals predated Christianity so it would be incorrect to state that funerals will help shorten the time, in part, because funerals are a way for those that survive to reflect on and to have closure over the loss of a loved one.

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church you find this:

  1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the
  dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas
  Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered
  from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the
  memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all
  the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the
  beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving,
  indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

  Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their
  father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead
  bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who
  have died and to offer our prayers for them.611

Scripturally you can look at 2 Maccabees 12, and you may want to read some part of the last section of this chapter for context, but at verse 46 is this:

  46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead,
  that they may be loosed from sins.

We also have Job 1:5

  5 When a period of feasting had run its course, Job would make
  arrangements for them to be purified. Early in the morning he would
  sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, “Perhaps my
  children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” This was Job’s
  regular custom.

In the RCC those that have died before us are still part of our church, and much as Job made sacrifices to help purify his children, and much as prayers for the dead help them, we continue this tradition to help shorten the time people spend in Purgatory, as you cannot enter the gates of Heaven with any stain on your soul, so if you did not die perfectly in grace, you spend time being purified, then enter Heaven.

Now, this is different than worshiping the dead. Not all prayer is worship, prayer can also just be a way to talk with someone that you care about that isn't with you, for example.  True worship should only be for God.  This is often a point of confusion for non-catholics.

For more on this you can look at:
http://catholicism.about.com/od/thesaints/f/Pray_to_Saints.htm

And for some quotes from early church fathers, and more explanation you can look at:
http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap070600.htm

For those that want to argue about the validity of 2 Maccabees you may want to read this first to see what the early church fathers taught about the OT canon, for example that it was quoted by Cyprian of Carthage.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-old-testament-canon


How does the Roman Catholic Church interpret predestination?

Against the Calvinist doctrine on predestination, the Council of Trent's 6th session (Decree on Justification) says:

CANON IV.—If any one saith, that man's free-will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-coperates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it can not refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive: let him be anathema.
CANON V.—If any one saith, that, since Adam's sin, the free-will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan: let him be anathema.
CANON VI.—If any one saith, that it is not in man's power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of himself, in such wise that the treason of Judas is no less his own proper work than the vocation of Paul: let him be anathema.
CANON XVII.—If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil: let him be anathema.
CANON XVIII.—If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep: let him be anathema.

See also Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.'s Reality ch. 11 (Providence And Predestination) and Predestination (esp. pp. 117f. on Protestantism, which mentions Calvin's theory).


How do Catholics view physical and digital copies of the Bible?

I don't know what a "small blue New Testament bible" is, but I suppose your principal was thinking about a translation.

In Italy the Church uses the "CEI Edition", translated by Italian Episcopal Conference in 1978 and revised in 2008 and it's mandatory during official functions - but in informal occasions, sometimes we use other translations: I will not list them here, but some are acceptables, some other aren't. But the official one is the "CEI Edition 2008".

About digital versions... I've seen with my very eyes priestes use them without problems during cathechism lessons and other informal occasions, but some of them still don't use it during Holy Masses (here is an example).

There is no official rule (at least, not in Italy... New Zeland Catholic Bishop Conference said that only printed books can be used) but in my experience I've seen celebrating an Holy Mass with an Ipad only once.

About your second question... every priest I know taught me to handle every Bible with respect, and to not destroy or throw it away.


What is the Catholic understanding of omnipotence?

St. Thomas Aquinas holds that God can do anything except whatever implies a contradiction.

Treating "Whether God is omnipotent?," he writes:

  [T]his phrase, "God can do all things," is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent.

and

  [N]othing is opposed to the idea of being except non-being. Therefore, that which implies being and non-being at the same time is repugnant to the idea of an absolutely possible thing, within the scope of the divine omnipotence. For such cannot come under the divine omnipotence, not because of any defect in the power of God, but because it has not the nature of a feasible or possible thing. Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.

Essentially, God cannot do "whatever implies contradiction" not because God lacks omnipotence but because a contradiction, itself, is no thing; it lacks being; it's unintelligible.


What was Calvin's view of capital punishment?

According to a variety of sources, Calvin supported capital punishment in some instances.

As listed here, between 1562 and 1563, the following executions were carried out in "Calvin's Geneva":

  Capital punishments:

  2 women for witchcraft
  3 for homicide
  3 men for raping children
  2 for sodomy
  3 for theft (either for several thefts or large sums)
  1 goldsmith for counterfeiting (beheading)

In his commentary on Genesis 9, he says:

  Verse 6

  6.Whoso sheddeth man’s blood (291) The clause in man which is here added, has the force of amplification. Some expound it, ‘Before witnesses.’ Others refer it to what follows, namely, ‘that by man his blood should be shed.’ (292) But all these interpretations are forced. What I have said must be remembered, that this language rather expresses the atrociousness of the crime; because whosoever kills a man, draws down upon himself the blood and life of his brother. On the whole, they are deceived (in my judgment) who think that a political law, for the punishment of homicides, is here simply intended. Truly I do not deny that the punishment which the laws ordain, and which the judges execute, are founded on this divine sentence; but I say the words are more comprehensive. It is written,

  ‘Men of blood shall not live out half their days,’
  (Psalms 55:23.)

  And we see some die in highways, some in stews, and many in wars. Therefore, however magistrates may connive at the crime, God sends executioners from other quarters, who shall render unto sanguinary men their reward. God so threatens and denounces vengeance against the murderer, that he even arms the magistrate with the sword for the avenging of slaughter, in order that the blood of men may not be shed with impunity.

And on Acts 25:

  Verse 11

  11.I appeal unto Caesar. After that he hath professed that he doth not refuse to die if he be found guilty, he freely useth such helps as he could find at the hands of men. Wherefore, if we be at any time brought into like straits, we must not be superstitious, but we may crave help of the laws and politic order. Because it is written, that magistrates are made and appointed by God to the praise of the godly ( Romans 13:3; and 1 Peter 2:13). Neither was Paul afraid to go to law under an unbelieving judge; for he which appealeth commenceth a new action. −

  Therefore, let us know that God, who hath appointed judgment-seats, doth also grant liberty to his to use the same lawfully. Therefore, those mistake Paul who think that he doth flatly condemn the Corinthians, ( 1 Corinthians 6:1) because they require help of the magistrate for defense of their right, seeing he reproveth in that place a manifest fault, to wit, because they could suffer no wrong, and because they were too much set upon suing one another, whereby they caused the gospel to be evil spoken of.

He also deals with capital punishment (by inference at least, if not directly) in Chapter 20 of his Institutes.

Based upon all of that, it seems Calvin approved of the death penalty being meted-out for crimes according to the jurisprudence of an appropriate government.


What is the significance of "G12" in the evangelism strategy "G12 Vision"?

According to GotQuestions.org G12 stands for Government of 12.

Castellanos believed that God spoke to him in a vision, laying out what He desired the Church do in response to the end times. This vision was the “government of 12” principle, a hierarchal pyramid scheme of discipleship and authority. He proposed that because Israel had 12 tribes, and Christ had 12 disciples, the Church needed to base their structure on this governmental model and become a cell-church.
The G12 model works this way: a pastor trains 12 people to be cell leaders. These cell leaders are each responsible for discipling 12 others in a cell group, usually with a minimum number coming from the community and not from within the church they attend. After a specified time, and after certain strict requirements are met, these cell members then become leaders themselves, and start their own cells. Thus, the membership of the church is multiplied, and the message of the Gospel is taken into the community.


Universal Laws according to the Bible:

All who sin must die.

  For the wages of sin is death... (Romans 6:23)

Sin can be washed only by an innocent blood

  In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with
  blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
  (Hebrews 9:22)

The blood of animal cannot take away sins.

  It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
  (Hebrews 10:4)

Universal Truths according to Bible:

All are sinners.

  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)

All must go to Hell.

  Death in Biblical context refers to Spiritual Death, which is
  separation from God or living in Hell. Therefore, since all are
  sinners, all must die and all must go to Hell.

God gave His one and only Son to die for us:

  For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that
  whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

Jesus Christ sacrificed his blood: Since all humans are sinners and animal blood cannot take away sins permanently, only the the blood of the Jesus Christ the sinless one can take away our sins. Jesus sacrificed himself for us by dying on the cross, by pouring out all his blood and taking all our punishments on him.

  God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we
  might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Anyone who believes Jesus Christ will not be condemned:

  Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ
  Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives
  life has set you free from the law of sin and death. For what the
  law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God
  did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin
  offering (Romans 8:1-3)

Philosophical explanation of how the whole thing works (source):

  We can no more defy this law and live than we can defy the law of
  gravity by jumping out of an airplane without a parachute. The end
  result will be death unless—unless we apply another law, the law of
  aerodynamics. This law makes it possible for an airplane to fly and a
  parachute to lower us to the earth gradually and thereby save us.

  There is another universal law that we cannot defy and live. It is
  "the law of sin and death," which means that the judgment and penalty
  of all sin is death and eternal separation from God. That is, unless
  we apply a higher law which is "the law of the Spirit of Life," which
  is a God-given "spiritual parachute" to save us from eternal death.
  God provided this law through the death of Jesus who died in our place
  to pay the penalty for our sin.

  Furthermore, because God is also a God of absolute holiness, no sin or
  unforgiven sinners can survive in his presence. As some bacteria are
  not able to survive in the light and die if they are exposed to it, so
  it is with us. In our sinful state if we were exposed to God and his
  incredible light, we would be destroyed instantaneously. And herein
  lies our dilemma.

  However, God's answer to our dilemma lies in the fact that God is not
  only a God of infinite justice and absolute holiness, but also a God
  of eternal love. Because of his love, God gave his very own Son, the
  Lord Jesus Christ, to die on the cross in our place to pay the penalty
  for our sins to meet the automatic demands of his (God's) justice and
  holiness. Christ's death made possible God's "law of the Spirit of
  Life"—our God-given "spiritual parachute"—to save us from eternal
  death.

(All verses in New International Version)


Is it possible to avoid hell by self mutilation?

It is clearly a parable. How could one eye be the cause of sin? Or one hand? By actually mutilating oneself for whatever reason in the way Jesus describes, no temptation is removed. Also, since our body is resurrected whole, the whole "it is better to enter the kingdom of god with a member missing than to go to hell with the whole body" is obviously figurative. We enter into both whole body.

He is clearly saying to remove anything from our live that causes us to stumble (tempts us, cause us to sin). That could be people, habits, hobbies, a job, our smartphone, anything that we cherish but which ultimately is not good for us. You know already what that is, and it is not your eye or hand. Like a body part, it could be something that is not in and of itself bad, but bad for you in particular.

Jesus is using drastic words to make clear that there is nothing that is above being sacrificed in order to remove yourself from sin if it tempts you. Using the own body is a good picture because that is what is closest, and most valuable, to us. Calling Jesus words hyperbolic exaggeration doesn't do them justice. This might be the most concise way to get across what he is trying to get across.

Self-mutilation does not save us from sin, Jesus does. Please don't harm yourself. If you think about harming yourself, please get help.


Did Moses worship Egyptian gods while living in the palace?

Moses' mother was hired by Pharaoh's daughter to nurse him and it is only after he is 'grown' that he was brought to Pharaoh's daughter to be her son.

And Pharaoh's daughter said unto her, Take this child away, and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wages. And the woman took the child, and nursed it.

And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.

[Exodus 2:10 KJV]

Moses' mother could well have instructed him, first, in the Hebrew fashion before he learned anything else. Moses never mentions anything in his writing that would indicate he was ever indoctrinated into Egyptian ideology.
Doubtless as an adopted grandson of Pharaoh, Moses would have been instructed in all the ways of Egypt but he chose not to follow them, personally.
At the age of forty, when he was 'grown' as an adult he clearly aligned himself with his Hebrew heritage :

And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.

And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.

[Exodus 2:11 KJV]

The writer to the Hebrews clarifies Moses' own, personal, attitude :

By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;

Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;

Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.

[Hebrews 11: 24-26 KJV]


Does Scripture mention whether it rained before the flood?

In support of the idea that it did not rain is the very next verse:

Genesis 2:6

  But a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the
  ground.

No further mention is made of rain until the Flood account. Anything beyond this is conjecture on our part.


The great prophet they were referring to was Jesus. Deuteronomy 18:15-18 speaks of a prophet greater than Moses whom the people shall listen to. This is likely what Luke is referencing to when he quoted the words of the people who witnessed the miracle.


What impact did Karl Barth have on Roman Catholic theology?

There are a number of helpful, some very detailed, works on Barth and Roman Catholicism. Barth himself had an ambivalent but intensely engaged dialogue with Catholicism throughout his academic career, especially leading up to, during, and after Vatican II. On the one hand he rejected a number of fundamental Catholic doctrines (e.g. the understandings of grace, salvation, church authority vs scriptural authority, Mary, and natural theology - in particular the analogia entis - 'analogy of being'). On the other he regards Catholicism as no worse, and in many ways better, than 19th century Liberal Protestant theology, and was somewhat hopeful for reform, especially at Vatican II. A hope partly rewarded, and not without his own influence (as you seem to have read.)

If you are happy to do some solid reading, one place to start is with the treatment of Barth's theology by his younger Catholic compatriot and friend,

Hans urs Von Balthasar: The Theology of Karl Barth (the 2nd edition is better than first, being written in 1961 after more of Barth's Church Dogmatics was published.)

Von Balthasar is regarded as something of a vexed interpreter of Barth by many today, but Barth himself spoke highly of him. Here you will see at play something of Barth's influence on one Catholic scholar. Hans Kung also has a work on Barth.

For a more analytical assessment and Barth's early engagement with Catholicism, you may prefer to start with:

Amy Marga, Karl Barth's Dialogue with Catholicism in Goettingen and Muenster (2010)
Donald Norwood (ed.), Reforming Rome: Karl Barth and Vatican II (2015), for his later engagement.

There are various summary articles in academic journals also, and a number of works in German, but I'll leave those for you to hunt down, depending on whether you can access and read them.

One side note, most recent scholarship would no longer regard Barth as 'Neo-orthodox', a term regarded as misapplied to Barth. (See for example the works of Bruce McCormack: Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology and more recent: Orthodox and Modern) Both are relatively dense reading in places, the former particularly, but very instructive all the same.

Of course, far and away the best way to understand Barth's engagement with Roman Catholicism is to read the Church Dogmatics. Here you will both see it in action and get the proper context to his arguments, as well as come to understand Barth much more deeply on a wider basis. It can be a daunting task. But its rewards are manifold and significant.


Would Calvinists classify themselves as determinists?

I'd say yes.   Though it may seem a cop-out, there does seem to be some philosophical distinction between hard- and soft-determinism, though, and I think most mainline Calvinists would affirm Compatabilism.    By definition, Compatabilism takes a syncretic view of determinism and free agency. So, yes, determinism is part of the equation, but it's not quite as simple as just leaving it at that.  God -- with full omnipotence and eternal omniscience -- creates each man knowing full well what that man will do, but each man does what he does freely (non-coerced) according to his nature.

I don't know if this helps, but I think the image of God as author -- which seems to be a fairly prevalent theme in Scripture -- helps me understand this.   Authors obviously control the actions of their characters, but a good author creates his characters in such a way that their actions (fore-ordained as they may be) just seem to naturally flow as extensions of their respective natures.


How is it that Georgian Orthodox Church are in full communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church when they have a different biblical canon?

The 85th Apostolic Canon, ratified at the Quinisext Council in Trullo in 692, enumerated the list of Old Testament books:

  Let the following books be counted venerable and sacred by all of you,
  both clergy and Laity.  Of the Old Testament, five books of Moses,
  Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; of Joshua the Son of
  Nun, one; of the Judges, one; of Ruth, one; of the Kings, four; of the
  Chronicles of the book of the days, two; of Ezra, two; of Esther, one;
  [some texts read “of Judith, one”;] of the Maccabees, three; of Job,
  one; of the Psalter, one; of Solomon, three, viz.:  Proverbs,
  Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; of the Prophets, twelve; of
  Isaiah, one; of Jeremiah, one; of Ezekiel, one; of Daniel, one.  But
  besides these you are recommended to teach your young persons the
  Wisdom of the very learned Sirach.

This Canon was adopted for the entire Church at the Seventh Ecumenical Council in Nicea in 787.

There is nothing in the Canon that prevents additional books from being included in the same binding, anymore that the Canon prohibits commentary or apparatus such as might appear in a study Bible.

An earlier local council, the Council of Carthage in 397, enumerated a similar list of books with the instruction that those listed were the only ones appointed to be read in the Church.  The Church of Georgia follows the same Church Lectionary as the rest of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which does not include any of the books you indicate.


How can I tell the difference between the Moral law and other laws in the old testament?

This may be an oversimplification, but truly, it's the best answer I have for this.

Moral Law deals with our relationship to God and to our fellow man.  Moral law can all be traced back to Matthew 22:36-40 (NIV quoted below)

  36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

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

Take any of the laws and trace it back to the obvious purpose, and you can see what is moral law, what is civil law, and what is ceremonial law.

For example:

the Ten commandments, including thou shalt not Kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet...  All of these have to do with showing love toward our fellow people.  If we love someone we will not kill them, steal from them, or covet their things.  If we love God, we will have no other gods before Him, we will not bow down to idols.

Civil law deals with things like establishment of guilt, proper punishment for offenses.  It's easily recognizable as similar to our own civil laws.

Ceremonial law would include such things as the dimensions of the temple, the colors of the robes for certain priests, etc.


Were the similarities between the miracles of Elisha and Jesus deliberate or simply coincidental?

Two salient facts should inform the reasoning:

At the Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus was shown to be in league with the Law (Moses) and the Prophets (Elijah).
Elisha had asked to receive a "double share" of Elijah's gifts - and that was granted.  Elisha performed many of the same miracles that had accompanied Elijah's ministry.

Jesus, then, was shown to be a prophet performing the same miracles as a prophet. That these miracles were similar would have the effect of showing that Jesus was fully a prophet (in addition to being fully the lawgiver and fully God) in a way that would have made sense to those who already knew the works and role of the prophets from the Ketuv'im.


What happens to Jesus when received in a unworthy manner in the Eucharist?

The short answer: nothing “happens to Jesus” when a person receives the Eucharist unworthily, when the Eucharist is inadvertently stepped on, or even when it is desecrated deliberately.

As the O.P. correctly points, out, when Catholics (and Orthodox) say that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist, they affirm that he is present both in his divinity and in his humanity. Jesus is one and whole (he is the Divine Person of the Son), and he cannot be divided. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], 1377.)

It should be clear that nothing can “happen” to Jesus as regards his divinity, because the Divine Nature cannot be changed or influenced by anything, least of all the actions of one of His creatures. (If He allows Himself to be influenced by prayers and so forth, that is a deliberate choice on His part that does not produce a change in Him of any kind; see, e.g., Hebrews 13:8, and a long Patristic tradition.)

On the other hand, Jesus in his human nature can (like any other man) undergo changes of various kinds.

As regards unworthy reception of the Eucharist and similar situations, however, there are two important considerations.

First of all, Jesus retains his human nature in Heaven and will retain it for all eternity. (See CCC 659.) However, because he has ascended into Heaven, he is now glorified and therefore impassible; that is, he can no longer suffer. (This is a property of all glorified bodies, including Christ’s; see Revelation 21:4.) Therefore, much as Jesus does not approve of unworthy reception or desecration of the Eucharist, he is not “pained” by it, at least not any longer.

(It is possible that, with his divine foreknowledge, he was aware of future unworthy receptions of the Eucharist, even as he walked this earth 2000 years ago, and that these caused him pain back then, but they do so no longer.)

Second, it should be noted that, although the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is real and substantial (that is, the consecrated bread and wine are no longer actual bread or wine, but Jesus), it is a sacramental presence. (See CCC 1353 and 1369.) One is not to imagine that our consumption of the sacred species causes harm to Jesus physical body that is in Heaven. In a similar way, it is not as though Jesus feels a physical discomfort or anything like that when someone receives him unworthily.

It follows that no action on our own part can harm or otherwise grieve Jesus in the Eucharist (although, of course, deliberately receiving Christ unworthily or desecrating the Eucharist is extremely harmful for the person who does it).

(Naturally, people are not responsible inadvertently stepping on small particles—provided it is truly inadvertent and not due to negligence or something like that. In that case, it does not even harm or affect the persons who do it, still less Jesus.)


What is the source of the quote attributed to Origen, that "the soul has neither beginning nor end"?

I believe the second part of this quote is original to Hatch, Edwin, and A M. Fairbairn. The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church. London: Williams and Norgate, 1891, as follows:

Every soul has existed from the beginning; it has therefore passed
through some worlds already, and will pass through others before it
reaches final consummation. It comes into this world strengthened by
its victories or weakened by the defeats of its previous life. Its
place in this world as a vessel appointed to honor or to dishonour is
determined by its previous merits or demerits. Its work in this world
determines its place in the world which is to follow. (page 235f)

Hatch and Fairbairn were presenting a summary and pastiche of various Origen texts in such a way that it was not apparent to readers that it was not entirely a direct quote. In this passage, I believe they refer at least to the following passages from Origen's own work, De Principiis:

there were certain causes of prior existence, in consequence of which
the souls, before their birth in the body, contracted a certain amount
of guilt in their sensitive nature, or in their movements, on account
of which they have been judged worthy by Divine Providence of being
placed in this condition. ... And it is probable that these movements
furnish grounds for merit even before they do anything in this world.
(De Principiis III.iii.5)
the cause of each one's actions is a pre-existing one; and then every
one, according to his deserts, is made by God either a vessel unto
honour or dishonour. (De Principiis III.i.20)
we are of opinion that, seeing the soul, as we have frequently said,
is immortal and eternal, it is possible that, in the many and endless
periods of duration in the immeasurable and different worlds, it may
descend from the highest good to the lowest evil, or be restored from
the lowest evil to the highest good. (De Principiis III.i.21)
I am, indeed, of opinion that, as the end and consummation of the
saints will be in those (ages) which are not seen, and are eternal, we
must conclude (as frequently pointed out in the preceding pages), from
a contemplation of that very end, that rational creatures had also a
similar beginning. And if they had a beginning such as the end for
which they hope, they existed undoubtedly from the very beginning in
those (ages) which are not seen, and are eternal. (De Principiis
III.v.4)
we are to suppose that at the consummation and restoration of all
things, those who make a gradual advance, and who ascend (in the scale
of improvement), will arrive in due measure and order at that land.
(De Principiis III.vi.9)

Regarding the editorial practices of Hatch and Fairbairn, Cruttwell writes regarding this section:

Dr. Hatch has ably pieced it together from several of Origen's works
in his own words.
Cruttwell, Charles Thomas. The heretical sects: Volume 2 of A Literary History of Early Christianity. Scribner, 1893, p. 505

The first part of this quote ("The soul has neither beginning nor end.") is known from Eastern philosophy. (eg. The Brahmavâdin. Madras: Brahmavadin Press, 1895, page 8), but I don't know when or how it became attributed to Origen.


God is constant; man is not. The Psalms are reflections of the hearts of the persons who composed them. David in faith defeated Goliath and in folly slept with a friend's wife and had him killed. He worshiped God wholeheartedly and spared the life of his enemy King Saul, and he also was chased for years and despaired of life. One son became a wise leader, while another started a civil war. The circumstances of his life constantly changed. Each Psalm was written from a different emotional place. His worship was colored by his emotions. He felt elated over victory. He felt angry over injustice. He felt guilty over sin (like Psalm 51). The Psalms are outpourings of the heart which reveal the inner turmoils and beliefs of David and the other writers.

When the Psalmist expresses unmet expectations of God, disappointment, anger, despair, or confusion, they are being honest about what they believe, but their picture of God may be distorted or incomplete. However, notice that many Psalms show a progression. Psalm 22 begins in a dark place, but ends with an affirmation of faith that the God who is not at present showing up and remedying the situation will come in time. This shows the emotional and spiritual growth of the one who is praying and worshiping God. Their trials are increasing their faith.

This same sort of contradiction is found in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, each of which are traditionally believed to have been written, curated, or at least contributed to by Solomon. The first confidently expresses the blessings that accrue to the person that fears God, while the second expresses confusion over how often injustice and futility prevail in life, and how people who do not fear God often flourish, while the wise are forgotten.

Returning to Psalm 22:

  19 But you, Lord, do not be far from me.

  You are my strength; come quickly to help me.

  20 Deliver me from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dogs.

  21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions; save me from the horns of the wild oxen.

  22 I will declare your name to my people; in the assembly I will praise you.

  23 You who fear the Lord, praise him!

  All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!

  Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!

  24 For he has not despised or scorned
  the suffering of the afflicted one;

  he has not hidden his face from him
  but has listened to his cry for help.

Between verse 21 and verse 22, we have a transition from supplication to praise. Have the Psalmist's fortunes suddenly reversed? No, what has changed is their attitude. It is one thing to praise God for what he has done, and quite another to praise Him for what you are confident he will do. The first shows simple gratitude, while the second shows faith.

Having seen my fair share of distress in this life, I know that there are times in the midst of trouble when God feels far off, and times when he feels near. The only difference is our perception: the eyes of faith can see that God is near. The nearness of God is not in question, it is how near we will allow ourselves to be to him.


No, God does not love unconditionally.  In fact, God hates the wicked.

  Hosea 9:15 NIV
  15 “Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal,
     I hated them there.
  Because of their sinful deeds,
     I will drive them out of my house.
  I will no longer love them;
     all their leaders are rebellious.

However, those who have faith in Christ and accept him as their savior are loved unconditionally for eternity.

  John 3:36 NIV
  36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects
  the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.

Remeber that 1 John 4:8 tells us that God is love.  I'll just give you all of 1 Corinthians 13 (NIV) with some highlights.

  1 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have
  love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have
  the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge,
  and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I
  am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my
  body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain
  nothing.

  4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast,
  it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not
  self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
  6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It
  always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

  8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease;
  where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is
  knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in
  part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11
  When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I
  reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of
  childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a
  mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I
  shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

  13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest
  of these is love.


How does a full preterist interpret the 'Thousand-years reign' in Revelation 20

I take a more scientific approach to this. I believe this is simply a period of exponential growth of Christianity.
In order to explain this, I need to establish the beginning and the end given the context. I like to start with the end, because I am weird like that.
Christianity had a reign of 1000 years before heaven and earth are made anew in Rev 21:1, where "Heaven and earth" is used poetically to mean "everywhere". This speaks of complete desolation, a barren land, as is the case after war. We know this because of the previous chapter, where it talks about Gog and Magog ending the 1000 year reign and then getting fire from heaven thrown down on them. The Turks conquered Jerusalem in 1073 AD and were hit with fire from heaven.
SOURCES:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atsiz_ibn_Uwaq
https://books.google.com/books?id=sIJlMsv8gVIC&pg=PA219&lpg=PA219#v=onepage&q&f=false

The prior chapters to Revelation 20 deal with a very specific instance, an event that was fulfilled with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. A preterist takes the stance that John was writing this prior to the Temple's destruction.
SOURCE:

https://www.bible-history.com/jerusalem/firstcenturyjerusalem_destruction_of_jerusalem_in_70_a_d_.html

However, Jerusalem isn't 100% ruled by Christians between 70 AD and 1073 AD. In fact, it was under Muslim rule for some time after the Byzantine empire. Thus, it isn't a political interpretation but one of religious interpretation.
The percentage of the Christian world population was on the rise during this time. Christianity absolutely exploded. The science I talk about in the beginning is one of social science and statistics.  Exponential growth always follows a pattern as it reaches maturaity, an S-Curve or Sigmoid curve. This is well known in business marketing as a company reaches market saturation. You have slow growth, it picks up speed, then slows back down, and reaches a plateau or crest as the market or population becomes saturated.

This is quite common in populations, because once a thing like religion spreads, it can only go so far - the maximum population. You can only convert the maximum of 100% of people. The threshold for Christianity is probably a lot lower than 100% as given by the analogies Jesus gives for choosing the narrow path. If it is greater than the widest path, it is therefore not the correct path.
The thousand years I interpret as a period of exponential growth as a % of the population. This growth actually looks more linear according to my sources, though these are estimates. You will notice, the exponential growth seems to stop around 1100 AD (closest to 1073 AD) and experiences a slowing down of growth  where it reaches a peal in present day of around 31.7%.

Here is the Google Doc version: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mLY2VEJSzTe65XTHFT2DMrX5xJdOJjnp/view?usp=sharing
Thus, the 1000 year reign is one of exponential Christian growth between the Jerusalem's conquest in 70 AD in the Jewish-Roman war to 1073 AD when the Turks conquered Jerusalem. It's not exactly 1000 years, but I'm sure you could make a case for corresponding millennial events.
That puts us in the new heaven and earth age. God's systems are pretty much set up. Christianity continues to bless the world by association (salt of the earth) at 31.7% and the dead are continuously judged as Revelation 20 dictates. Some may even say that is the reason for the plethora of near-death experiences seeming a lot like the New Jerusalem. I'll leave that up to the parapsychologists.


Do Paul's and Jesus' use of epithets and culturally-harsh criticisms mandate/approve our own?

Sorry for the long post but the question is complex, so I have answered according to various aspects.

The Bible is pretty clear about using 'foul' language, but what is 'foul' is not always clear. However since the bible endorses brotherly love, if words that you feel free to say at home, offends someone at work, or church, then they should be said at home only.

  Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. (NIV Ephesians 5:4)

The new testament is never legalistic, so it expects each person to apply a verse like this and there is no need for others to define in great detail what it means by actually listing the words. Regarding Carlins 7 cuss words (I had to look that up) even most non-Christians would define most of them as obscenities.  Basically, if a teacher in a high school could get into trouble for saying a certain word every day in their regular teaching, it is probably viewed as an obscenity by a large population.

But all humor aside, I think the key idea with obscenity is that it offends.  Even if the Bible did not say, do not use offensive language, it is already given that we should do our utmost not to offend our brother. Obscenities are just those words, not evil in themselves, that are generally understood as offensive.  Of course many words lay on the border of offensive or non.  I am often surprise that some words I use, are considered offensive by some people at my own church.

What makes a word offensive? I think what happens is when we are bitter or angry in a sinful 'cursing' sense we tend to refer to certain word to express our wicked curse.  Although the words themselves could be said by a child without any anger at all, the frequency of their use as a continuer for wicked cursing, by wicked men, eventually bring about a strong cultural opposing to the word itself.  It is these word which would make our talk unwholesome and unloving.

Now as we approach sin, or things we can hate, while being a loving Christian, we are naturally wanting to use words that properly express our disgust.  These are the types of words that Jesus and thenApostle used. Non of these words were considered offensive, but being called by them, would obviously offend, but in a good way.  For example sinner is not a offensive word, but many would be offended if you came up to them and said, 'Hi, did you know you are are a wicked, blaspheming, sinner?'

So the only question remaining is when can we use words that although not offensive in themselves, are greatly offensive to those we use them?  I think this is something each person must decide according to their faith and proper evaluation of their own attitudes.  For example, at home I would say very sharp words about a certain Christian group. I would say they are mostly all deceived. Their leader is a devil.  They have always been filthy blasphemes who hate Christians, etc.  I would say that to my wife as she would not be offended.  At my church I would  not say these things so sharply, as I may offend.  At work I would not say them as it may be considered as harassment and even worth being disciplined.  I would not say these things on this website as it violates the purpose of the site.

Jesus, the Apostles and even regular Christians may be forced to publically use very offensive language because of what is at stake.  For example if false teachers, are deceiving members of a congregation, very harsh language may be needed to rebuke them.  If we just said, well they have their opinions, but we think we are right, others might think it is ok, to consider lies, in place of faith in Christ.  Since the stakes are so high, leaders may need to let people know, chose them, or chose us, there is no in between. One is good, the other is scum, one if righteous, the other wicked.  When it reaches climatic situations like this,** holy men will use the most offensive language, without ever needing to use words that are actually offensive in themselves.**


“From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 34  Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 35  Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. (Matthew 23:32-35)

The miracle of the cursing of the fig tree has a literary form called an inclusio, or what many seminary students have come to affectionately know as "the sandwich."  The idea is that two stories (Story A and Story B) are related, and the way the hearer is cued to know that fact is the arrangement.  In an inclusio, Story A is started, but not finished. Story B then comes in the middle. Finally, there is a return to Story A. The point of the inclusio is always story B, where Story A is usually the frame.

In the Synoptics, the story of the fig tree has as its inclusio Jesus clearing the Temple.

The Fig Tree is a metaphor for a vibrant, living thing that is supposed to be giving life. Like the tree in Psalm 1, the man who does not walk in the way of the wicked is:

  ...like a tree planted by streams of water,
     which yields its fruit in season
  and whose leaf does not wither—
     whatever they do prospers.

Unlike a tree, however, a man's 'season' is his lifetime. And, the Temple (having been recently reconstructed) should also be in its season at all time.

The fact that Jesus finds a barren tree is disconcerting, especially since he, the Messiah has come. Like his parable of the bridesmaids (where 5 foolish women burn all their oil but 5 wise ones save it), Jesus expects his people his people to be ready.  (Indeed, there are several parables that teach this very point). Upon finding his Temple in disarray, Jesus is visibly disappointed that the fruits of Temple worshippers are noticeably absent. Like the Tree, the Temple worshippers may not have thought they needed to be in season, but they are wrong.

As Paul later would admonish Timothy, Jesus' followers must be "be ready in season, out of season."

In order to be ready like that, however, one must have complete faith that the Lord is coming. As Jesus says

  if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

The sin of those in the Temple was simply that they were not ready. Those in the Temple should have been bearing fruit, not selling it. Though their own scriptures had been saying that the Messiah would be returning for centuries, when it actually happened, people were clearly not ready.  Even the Temple had no special sway - people treated it like a shopping mall rather than the house of God. People were not "bearing fruit in keeping with repentence."

It was as Peter would say:

  The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

As people awaiting the return of the Lord again, the lesson we are to take is that we should be producing fruit at all time. If our hope is to wait to be fruitful until the 11th hour, we better pray Jesus doesn't come at 10:30.


Which liturgical rites (forms of Mass) are presently used in the Roman Catholic Church?

How can one characterize (a rite)?

A rite represents tradition about how sacraments (not just Mass) are celebrated. As the early Church grew and spread, it celebrated the sacraments as would be best understood and received in the context of individual cultures, without ever changing their essential form and matter.

Which forms of Mass (rites) are presently used within the Roman Catholic Church? and where are they used?

Counting novus ordo and tridentine as a single rite, there are totally 5 western rites and 22 eastern rites (with five eastern liturgical tradition). The complete list of functional rites and their jurisdiction can be found at gcatholic.org.

Please see Wikipedia article titled List of Catholic rites and churches for the list of defunct rites, But I really doubt that this is an exhaustive list of defunct rites.


Wiki gives us:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


How do people become the sheep that Jesus speaks of in John 10?

In these "What would an Arminian say about..." questions, it's important to first denote what kind of Arminian you're talking about. There are 5 points of Arminianism:

Human Free Will - This states that though man is fallen, he is not incapacitated by the sinful nature and can freely choose God.  His will is not restricted and enslaved by his sinful nature.
Conditional Election--God chose people for salvation based on his foreknowledge where God looks into the future to see who would respond to the gospel message.
Universal Atonement--The position that Jesus bore the sin of everyone who ever lived.
Resistable Grace--The teaching that the grace of God can be resisted and finally beaten so as to reject salvation in Christ.
Fall from Grace--The Teaching that a person can fall from grace and lose his salvation.

Not everyone that calls themselves an Arminian agrees with all 5 points--that's why we hear people call themselves "3-point" Arminians, "2-point" Calvinists, and so on.

Within the context of the passage in John 10, the 5-point Arminian perspective would say that hearing and following Jesus are what makes someone a sheep, and that the sheep can essentially "leave" the flock at any time by ceasing to hear and follow.

  John 10:25-28 ESV Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

The Arminian would furthermore cite the subsequent verses as evidence to their claim: Jesus is adjuring the same Jews to believe in the works, that you may know, and essentially become sheep.

  John 10:37,38 ESV If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”


What is the biblical basis for commemorating the birth of Jesus?

John's Gospel Chapter 1 tells us that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (v1) and that this Word became flesh and dwelt among us (v14). So Christians beleve the Birth of Christ entailed the Incarnation (becoming flesh) of God Himself as a human person.  This, if true,  was one of the most important things ever to happen.

Psalm 145 v4 says "one generation shall praise thy works unto another, and shall declare thy mighty acts".

Many Christians feel that the Birth of Christ, the Incarnation, is a mighty act which should be declared to future generations.

There are many ways this could be done, some Biblically-based, some not.  In the Book of Exodus God instituted the Jewish festival of Passover. Chapter 12, verses 26 and 27 may explain why: "It shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you What do you mean by this service? That you shall say it is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt." God instituted the Passover festival so that future generations should learn what had happened.

In the book of Esther the Jews were delivered from an impending calamity. To commemorate this the annual Jewish festival of Purim was established.Chapter 9 verse 27 tells us the Jews "took it on themselves" to establish that they and their descendants should celebrate this annually for ever.  God did not institute Purim, as He instituted Passover, Rather the Jews took it on themselves to do so.

The Bible does not command the celebration of Christmas, any more than Purim,  but the Church took it on itself to do so.A Biblical basis is that the event it commemorates is important enough to be passed down to future generations, that God set the example with Passover of using an annual festival to pass things down, and that the Jews had also later taken it on themselves to establish an annual festival without God's direct command, as a way to perpetuate knowledge of something they felt important. This is the Biblical way, so this is what the Church did.

If looking for a Biblical basis for the date of Christmas, it is important to bear in mind there may not be one. Elizabeth, John the Baptists mother, was already 6 months pregnant when Gabriel announced  to Mary that she too would bear a Child (Luke 1 v26). This puts the Birth of Christ around 15 months after the conception of John.  Gabriel announced that Elizabeth would conceive when he appeared to John's father, Zachariah, when he was burning incense in the temple (Luke 1, vv10 11) .  There was a tradition that this happened on the day of Yom Kippur, (late Sptember/early October). We are also told that Zachariah was of the course of Abijah (Luke 1 v5) - this indicates his place on the priestly roster and thus the weeks in the year when he would have been on duty. Attempts have beeen made to determine when this was, but there is no consensus.


The difficulty in verifying the math and the calculations is that every prognostication has its own formula.  In order to verify Harold Camping, for instance, you have to look at the passages he is pulling from.

For example, here is one (and I don't endorse it) showing how they arrive at their numbers.

Probably the most important calculations revolve around the "time, times, and half a time" in Revelation, and the vision of the 70 weeks in Daniel.

There is one mathematical construct in the Bible that bears the most weight, however, and that is Matthew 24:36:

  But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only


Do Catholics believe in other apparitions like Mary? Or is she unique in this respect?

Yes, other saints and angels as well as Jesus Himself have appeared to visionaries throughout the ages.

I can give three examples:

St. Joan of Arc received visions of Saint Michael the Archangel, Saint Catherine of Alexandria, and Saint Margaret of Antioch
St. Faustina Kowalska recieved visions of Jesus (and authorized a painting of that vision)
The seers at Fatima received visions of St. Michael as well as Our Lady and a vision of Hell.

Mary is certainly unique and there is some very great significance to her apparitions that is mysterious and will probably remain so. At the core of her apparitions is always a return to love of Jesus and faith and obedience in the Church.  Her main message at the one approved apparition in North America in my home state of Wisconsin was just to read and teach the Catechism.

The other saints messages and purposes seem to be to strengthen the seers, but Our Lady's singular purpose is bring everyone to her Son.   So I think you're right in observing that there is a difference.


Why did the people believe that no one would know where the Christ came from?

In John 7:27, it is written,

Rather, we know where this man is from, but when the Messiah comes, no one knows where he is from.
ἀλλὰ τοῦτον οἴδαμεν πόθεν ἐστίν ὁ δὲ Χριστὸς ὅταν ἔρχηται οὐδεὶς γινώσκει πόθεν ἐστίν

According to the Gospels, "the chief priests and the scribes" understood that the Messiah was to be of the seed of David and born in Beit-Lechem (Matt. 2:4-5; John 7:42 cp. Mic. 5:2).
People were cognizant of Yeshua's parents (Mark 6:3; John 1:45 cp. John 6:42) and the town he resided in, Natzaret of Galil (Matt. 21:11; John 7:41).
On the other hand, it was prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14 cp. Matt. 1:23) and be the seed of a woman (Gen. 3:15). Essentially, a human male would not contribute to the conception of the Messiah.
"Seed from another place"
In the Midrash Bereshit Rabba, Parashat Bereshit, it is written,

"…and she called his name Set, for God appointed me another seed…"
(Gen. 4:25). Rabbi Tanchuma in the name of Rabbi Shemu'el said, "She
observed the seed that came from another place. And what is this?
This is the King Messiah."
ותקרא את שמו שת כי שת לי אלהים זרע אחר וגו׳ רבי תנחומא בשם רבי שמואל
אמר נסתכלה אותו זרע בא ממקום אחר ואי זה זה מלך המשיח

The midrash states that the seed from which the Messiah would be conceived would come "from another place" — perhaps an allusion to him being of divine origin.
"Root from dry ground"
Another scripture which seems to hint at a peculiar childhood of the Messiah is Isaiah 53:2.
In his Epistle to Yemen (Iggeret Teiman), Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam) wrote,

And, Yesha'yahu (Isaiah) said similarly, when he (the Messiah) appears
without knowing his father and mother and family: "And he will grow up
in His presence as a branch, even like a root out of dry ground (etc.)..."
(Isa. 53:2).
וְאָמַר יְשַׁעְיָה כְּמוֹ כֵן, כְּשֶׁיִּרְאֶה מִבְּלִי שֶיודע לוֹ אָב
וְאֵם וּמִשְׁפָּחָה, "וַיַּעַל כַּיּוֹנֵק לְפָנָיו וְכַשֹּׁרֶשׁ"
וְגוֹמֵר יְשַׁעְיָה נ"ג ב'.

Rambam wrote that the Messiah would not know his father, mother, or family. While this isn't true of Yeshua, it demonstrates a traditional Jewish interpretation concerning the Messiah which Rambam received. It is quite possible that this same tradition existed among the Jewish people in the time of Yeshua. That is, some believed that the Messiah's father, mother, and family would be unknown and that the Messiah would appear from obscurity.
Perhaps one of the reasons Rambam interprets the scripture in such a manner is because the ground is said to be "dry." A root in dry ground is essentially dead or on the verge of death, as it receives no sustenance. Trees and plants are often used as metaphors in reference to ancestors. For example, the Messiah is said to be the "root of Yishai" (Isa. 53:11). That the Messiah, the root of Yishai, grows up out of dry ground, indicates that he is from an obscure family, contrary to the belief that the Messiah would be a well-known public figure worthy of pomp and grandeur.
I have also read that Raymundi Martini, in his Pugio Fidei, quotes Rabbi Moshe Ha-Darshan in saying that the Messiah would be fatherless, by connecting Zech 6:12 to Isa. 53:2 and Ps. 110:3 (according to the thought of the LXX). I'm currently searching the Pugio Fidei attempting to locate the page.


Does the Roman Catholic church recognize LDS baptisms?

For Baptism to be valid requires three things: form, matter and intention.

Form refers to the words, which must refer to baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. LDS baptism meets this criteria.

Matter requires the use of water. LDS baptism meets this criteria.

The Intention must be to do what the Church does. For this reason baptism in other Christian churches, or by lay persons, or even by non-Christians is valid if the intention is to do what the Church does. A baptism in a play at a theatre, or by children horsing around in a pool,  would not be valid as the Intention would not be there. A baptism by a lay catholic against canon law would be illicit but not invalid, provided it was deliberate and intentional..

In July 2001 the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared that the LDS (Latter Day Saints also called Mormon) understanding of Baptism was so different from the Catholic understanding that the intention was not the same.  The congregation said that the Catholic Church could not accept Mormon belief that "God the father had a wife, the Celestial Mother, with whom he procreated Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit." Therefore the Roman Catholic Church believes that when Mormons baptise they are not intending to baptise into the Christian Faith, as understood by Rome.

Two out of three is not enough.

So, no the Roman Catholic Church does not recognise LDS baptism as valid. A Mormon is able to receive Catholic Baptism and, if wishing to become Catholic, must do so.


How do JWs respond to Jude 9 in light of Matthew 4:10?

Both accounts in Jude 9 and Matthew 4:10 are the same person (Jesus).

Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus is known as Michael, The Archangel while in heaven. There are also other things to keep in mind why Jesus is believed to be the archangel.

The prefix “arch” means “principal” or “chief,” (http://www.yourdictionary.com/arch) and the word “archangel” is never used in the plural form in the Bible.

The other verse in which an archangel is mentioned is at 1 Thessalonians 4:16, where Paul describes the resurrected Jesus, saying: “16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a loud cry of summons, with the shout of an archangel, and with the blast of the trumpet of God.” (AMP Bible) So Jesus Christ himself is here identified as the archangel, or chief angel.
Now, in regards to your question about Jude 9 and Matthew 4:10. These verses do not contradict.

In Jude 9, Jesus has apparently resumed his service as Michael the chief angel or Archangel. As you mentioned, Michael did not rebuke Satan in this instance. Why? Well, consider the surrounding verses before verse 9.
Jude 8 says, "Nevertheless in like manner, these dreamers also corrupt the body, scorn and reject authority and government, and revile and libel and scoff at [heavenly] glories (the glorious ones)."

Apparently, there were men during Jude’s time who spoke abusively and rejected the authority of the glorious ones. Jude does not speak highly of these such men who obviously lacked humility due to haughtiness. Then, at verse 9 Jude gives a contrast of the behavior of those ungodly men and how Jesus handled a situation in regards to Moses body in a dispute with Satan. Jude was using this example to illustrate the importance of humility.

While Michael resisted Satan’s wicked scheme, he showed remarkable self-restraint. Satan surely deserved a rebuke, but Michael, who at the time he was disputing with Satan had not yet had “all the judging” committed to him, felt that such a judgment should come only from God. (John 5:22) As archangel, Michael had extensive authority. Yet, he humbly deferred to God rather than trying to seize additional authority. Besides humility, he also showed modesty, or an awareness of his limitations.

Jude was inspired to write about this incident for a reason. Sadly, some Christians in Jude’s day were not humble. They were haughtily “speaking abusively of all the things they really [did] not know.” (Jude 10) So Jude was in essence saying that if Jesus did not rebuke Satan even though he very well deserved it, why should you (these ungodly men) speak abusively of the glorious ones? Just as Jesus left it to the God to address Satan, they were encouraged to do likewise.

So, it wasn't that Michael was afraid to rebuke Satan, but rather Jesus did not want to go beyond his authority. Instead, God’s Son showed humility and modesty. He was pleased to have Jehovah God, the Supreme Judge of the universe, handle matters in His own way and time.


Was Paul the ideal Christian we were meant to emulate?

Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. (1 Corinthians
  11:1, NIV)

Paul, indeed said that we should follow his example, which is to follow the example of Christ.  The ultimate goal in Christian life is to become like Christ. Therefore,

  The Ideal Christian to be imitated is not only Paul, but all the
  Apostles also.

  The Ideal Person to be imitated is Jesus Christ.


What does "Style" mean in the context of feast days

Old vs. New Style means pre- vs. post-Gregorian Calendar reform.
From the OED's "IV. 27. a." definition for "style" (cf. esp. the last ¶):

A mode of expressing dates. Chiefly, Either of the two methods of dating that have been current in the Christian world since the introduction of the Gregorian calendar in 1582: viz., the New Style (abbreviated N.S.), which is the result of the Gregorian reform, and the Old Style (O.S.) which follows the unreformed calendar. The New Style is occasionally called the Roman Style, and the Old Style the English Style. In historical dates earlier than 1582, however, Roman Style, as used by modern writers, means only that the year mentioned is to be understood as beginning on 1 Jan.
The Julian calendar was based on the assumption that the tropical year consisted of 365¼ days. In order that the average calendar year should have this length, it was provided that the normal year should contain 365 days, but every fourth year 366 days. Down to A.D. 1582 the Julian calendar continued to be used by all Christian nations. In calendars and almanacs, the year began on 1 Jan. (like the Roman consular year); but for ordinary purposes the time of beginning the year was different in different places; in England, after some fluctuations, the beginning of the legal year was fixed for 25 March [Feast of the Annunciation]. After the adoption of the Christian era, the leap years were those whose number A.D. (reckoned from 1 Jan.) was divisible by 4.
The Julian estimate of 365¼ days for the length of the tropical year was too great by about 11 minutes, an error which amounts to one day in about 128 years. Hence in 1581 the date of 21 March for the vernal equinox, assumed since the early 4th c. in the rule for computing Easter, was 10 days too late. To remedy this inconvenience, and to prevent its recurrence, Pope Gregory XIII, acting on the advice of the Jesuit Clavius and other eminent astronomers, ordained that in A.D. 1582 the day after 4 Oct. should be reckoned as 15 Oct., and that in future the years which had a number ending in two cyphers should not be leap years unless the number were divisible by 400. The Julian date of 1 Jan. for the beginning of the year was retained. The difference between the old and new calendars continued to be 10 days until 1700 (the first disputed leap-year), when it became 11 days; in 1800 it became 12 days, and in 1900 13 days, from which there will be no further increase till 2100.
The Gregorian calendar (so called from the name of the Pope) was speedily adopted in all Roman Catholic countries, while the other nations of Europe adhered to their traditional reckoning. In the 17th and 18th centuries, it was often found necessary to state whether a date was according to Old or New Style, or to give both datings. As the nations which accepted the reform usually began the year on 1 Jan., not, as in England, on 25 Mar., there was for the March quarter (in addition to the other difference) a discrepancy in the number of the year between the Old Style and New Style dates.
In England and Scotland the Gregorian calendar was established by the Act 24 Geo. II. c. 23 (1751), which provided that the year 1752 and all future years should begin on 1 Jan. instead of 25 Mar. (in Scotland this rule had been adopted in 1600), that the day after 2 Sep. 1752 should be reckoned the 14 Sep., and that the reformed rule for leap year should in future be followed. Ireland followed in 1788. The use of New Style is now universal throughout the Christian world with the exception of certain countries of the Greek Church; in Russia it was officially adopted by the revolutionary government in 1918.
The use of stilus for ‘mode of dating’ was current in medieval Latin, as a specific application of the sense ‘usage’ (cf. 19 above[: A "style" (stilus) is "A method or custom of performing actions or functions, esp. one sanctioned by usage or law."]). In France the expression New Style (nouveau style) had been current before the time of the Gregorian reform, with reference to the change in the beginning of the year from Easter to 1 Jan., which took place in that country in 1563.

Building upon this definition of stylus, see

G. V. Coyne, Michael A. Hoskin, and O. Pedersen, Gregorian Reform of the Calendar Proceedings of the Vatican Conference to Commemorate Its 400th Anniversary, 1582-1982 (Specola vaticana, 1983), p. 62-63 (PDF):

Herald of Landsperg reckoned the year from Christmas day. This was the “Christmas style” or stylus nativitatis, sometimes also called stylus curiae Romanae since it was often used by the Papal chancellery. In the civil calendar it was more common to use the stylus communis which placed new year's day on 1 January; since this was the feast of the circumcision of Jesus this system was also called stylus circumcisionis. In another system the year began in March as in the pre-Julian Roman and some old Germanic calendars. Still another stylus annunciationis or stylus incarnationis placed new year's day on 25 March which was both the feast of the Annunciation and the old Roman vernal equinox. This custom prevailed in England until the Gregorian Calendar was introduced in 1752. Finally one also had a movable year beginning at Easter, either on Good Friday or on the following day after the benedictio fontis. This motley of styles is one of the reasons of the intricacies of Medieval chronology.


What is an overview of Christian arguments against the "unconscious violinist" analogy used to support abortion in the case of rape?

I will begin by observing that the answer to this question is a logical and philosophical one, hence it does not depend on a particular religion or denomination. It is human nature itself that demands utmost respect for all human beings, and hence all people—regardless of religion—are obligated to work for the end to direct abortion in all cases.

I will, however, answer from the perspective of the Catholic Church.

For the purposes of this discussion, direct abortion is defined as any action “tending directly to destroy human life in the womb ‘whether such destruction is intended as an end or only as a means to an end;’” see Evangelium Vitae 62, which is quoting an address made by Pope Pius XII on November 12, 1944, to the San Luca Biomedical Association.

Regarding direct abortion itself

The Catholic Church takes the position that direct abortion can never be justified for any reason. In other words, although there may be situations in which a medical procedure must be made that results in the death of the child (e.g., in the treatment of ectopic pregnancies, or in the case of particularly aggressive cancers), the death of the child can never be directly intended—either for its own sake, or for the sake of some other good. As Pope John Paul II said in Evangelium Vitae,

  I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being (No. 62).

Regarding the case of pregnancy that results from rape

Hence, a woman who has been raped (and whoever finds herself in that situation deserves the utmost care and support!), and is pregnant as a result, is indeed obligated to bring the child to term. This obligation arises from the fact that the child in question is a human being—in fact, a human person—with all the rights and obligations that accrue to a human being, simply for being human. The most fundamental right of all is the right to life.

It should also be observed that although rape itself is an unspeakable crime, pregnancy as such is not, nor does it cause harm to the mother. Rather, it is a normal part of human development. Clearly, the way in which this particular kind of pregnancy comes about is extremely traumatic and violent, but the pregnancy itself is not a violence against the woman or her body.

It is true that pregnancy brings with it certain risks, but modern medical care mitigates the vast majority of them. It is also true that pregnancy—especially one that is unexpected and emotionally charged, as in this this case—can be burdensome for the mother. However, the proper response is for society to help her bear the burden: doing violence to the completely innocent child in her womb solves nothing and heals nothing.

(I do not have access to scientific studies on cases of pregnancies resulting from rape—I am not sure that there are enough cases to be statistically significant—however, ample anecdotal evidence shows that bringing the child to term is often a source of healing for the mother. See for example, this story about a mother who was raped when she was 12; a story about people conceived in rape; a story from a woman who at first wanted her baby dead. Moreover, abortion itself is always extremely harmful to the woman who has it done—at a minimum, for the moral damage it causes, but at least in a significant number of cases, it also produces intense anguish and suffering.)

A look at the “violinist” analogy

Let us now look at the analogy presented by the O.P.

The first thing to observe is that it is an entirely canned and unrealistic situation. In reality, there is no medical situation is like this. (In the case of kidney failure, the proper procedure is to give the violinist kidney dialysis.)

Let us, however, take the “bait” and see if the analogy between the situations really holds. In fact, there are important differences:

The violinist is not healthy. He is, in fact, in a very precarious medical situation, and any treatment that will be performed on him has only a limited chance of success. On the contrary, in the vast majority of cases, the baby conceived in rape is perfectly healthy, and so is the mother (at least for the most part—she is generally not at death’s door, like the violinist). Unless someone does violence to him, the baby is fully expected to survive and flourish.
The violinist depends on the kidnapped victim only tenuously for his survival. Once his disease is cured, he can go on his way. On the other hand, a baby (at least before viability) depends radically on his mother for his very existence. In other words, the violinist depends on the kidnapped victim only because (1) he has an illness and (2) the kidnapped person has been connected to him—in other words, he depends only accidentally on the kidnapped person. The baby, on the other hand, depends on his mother (as it is said) essentially—that is just how the baby is made right now, even though he is perfectly healthy.
Comparing not the crimes committed, but only the situation of the victims (person kidnapped and mother) after the crime is committed, the person connected to the violinist is subjected to a much worse burden. The kidnapped person must remain immobile for nine months in a hospital; pregnancy (without diminishing the real burdens that it entails) does not impose a comparable burden on the mother.
Removing the connection to the violinist does not intend to procure the death of the violinist. It intends to remove the victim from a burdensome (and, in this case, unjust) situation. On the other hand, direct abortion does violence to the baby—it necessarily intends the baby’s death.

With these differences in mind, let us look at each situation:

Would a person who finds himself connected to a sick violinist be obliged to remain there until the violinist recovers?

We should observe that—as in the case of abortion—the fact that the person aiding the violinist was placed in that position by violence is actually irrelevant to the question. The question is: now that I find myself connected to a sick violinist (however I got there), may I disconnect myself?

The answer is, “It depends on the circumstances.” (Assuming I am this victim), I cannot summarily pull out the connections, without at least appraising the situation. I have to consider the life of this sick person, and whether my actions would directly procure his death or not.

In this case, however, because his dependence on me is circumstantial or (to use the classical terminology) “accidental,” I would most likely not be obligated to continue the “treatment.” We are dealing with a very sick patient whose life might (or might not) be prolonged by my being connected with him. The use of my kidneys is, at the end of the day, a risky experimental procedure that has a certain probability of success, but is not 100% certain, and might even cause me harm.

Moreover, remaining connected to the violinist is a tremendous burden (one not comparable to pregnancy, as mentioned above). It could only be imposed on me with my consent—which is obviously lacking in this case.

In summary, the dependence of the violinist on the kidnapping victim for his survival is too tenuous or “accidental” for it to impose an absolute obligation on the kidnapped person to continue the “treatment.” However, even in a case like this the life of the violinist must be preserved as best as the situation allows.
May a woman who finds herself pregnant as a result of a rape do violence to her child?

No, never. There is no way to “disconnect” the baby without necessarily bringing about his death. The dependence of the baby on his mother is essential—brought about by his very constitution.

Moreover, the burden imposed by the baby on the mother is one that can be reasonably be expected to be born. It does not threaten her life or her wellbeing, and what risks there are can (in the vast majority of cases) be mitigated. The evidence strongly suggests that pregnancy and birth are healing experiences for mothers that are victims of rape—and that aborting such children, on the contrary, causes the mother anguish and unspeakable suffering.

A better analogy

I will propose a better analogy that is closer to the situation of pregnancy that results from rape.

Suppose that through some sort of act of violence (perhaps a terrorist attack or something similar), I encounter a newborn baby who has no one to care for him. (Suppose that he is the only survivor of a terrorist attack.)

Supposing that there is no one else who can do so, would I be obliged to take care of him? I think that everyone would agree that the answer is “yes.” At a minimum, I would be obliged to find someone else who would be willing to take over that responsibility.

Does the fact that the situation was imposed on me by violence take away my responsibility? Not a bit. It may make it more difficult for me to take on that responsibility, but the responsibility remains. The proper response, however, is to seek help and support in fulfilling that responsibility—not to do violence to the innocent child who is the subject of it.