Which Roman Catholic figure(s) has/have accused the Church of Mariolatry?

Schismatics/heretics have said this. For example, the Collyridians sacrificed κολλυρίδας ("bread cakes") to her, and St. Epiphanius (d. 403) denounced this as mariolatry:

  Collyridians. Under this name [St.] Epiphanius (Haer. 79) assails certain women who had brought from Thrace into Arabia the practice of performing on certain days rites in honour of the Blessed Virgin, the chief being the offering of a cake (κολλυρίς), and the partaking of it by the worshippers. Epiphanius condemns their conduct because (a) women ought not to offer sacrifice, and (b) Mary is to be honoured, God only to be worshipped. The name Collyris (or kindred forms) is to be found in the LXX translation of Lev. vii. 12, viii. 26; II. Sam. vi. 19, xiii. 68; and the word passed thence into the Latin versions.

cf. ch. 6 article 1 of Mother of the Saviour and Our Interior Life by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., or the Catholic Encyclopedia article "Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary," § "The Age of the Fathers"


What does this reference in the Watchtower Online Library mean?

What does the reference mean?

The Witnesses use a rather odd and somewhat cryptic set of abbreviations for their publications.

g94 11/8 10 is Awake! magazine, 8th of November, 1994, p. 10.
jv 134 is Jehovah’s Witnesses—Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom (pub. 1993), p. 134.

Many books also have another, less cryptic abbreviation. For example, jv is often simply called “the Proclaimers book”. If I remember correctly, the full title is on the front cover, and just Proclaimers on the spine.

References are always by page number, even for references to the Insight or Reasoning books, which are alphabetical by topic and hence in completely different orders in different languages.

Who suggested it before Russell?

Here is the referenced passage in the Proclaimers book. (This was copied from an online scanned version I found, to which I will not link as it is violating copyright. I do actually have my own copy somewhere, in one of my many piles and boxes of books waiting to be put on my shelves once I get them assembled.) The italics are in the original.

  As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the "seven times" of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length.
  But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these Seven times" with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. In 1844, E. B. Elliott, a British clergyman, drew attention to 1914 as a possible date for the end of the "seven times" of Daniel, but he also set out an alternate view that pointed to the time of the French Revolution. Robert Seeley, of London, in 1849, handled the matter in a similar manner. At least by 1870, a publication edited by Joseph Seiss and associates and printed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was setting out calculations that pointed to 1914 as a significant date, even though the reasoning it contained was based on chronology that C. T. Russell later rejected.

  Then, in the August, September, and October 1875 issues of Herald of the Morning, N. H. Barbour helped to harmonize details that had been pointed out by others. Using chronology compiled by Christopher Bowen, a clergyman in England, and published by E. B. Elliott, Barbour identified the start of the Gentile Times with King Zedekiah's removal from kingship as foretold at Ezekiel 21:25, 26, and he pointed to 1914 as marking the end of the Gentile Times.

The following paragraph is about Russell contacting Barbour and working with him.


Are there any texts that mention viruses or dinosaurs or black holes or electricity or chromosomes or explain that the stars are suns etc?
Science and religion are supposed to be antagonists. History tells a more complicated story.
The Bible does not teach how the heavens go, but rather how to go to Heaven!
That is a huge difference.
To back up new scientific research biblically is not a new subject matter. It plagued both Cardinal Bellarmine and Galileo alike:

Certainly Bellarmine used all the subjunctive reservation of which the Italian language was capable, that if some day it could be proved irrefutably that Copernicus was right, then one would have to go back and interpret the relevant biblical passages again. But he excluded the possibility of such proof.33 The doctrine that the Earth was in motion not only went against common sense, the Book of Joshua and the Psalms of David, but against Solomon himself; Solomon who had gained all his wisdom from God. For was not this ascribed to Solomon in the Book of Ecclesiastes: "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." (Eccles. 1,5).
The other reason for Galileo's strong stand, was that he believed he had just the indisputable, physical proof that Bellarmine required.
But before he went public with his new proof he wanted to make certain of his home ground. Galileo decided to combine a theological and theoretical account with a courtly tribute and write an open letter to the Dowager Grand Duchess. The "Letter to Christina" ran to over forty pages, and circulated only in manuscript copies, as any attempt to publish it would have risked an open confrontation with the censor.
In the letter he makes his position clear. Truth is one and indivisible. There can therefore be no conflict between the words of the Bible and natural revelations, but the Bible is written in a different language and has a different object: it teaches us "how to go to heaven, and not how the heavens go." (Non come va il cielo, ma come si va in cielo.) This implies that the Bible's words must be explained and interpreted.

This implies that the Bible’s words must be explained and interpreted. And some interpretations seems simply to go sideways. We must also keep in mind the for such terms as viruses, black holes, chromosomes, dinosaurs and electricity did not exist in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic. In fact electricity did not exist as a modern element of usage until Benjamin Franklin showed up on the scene.
As I have already mentioned, many scientific words simply did not exist in ancient Hebrew and thus will not be found in the Bible. However certain glimmers of the subject at hand might be able to be found here and there. Please remember that not all will be in agreement here and interpretation in always that an interpretation.
Let us start with viruses and bacteria. There seems to be no explicit information on these phrases in Holy Writ, but some of the symptoms of these possibly seem to be written about.
Plagues are mentioned in the Scriptures one some occasions, yet what caused them remained unknown to the Ancient people of the Bible. Microscopes did not exactly exist in the good old days!
The sixth plague of Egypt bears an uncanny resemblance to the Black Death in the fact that the plague affecting Europe in the Middle Ages often produced boils caused by a bacteria called Yersinia pestis

The Sixth Plague

Then the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Take handfuls of soot from a furnace and have Moses toss it into the air in the presence of Pharaoh. It will become fine dust over the whole land of Egypt, and festering boils will break out on men and animals throughout the land." — Exodus 9:8–9

Since the Ancients had no usage of microscopes, they know want divers plagues were. But they could not understand what caused them, be it a virus or a bacteria. The same logic goes for chromosomes.
The question of dinosaurs is a little more speculative, in that some interpretations of Scripture seems to possibly shed light on this subject. Not only are we dealing with interpretations here; we different translations come into play here too. We should keep in mind, paleontologists did not dig up the first dinosaur until 1819.

Are Dinosaurs in the Bible?
Some scholars say yes, others no. This article takes the stance of the affirmative.
Two instances in the Bible could possibly describe a dinosaur, or at least, a dinosaur-like creature. Some theologians will argue the author could have used hyperbole or metaphorical imagery, but if he chose to do so, he picked some rather odd images to describe mundane creatures.

Behemoth (Job 40:15-24)

In Job, this creature is described as having a tail like a cedar and an herbivore diet. It also says this colossal beast had large bones like beams of bronze.
From the portrayal in those verses, it seems as though the passage indicates a creature similar to a diplodocus. Some commentators try to say God had described a hippopotamus in this passage, but the depiction doesn’t seem to match up. Hippos, for instance, don’t have tails like cedars.

Leviathan (Job 41)

By the next chapter, another creature is reported which some theologians have labeled a crocodile. However, once one hears the features of the leviathan, it doesn’t appear to add up.

The leviathan seems to have armor-plated skin that no hook can pierce. Like the behemoth, the author makes note of the strong limbs this animal possesses.

Psalm 104:26 indicates the leviathan lived in water, which could point to why some people say it’s a crocodile. And Isaiah 27:1 describes the leviathan as a twisting serpent.
These may align with a crocodile, but Job (Job 41:18-19) seem to indicate this creature literally breathed fire. Crocodiles and other similar reptiles have not been known to breathe fire. This may indicate a dragon-like species existed during Job’s time.

Interpretation and diverse translation weigh into one’s perspective. Two points here to illustrate my meaning here. Some versions state that unicorns existed. Oh, yes the Bible says so. But the word in English versions vary from unicorn to water buffaloes or an ox.

Re'em
Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?

Some Tibetan missionaries proposed the this mysterious creature is non other than the Tibetan antelope because of the numerous legends surrounding this animal.
Another interesting story from the Bible is that of Tobias and the fish that wanted to eat him.

Tobias Catches a Fish
6 So Tobias and the angel started out toward Media, taking Tobias' dog along with them. They walked on until sunset, then camped by the Tigris River. 2 Tobias had gone down to wash his feet in the river, when suddenly a huge fish jumped up out of the water and tried to swallow one of his feet. Tobias let out a yell, 3 and the angel called to him,
Grab that fish! Don't let it get away.
Then Tobias grabbed the fish and dragged it up on the bank.
4 Cut the fish open, the angel instructed,
and take out its gall bladder, heart, and liver. Keep these with you; they can be used for medicine, but throw away the guts.
5 Tobias did as the angel had told him. Then he cooked the fish, ate part of it, and salted the rest to take along with him.

To this date I am unable to locate any local legends as to what species of fish this might have been. Both Bible and legendary works come up black.
As for the existence of black holes and that stars are suns is irrelevant to God’s word in the Holy Bible as the inspired authors of God’s Word did not have telescopes and they wrote as they were inspired to do so.
The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, and not how the heavens go. (Non come va il cielo, ma come si va in cielo.)


Do most Christian scientists have a Literal Creationist viewpoint?

I can't find any more specific polling, but from this ongoing Gallop Poll:

Only 40% of all Americans believe in a strict Young Earth Creation model (be that Genesis or otherwise) - the majority support some form of theistic evolution or natural evolution.

When you look at those with post-graduate education, nearly 50% hold a theistic evolution view, with 25% supporting a naturalistic evolution view and only 22% supporting a young earth model.

If we take "scientists" to mean those with a post-graduate degree involved in the active study of some natural science, then it would a reasonable (though quite unscientific) assumption to say that the majority of scientists their post-graduate peers and support the evolutionary model, either from a theistic standpoint or a naturalistic one.

This obviously isn't firm evidence either way - there is some evidence that those in the natural sciences have higher rates of religious belief than those in more social sciences, but not to any extreme degree, and it would be a stretch to claim that scientists reject evolution at a higher rate than the general populace.

It's also only looking at American data, but outside of Islamic countries, you're only going to see more support for evolution.


How is Christian worship different than Christian religion?

The biggest issue I can see in America is the frequent confusion of Christian marriage and Governmental marriage (which hints at a greater confusion between America and God, but that's another topic for another day.)

From a Christian perspective, marriage is defined as a covenant between a man and a woman to honor and love each other, and treat the other as better than oneself until one of them should die.  The relationship between the two in marriage should represent the relationship between Christ and the Church in how it operates, and thus, point to Christ and his love.  Ultimately, the governmental definition of marriage shouldn't matter at all from a Christian perspective.

The crux of the problem is that American Christians have, for too long, viewed things as though Christianity was primarily made for marriage, and not marriage for Christianity.  Visit a large singles group in the Bible belt in the US, and you'll see what I mean.  It becomes the ultimate desire of the average church-going single to find a mate, not to worship God.  This kind of attitude begets a Christianity that doesn't seek after God, so much as it seeks after happiness in marriage, which means people are seeking earthly things instead of the creator who created those earthly things.  This kind of seeking for earthly things ultimately fails.  It's like C.S. Lewis' quote: "Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither."  And of course, when two Christians, looking to their spouse for happiness ultimately find that they're not fulfilled in that search, their marriage looks no different than a non-Christian marriage.  Not understanding the true meaning of marriage (to represent Christ and the church: Ephesians 5:22-33), these people view marriage as a religion unto itself, and attribute the worship of it accordingly.

So the question in my mind is: what is the difference between Christian marriage and any other marriage?  Should we even care what non-Christians (including the government) do?   I don't think we should.  As Christians, our focus should be more on making sure our own representation of Christ and the Church, through our marriage, is so clear, that it shines before men and points to Jesus.

As for the United States, the right to worship as one sees fit ought to be protected, as it's part of the constitution, but I see nothing in any proposed constitutional redefinitions of marriage that would ultimately prevent someone the right to worship as he sees fit.  Unless, of course the object being worshiped is the Governmental institution marriage, in which case, yeah, you've got a problem.

And to answer the basic question at the end: I think Christian religion and Christian worship cannot be completely separate.  Romans 12:1 says that our spiritual act of worship is to present our bodies as a living sacrifice.  I think it's possible to practice the Christian religion without practicing Christian worship.  All you need to do to do that is do "Christian" things, but proper Christian worship is recognizing Christ's ability to save us from our own depravity, and then glorifying God for having had sent his Son for us.  I don't think, however, it's possible to practice Christian worship without practicing some semblance of the Christian religion, which, in it's purest form, is glorifying God... be it through marriage or through some other means.


Why do Covenant theologians use the word "dispensation," and what do they mean by it?

The word dispensation has been around for a long time, long before John Darby founded Dispensationalism, and the use of it is not unique to his followers.  Covenant theologian Vern Poythress writes:

  Virtually all branches of the church, and all ages of the church, have believed that there are distinctive epochs or “dispensations” in God’s government of the world.1

The distinctive then, between Dispensationalism and Covenant theology, is not, then, the use of the word dispensation.  Neither is the number of dispensations a distinctive: Poythress continues that you "can make as many [dispensations] as you wish by introducing finer distinctions."1

Instead, the difference is between what theologians from each camp "say about these dispensations, not the fact that the dispensations exist."1  So what's the difference?  R. C. Sproul summarizes:

  In the [Westminster] confession the word dispensation means a kind of stewardship or administration, which is far removed from the word's usage in classical Dispensationalism.  Reformed theology knows nothing of different testing periods or different redemptive agendas for Israel and the church.2

By administration, Reformed theologians refer to the specific mechanisms by which God executes the covenant: for example, A. A. Hodge describes the Old Testament dispensation as "administered chiefly by types and symbolical ordinances," while that of the New Testament "is characterized by its superior simplicity, clearness, fulness, certainty, spiritual power and range of application."  But he emphasizes that "in all essential respects" the covenant in the two dispensations is the same.3

These comments barely scratch the surface of the differences between these two theological viewpoints, but fleshing those out is another topic.  Suffice to say that the use of the word dispensation is not unique to Dispensationalists, though their understanding of the word entails more than it does for Covenant theologians (like the Westminster divines), who see it as a mere synonym of administration.

References:

Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists (1986), chapter 1
Sproul, What Is Reformed Theology? (1997), 113–14
Hodge, Commentary on the Confession, 179.  For more in-depth discussion of this, see Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 2.3.5.


Were the Waldensians like a Protestant Church in the Middle Ages?

Most information about the doctrine of first valdensians that survived till today is contained in the inquisition protocols. According to "New Advent":

  ...denial of purgatory, and of indulgences and prayers for the dead. They denounced all lying as a grievous sin, refused to take oaths and considered the shedding of human blood unlawful. They consequently condemned war and the infliction of the death penalty.

are among their doctrines that contradicted roman catholic faith, so I think, that yes, they can be view as sui specie 'protoprotestants'.

Contemporary Waldenses were 'assimilated' into reformation.


What does it mean when Archbishop Ganswein stated that Pope Benedict XVI expanded the Petrine Ministry?

In a lecture in Rome, Gaenswein said (according to a report in the National Catholic Register) that Benedict had “left the papal throne” but had not “abandoned [the] ministry” he had accepted “in April 2005,” such that, while there are not “two popes,” there is “de facto” an “expanded” [Petrine] ministry – with an active member [i.e., Pope Francis] and a “contemplative member [i.e. Pope Emeritus Benedict].” That is why, Gaenswein continued, Benedict XVI “has not given up his name or the white cassock,” and why “he has also not retired to a monastery in isolation but stays within the Vatican – as if he has taken only one step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy.”

  Complete English Text: Archbishop Georg Gänswein’s ‘Expanded Petrine Office’ Speech: Benedict XVI’s personal secretary stresses there are not two popes, but “an active member and a contemplative member”.

Answer

Based on Arch.Gaenswein explanation he clarified that Pope Benedict XVI had abandoned the "papal throne" but had not abandoned the "ministry". And further stated it should not be understood as the Catholic Church having Two Popes but instead he used the term "expanded Petrine ministry".

From reading the text of Arch.Gaenswein it can be understood that Pope Benedict XVI has not abandoned the embraced responsibility of the Pope in praying for the Church the People of God towards it's mission on the salvation of souls.

Let's compare the personal testimony of Pope Benedict XVI in his speech addressed.

  BENEDICT XVI
  GENERAL AUDIENCE
  Saint Peter's Square
  Wednesday, 27 February 2013

  1.I feel that I bear everyone in prayer, in a present, God’s present, in which I gather together every one of my meetings, journeys and pastoral visits. In prayer I gather each and all, in order to entrust them to the Lord: that we might be filled with the knowledge of his will, with all spiritual wisdom and understanding, and that we might lead a life worthy of him and of his love, bearing fruit in every good work (cf. Col 1:9-10).

  2.In these last months I have felt my energies declining, and I have asked God insistently in prayer to grant me his light and to help me make the right decision, not for my own good, but for the good of the Church. I have taken this step with full awareness of its gravity and even its novelty, but with profound interior serenity. Loving the Church means also having the courage to make difficult, painful decisions, always looking to the good of the Church and not of oneself.

  3.Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated. I was able to experience, and I experience it even now, that one receives one’s life precisely when one gives it away. Earlier I said that many people who love the Lord also love the Successor of Saint Peter and feel great affection for him; that the Pope truly has brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, throughout the world, and that he feels secure in the embrace of your communion; because he no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him.

  4.The "always" is also a "for ever" – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.

Here we can see that Pope Benedict XVI had affirmed what Arch.Gaenswein had stated that he did not renounce the "ministry of praying for the Church" and clearly stated by saying "I am not abondoning the cross.. but in the service of prayer I remain."

It is also worth noting that Pope Benedict XVI mentioned the he bear his chosen name Benedict who is well known as a Great Prayer Warrior or Great Intercessor.

To understand how great the power of intercession of St. Benedict is let us consider this story;

  In one story of Benedict's life, a poor man came to the monastery begging for a little oil. Although Benedict commanded that the oil be given, the cellarer refused -- because there was only a tiny bit of oil left. If the cellarer gave any oil as alms there would be none for the monastery. Angry at this distrust of God's providence, Benedict knelt down to pray. As he prayed a bubbling sound came from inside the oil jar. The monks watched in fascination as oil from God filled the vessel so completely that it overflowed, leaked out beneath the lid and finally pushed the cover off, cascading out on to the floor.

  In Benedictine prayer, our hearts are the vessel empty of thoughts and intellectual striving. All that remains is the trust in God's providence to fill us. Emptying ourselves this way brings God's abundant goodness bubbling up in our hearts, first with an inspiration or two, and finally overflowing our heart with contemplative love.

St. Benedict of Nursia

Pope Benedict XVI also addressed the following words that shed more light on the intention of his resignation and acknowledge the legitimacy of Pope Francis.

  The decision I have made, after much prayer, is the fruit of a serene trust in God’s will and a deep love of Christ’s Church. I will continue to accompany the Church with my prayers, and I ask each of you to pray for me and for the new Pope. In union with Mary and all the saints, let us entrust ourselves in faith and hope to God, who continues to watch over our lives and to guide the journey of the Church and our world along the paths of history.

GENERAL AUDIENCE Saint Peter's Square Wednesday, 27 February 2013

In closing, we can view the meaning of the "expanded Petrine ministry" as the Papacy's "contemplative ministry" had been strengthen by the Wisdom of God inspired to Pope Benedict XVI in purposely choosing the title "Emeritus" so that his offering of a life of prayer and sacrifices carries still the universal force of a Pope. Pope Benedict still retain the "munus" and still wear the White Robe and still addressed as "Your Holiness" but as far as his testimonies and numerous videos are concerned he clearly acknowledges the legitimacy of the Papacy of Pope Francis.

The key word in his testimony is by acknowledging the mission of his chosen name St.Benedict  a well known powerful Prayer Warrior/Intercessor which he intend to live and fulfill as long as he lives for the service of the Church.
In reality Pope Francis is so blessed to have a Great Prayer Warrior inside the Vatican who did not abandon the Church and did not flee from the wolves rather Pope Benedict XVI courage has engage a direct spiritual combat with the wolves thru contemplative prayer.

The testimony of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI clearly debunked all conspiracy theories circling around the mainstrean and social media about the legitimacy of Pope Francis papacy and the issues on his forced resignation are all false.


In light of Catholic Teaching, what is the Catholic explanation of "But who can discern his errors? Clear thou me from hidden faults." [Ps 19:12]

While mortal sins require knowledge venial sins do not.

  One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

CCC #1862

Also, as Christians we should desire to do the right thing and to know what it is. While the act may not have been a sin - or a venial sin in our love for God we should desire to do his will. Jesus calls us to be perfect. Attaining perfection requires knowing what faults we have so that we can work on them.

A forgotten sin is forgiven during confession. Remembering them is not required for forgiveness. However, it is good to remember all your sins while in confession for the same reason that a sin should not be deliberately withheld (See quote). However I am not sure that it is independant of attaining perfection.

  Christ's faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness for remission through the mediation of the priest, "for if the sick person is too ashamed to show his wound to the doctor, the medicine cannot heal what it does not know."

CCC #1456


The statements of the early Church Fathers regarding the doctrine of the Trinity (pre-Nicea)

I found the following quotes on the doctrine of the Trinity:
IRENAEUS –

“He is Himself in His own right God and Lord and Eternal King and Only
begotten and Incarnate Word, proclaimed as such by all the prophets
and by the Apostles and by the Spirit Himself… The Scriptures would
not have borne witness to these things concerning Him, if, like
everyone else, He were mere man.” (Against Heresies by Iranaeus, 3.10
pp1-2, Jurgens, Vol. 1)
“[The Gnostics] transfer the generation of the uttered word of men to
the eternal Word of God, attributing to Him a beginning of utterance
and a coming into being in a manner like to that of their own word. In
what manner, then, would the Word of God – indeed, the great God
Himself, since He is the Word – differ from the word of man, were He
to have the same order and process of generation?” (Ibid. 2:13.8)

ORIGEN –

“Although He was God, He took flesh; and having been made man, He
remained what He was, God… For we do not hold… that some part of the
substance of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was
procreated by the Father from nonexistent substances, that is, from a
substance outside Himself, so that there was a time when He did not
exist.” (Fundamental Doctrines by Origen, Ibid., p1, pref.3-4)

TERTULLIAN –

“God alone is without sin. The only man without sin is Christ; for
Christ is also God.” (The Soul by Tertullian, 41.3, Jurgens, Vol. 1)
“But Christ,” they [the Gnostics] say, “also bore the nature of an
angel.” For what reason? And why did He take human nature? … Christ
bore human nature in order to be man’s salvation… There was no such
reason why Christ would take upon Himself angelic nature.” (Ibid.
14.1)

Now let me quote from another book which deals with Tertullian and his theology – The Story of Christian Theology by Roger E. Olson, Apollos, 1999.

“Tertullian’s massive critique Against Praxeas was written after
Tertullian had defected to Montanism, but its influence throughout the
Western Christian churches was ‘immediate and permanent.’ Praxeas was
perhaps the first Christian theologian to attempt to explain the
doctrine of the Trinity in systematic detail. In the process, however,
he apparently explained away the real ontological threeness of the
persons of God. That is, Praxeas denied that Christians believed in
three distinct identities or even relations within the one divine
being… Praxeas’s view later came to be known as modalism and was
revived by another later teacher of Christians in Rome named
Sabellius… Tertullian perceived this modalistic explanation of the
triunity of God as a dangerous heresy and declared in typical fashion,
“Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil at Rome: he drove away
prophecy, and he brought in heresy; he put to flight the Paraclete and
crucified the Father”. (Tertullian, quoted in Justo Gonzalez, A
History of Christian Thought, vol. 1, From the Beginnings to the
Council of Chalcedon, rev. ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1992) p.178.)
[Page 92 of Olson’s book.]
“Tertullian strove to explain why Christians worship Jesus Christ
rather than Caesar or any other so-called god and yet at the same time
insist that God is one and heavenly. In order to explain this, he
turned to the often-used concept of the Logos of God and appropriated
an analogy that would become a favorite one for Christian thinkers
wrestling with this issue. The Logos, Tertullian carefully explained,
is both God and God’s offshoot through which he relates to creation.
This Logos is, of course, Christ, the Son of the Father. Tertullian
used the sun analogy to explain their relationship:  ‘This ray of God,
then, as it was always foretold in ancient times, descending into a
certain virgin, and made flesh in her womb, is in his birth God and
man united’. (Tertullian Apology 21 ANF 3) [Page 93 of Olson’s book.]
“In Against Praxeas Tertullian provided a fairly clear statement of
this organic monotheism: ‘All [three – Father, Son and Holy Ghost] are
of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the
dispensation is still to be guarded, which distributes the Unity into
a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons – the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in
degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect;
yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power.”
(Tertullian Against Praxeas 2.) [Page 96 of Olson’s book, which also
has more on Irenaeus and Origen – I do recommend this book.]


What is the purpose of church discipline?

This answer reflects my personal opinion, or rather results from my personal studies.

I can see two main purposes.

Salvation of the sinner

The first purpose is to help the person that is being disciplined. This is apparent from Paul's writing to the Corinthians:

  1 Cor 5:4-5 (ESV)

  4 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus,
  5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

It's difficult to say what this exactly means, but clearly the goal is that his spirit may be saved. In general, there can be multiple different ways that discipline helps a person turn from the road to destruction.

Purity of the church

Christ wants His bride pure.

  Col 1:21-22 (ESV)

  21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him

Continuing from the earlier passage, Paul writes:

  1 Cor 5:6-8 (ESV)

  6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Little leaven leavens the whole lump. Similarly, one person living in sin lures others in the community to live in sin, making the whole community impure.

As for the relation between the two, church discipline should always be part of God's discipline. It should always happen in the guidance of God and according to principles set in the bible (implementation details). Anything other would be spiritual violence. God thankfully has a lot of other means to discipline His children, so church discipline is just one detail of a big picture.


How do different eschatological views interpret Isaiah 65:17-25?

The four  eschatological viewpoints described are quite different and to a large extent mutually exclusive. Furthermore each viewpoint has adherents with different concepts of what that viewpoint actually describes, so it hard to be too definitive. Some history of the passage would help put them in perspective.

It is generally accepted that Isaiah chapters 1-39 were written by Isaiah, son of Amoz, who lived during the reigns of Kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah of Judah, although there were numerous later additions and changes to that portion of the book. Chapters 40-55 are attributed to an anonymous author now known as Second Isaiah or Deutero-Isaiah, who lived during the Babylonian Exile. This author had a very different style to that of First Isaiah, who used brief, emphatic diction, compared to Second Isaiah's poetic style and more extensive vocabulary. Chapters 56-66 are attributed to another anonymous author now known as Third Isaiah or Trito-Isaiah, who lived shortly after the Return from Exile. So, chapter 65 can be seen as referring to the hopes and aspirations of the Jews who had recently returned from Babylon. We can see the hardships of captivity compared to the joys of freedom:

  There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred
  years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed
  (Isaiah 65:20)
  And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build, and
  another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat ... (Isaiah
  65:21-2)

To Third Isaiah, freedom was such a wonderful experience that he compared it to paradise, as in verse 65:25:

  The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

Premillennialism is the belief that Jesus will literally and physically return to earth before Christ's reign for 1,000 years during a golden age of peace. However, there are two very distinct schools of premillennialism, historic premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism, which is largely based on the nineteenth-century ideas of Darby and Schofield. Premillennialism is largely based on interpretations of the Books of Daniel and Revelation, along with the the Olivet discourse from the synoptic gospels, but Isaiah 65:17-25 fits in well with this view.  Wayne Jackson, in an article entitled 'Examining Premillennialism' draws on Isaiah to support the concept of premillennialism, but does not mention verses 65:17-25.

Postmillennialism expects that eventually the vast majority of those living will be saved. Increasing gospel success will gradually produce a time in history prior to Christ's return in which faith, righteousness, peace, and prosperity will prevail in the affairs of men and of nations. Postmillennialism also teaches that the forces of Satan will gradually be defeated by the expansion of the Kingdom of God throughout history up until the second coming of Christ. Many postmillennialists also adopt some form of preterism, which holds that many of the end times prophecies in the Bible have already been fulfilled. Although I see Isaiah 65:17-25 as less of a good fit here, because the the age that began in the first century and will continue until his final coming has not so far been like a paradise on earth, some postmillennialists see it as being at least a figurative reference to postmillennialism.

Full preterism says that the destruction of Jerusalem fulfilled all eschatological or 'end times' events, including the resurrection of the dead and Jesus' Second Coming, or Parousia, and the Final Judgement. Partial preterism holds that most eschatological prophecies, such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the Antichrists, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord as a "judgement-coming" of Christ, were fulfilled either in 70 CE or during the persecution of Christians under the Emperor Nero, but that the second coming and the resurrection of the dead have not yet occurred. Preterism does not focus on an earthly paradise like that portrayed in Isaiah 65, although like all Christian eschatology it looks forward to eternal paradise after the final judgement.  Nevertheless, some preterists do see echoes of preterism in Isaiah 65:17-25.

The question asks what other views there are. One view that has to be discussed is that the passage can only be read literally, reading verses 65:17-25 as the author originally intended them to be read. On this view, it is simply a statement of hope for the new Jerusalem and the new land the Jews were to begin building after the Return from the Babylonian Exile, with God's help.


Is there a Christian response to dying in dignity or assisted suicide?

From a general Christian perspective, I believe that assisted suicide is wrong.  I have multiple reasons for this.  The obvious, but too obvious, answer is that God commands that we shall not murder.  A common objection to this argument is that it's not murder if the person is suffering and wishes to die.  Perhaps so, so allow me to argue a separate point.

Ultimately, the main reason I believe that assisted suicide is wrong, falls more on the person committing the suicide, assisted or unassisted, than it does the person who aids in the suicide.

1 Corinthians 6:19-20

  Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who
  is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you
  were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

Ultimately, I believe this is probably the strongest evidence against the argument.  For those who choose to commit suicide, they are implicitly stating that they are their own.  In the cultures that are discussing these situations, there is already an existing undercurrent that essentially claims that our bodies are our own.  You can see this argument when it comes to all sorts of things dealing with human life, most noticeably abortion and assisted suicide.  The argument can almost always be boiled down to: "It's my body, therefore I am allowed to do anything to it that I want to do."

If the scripture holds true here, which I believe it does, then our own comfort and enjoyment of life comes second to what it is that God would have done in our lives.  Assisted suicide denies loved ones the opportunity to learn patience and love towards someone who cannot repay.  It runs on the assumption that comfort, happiness, and productivity are the most important things in life, and once those things are gone, there is nothing more to live for.  It robs God of the opportunity to do great things, and possibly recuperate the person.

Sadly, I cannot think of any good way to convince a non-Christian of the moral bankruptcy of assisted suicide.  Their perspective is typically to say that their body is their own.  This has been the same argument used for years in regards to abortion, where the child is viewed as an unpleasant and inconvenient intrusion on the mother's well-being and happiness, and therefore must be eliminated.

It's really the same argument all over again, only this time, instead of killing another, we kill ourselves.

Regarding Therapeutic Relentlessness

I've been asked (at the end of the very long comments at the bottom) to update my answer to reflect my viewpoint on therapeutic relentlessness.  Obviously, this is a very sensitive subject, and I'm honestly less clear on what scripture has to say about "how much treatment is too much treatment" when it comes to sustaining a life.  There are plenty of other limitations in place, such as financial limitations, availability of technology, etc, that make for hard decisions in this area.  How do we balance the physical restrictions, with our moral obligation in this area?

To be honest, I can't think of any place where the Bible speaks directly to the issue of therapeutic relentlessness, mostly because the technology to do such things didn't exist at the time of Christ.  But I think it's important to remember that the Bible ultimately isn't designed as a "rule book" that we're to follow, but it's ultimate intent is that we become dependent upon God for our daily lives.  It gives us a framework on some clear issues, but sometimes, we'll be called upon to pray and ask God what he would have us do.  If the Bible clearly explained every moral dilemma we're bound to face, then there would be no need for wisdom, and quite frankly, it wouldn't drive us into relationship with God.  We'd be happy following rules, and that would be all we would do.

In the end, I think it comes down to stewardship, which is implicit in the verse above. We have been given our bodies not for our own purposes, but so that we might steward them properly. To steward something, it's necessary to have the recognition both that the object of our stewardship is not our own, and that we will answer to one greater than ourselves in regards to how we performed our stewardship duties.

A good example of this is in 2 Chronicles 16:12, Asa did not consult God, but rather, consulted the physicians.  I don't believe here that the problem was that he consulted the physicians, but rather that he never consulted God.  He was being a bad steward in not asking God what God would have for his foot malady.  God may have said, "go to the physicians, and they'll heal you", but he might have said to do something else.  We'll never know.  Asa died in the next verse.

As Christians, we are called to be dependent on God for all things, which means, that ultimately, what we do here isn't always a matter of black and white.  God may give us difficult situations for no other reason but that we might become more dependent on him.  It's a matter of godly submission.  When faced with difficulties like this, which I honestly hope I'm never faced with, our proper reaction should never be to lean in our own understanding, but rather to trust in the Lord.

Personal Viewpoint

I know it sounds like a cop-out answer, but I really don't think there's a hard and fast rule here.  From my personal perspective, something seems strange to me about artificially keeping a body of an unconscious person alive for years, when to remove the life support, the body would fail.  I see that as somehow different than actively killing the person, but again, that's my opinion on that, and I know some Christians who would probably disagree.  Another person, when faced with the same difficulty, may pray and ask God what God would like them to do, and he may lead them to sustain the body for a while.  They may view that as good stewardship of what God has given them.  Again, no hard and fast answer on that one, I'm afraid.


Which is the book in the Protestant Bible containing most quotes of verses from other Bible books?

The closest answer that I could find regarding quotes is from research using a compilation of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament (in English). This shows Romans (at 48), followed by Hebrews (at 41), and then Matthew at 35.

To state it as percentages, Hebrews would have the highest percentage, as it has only 303 verses. It's at 14%, followed by Romans at 11%, then by Matthew at 3%.

However, there are places where the Old Testament books quote other Old Testament books, and similarly where the New Testament quotes New Testament books.

The New Testament quotes within itself only a couple of times, according to this research by Don Stewart. Peter quotes Paul, and Paul quotes Luke, but these two do not change the rankings of most quotes within a book as provided by the first resource mentioned. Similarly, there are few places where the Old Testament quotes itself, such as Isaiah quoting Deuteronomy, but these smaller numbers are not enough to overcome the higher counts of New Testament books quoting Old Testament books.

Besides these online resources, also check out The Ultimate Cross-Reference Treasury, Prepared by Jerome H. Smith (Copyright © 2016 by Jerome H. Smith)


What is the most accurate calculation of Jesus' birth date?

The reason you are not finding accurate dates for the events of Jesus' birth, ministry and death is that nobody knows.

As you have seen, there are estimates, but the figures you quote are as accurate as it gets. The gospel writers did not see fit to tell us exact dates, presumably because they did not consider it important.

You can of course find people who claim to have worked out the exact dates, but they are not widely accepted.


Why did Protestants abandon Liturgy of the Hours?

Protestantism is so broad that you can't avoid getting a broad answer. As the protestant church has no official head there is no official answer and there was never an official LOTH rejection meeting. Furthermore, some Protestant denominations still do practice LOTH. The best you can do in this case is summarize the most common Protestant beliefs and come up with the most probable yet not all-encompassing conclusions.

Here's a list with (I think) the most probable reasons to the least probable.

Protestants are more than likely not going to follow Liturgy of The Hours because...

...there are prayers to the saints/dead, which Protestants believe isn't good, so they'll throw whole Liturgy out--baby and bath water.
...it makes the prayer seem insincere, as opposed to a sincere, unscripted, heart-felt prayer conversation with God. The Protestant would cite this verse as their reasoning:

  Psalm 62:8 ESV Trust in him at all times, O people; pour out your heart before him; God is a refuge for us.

...setting a required time to pray gives the impression that that is the only or best time one needs to pray, when prayers should be constant. The Protestant would cite these verses as their reasoning:

  1 Thessalonians 5:17 ESV ...pray without ceasing.

  1 Thessalonians 1:2 ESV We give thanks to God always for all of you, constantly mentioning you in our prayers,

  2 Timothy 1:3 ESV I thank God whom I serve, as did my ancestors, with a clear conscience, as I remember you constantly in my prayers night and day.

...it's Catholic, and Protestants tend to buck against anything that Catholics promote.
...it's not in the Bible. Protestants are all about accepting no doctrine except that which is explicitly stated in the scriptures.
...it's unnecessary. While more open-minded Protestants may consider the Liturgy of the Hours helpful in its structure (ignoring prayers to the saints/dead), many would categorize it as just another reading/prayer plan similar to ones you could buy at a Christian bookstore. They give it no added spiritual significance.


Being an endtime prophecy, how does Genesis 49:10 affect Christians since one side of it in ''Judah'' already has?

Jewish scholars admit that the meaning of the Masoretic Text in Genesis 49:10 is obscure.  In some interpretations "Shiloh" is understood to mean "shai loh" - "tribute to him".  This would be more consistent with the Septuagint, which is based on a Hebrew text centuries older than the Masoretic Text:

  A ruler shall not fail from Judah, nor a prince from his loins, until there come the things stored up for him; and he is the expectation of
  nations.

This verse could be interpreted to refer to the first coming of Christ, not the end times, since when Christ was born a ruler had, in fact, failed to come from Judah:  Herod's father was an Edomite who had converted to Judaism and was therefore not from the tribe of Judah.


The Catholicism tag is completely OK, as well as the link provided in Gilbert Le Blanc's comment. The Light-Life Movement (or "Oasis movement") is Catholic, though oecumenism is one of its priorities and it was influenced by Campus Crusade for Christ, a Protestant evangelist movement. The beliefs of Light-Life Movement don't differ from Catholic norm, and the stress is on topics that gained importance in Catholic Church after Second Vatican Council, such as evangelisation or understanding the liturgy. It belongs to the charismatic current in Catholic Church.

The aim of the movement is to guide (especially young but not only) Christians to "Christian maturity" through its formation. The formation consists of three degrees, typically a year long each (15-days retreat in Summer and meeting in a small group during most of the year). The first degree focuses on prayer (especially Lectio Divina, called "Tent of Meeting" in the movement) and personal relationship with Jesus, the second on liturgy and "Exodus" from slavery of sin and the third on the Church and one's place in it. There are slightly different forms of the formation for the young, for families ("the Domestic Church") and in Poland, where the movement is strongest, there are many other variants too.

The history of the Light-Life Movement starts during Second World War by conversion of a young Polish named Franciszek Blachnicki. As a guerilla fighter against the Nazis, he was caught and sentenced to death. While waiting for execution, he read books including one about conversions of famous people - this (along with the stress from waiting for death) lead him to renounce his former atheist worldview, to accept Jesus as his personal Lord and Saviour and to promise to become a priest if he survives the war. His death sentence was changed to ten years in prison (sort of a miracle) and he survived.

Since 1954, Blachnicki lead some retreats for altar boys, a well composed mixture of prayer, education (especially to help the boys understand liturgy - there is a focus on liturgy in the movement since then) and games, which became the base of later Oases, retreats lead by Blachnicki and his successors in the movement. The retreats offered the participants great spiritual gains and virtually everyone wanted to attend retreats lead by this priest - this is the main root of the movement.

At about the same time, Blachnicki started Crusade for Abstinence, an initiative to encourage people to stop drinking alcohol and to help those who try to recover from their addiction, mostly by prayer and fast (in form of abstinence from alcohol). The original Crusade for Abstinence was banned by communist government, but it was re-established as Crusade for the Liberation of Man in 1977. Abstinence is required for animators (those who guide others through the formation) of the movement in Poland (in Czech Republic, it is just strongly recommended to join the Crusade for the animators, not strictly required).

Second Vatican Council was a big boon for the Oasis movement - the Church as a whole turned in the direction in which Blachnicki already went. Blachnicki translated the Council's documents for the movement even before they were translated oficially and the movement took the true teaching of the Council (in contrast to misunderstanding and misuse of the "spirit of the Council") as one of its goals.

Even later, there were other important events influencing the movement. I don't know the exact year (I have heard about this from a lecture by current General Moderator of the movement, Adam Wodarczyk, and I forgot some details and didn't manage to find any sources for it online and in English; AFAIK it was in late 60s, but I'm not sure, it might have been later) when Blachnicki learnt of Campus Crusade for Christ and met Josh McDowell. This lead to the evangelist and oecumenical focus in the movement and even strenghened focus on Bible, Lectio Divina and spontaneous prayer. The concepts of four spiritual laws and accepting Jesus as one's personal Lord and Saviour, that became crucial to Light-Life movent formation, have Protestant origin.

These were roots of the Light-Life Movement, but it was officially founded in 1973, when it was renamed from “The Movement of the Living Church”. The old name was often criticised ("Does it mean that the rest of the Church is dead?"), so Blachnicki divided those responsible for the movement to ten groups and let each group to propose a new name. All ten groups independently choose "Light-Life", for one of the basic principles taught in the movement (to let the light of God, his revelation and our faith change our life, or the unity of truth we know and the way we live).

The movement still has the most members in Poland, but it is active in many other countries (I've heard 30, but I'm not sure). In some, it has members mostly between Polish minority (such as in Germany), and in others, Oases have local participants mostly (such as in Czech Republic, where I joined the movement).


Did Melchizedek worship the same God as Abram?

Good question! Firstly, the name they used is the same. In Hebrew Most High God is "elyon" and it's used in both verses you refer to.

Melchizedek is a really interesting character. In Psalms 110: 4 there is a bit where it says "you are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek". But who is this "priest forever"? The writer of Hebrews gives the answer, at 5:5,6 and I encourage you to read that book (it's in the New Testament) to clarify this answer. In short, the forever priest is Jesus of Nazareth. His God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Matthew 22:32 and elsewhere). And he is the "priest in the order of Melchizedek". So the God of Abraham and the God of Melchizedek is surely the same.


According to the LDS church, why was Jesus Christ born when he was born?

Not being familiar with the term "meridian of time" I clicked on your hyperlink and read the definition given there. While there are many terms Christians use today which are not in the Bible, including "the meridian of time," I can only suggest there is a term in the Bible which tells us why Jesus came when He did. It comes from Galatians:

  ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα [pleroma] τοῦ χρόνου [chronos], ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον (4:4)

In other words, "when the time had fully come," or "at the appropriate time," or "in the fullness of time," that was the time God sent His Son,

  ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον ἐξαγοράσῃ, ἵνα τὴν υἱοθεσίαν ἀπολάβωμεν [born of a woman, born under the Law that He might rescue those under the Law, that we might receive the full rights of sonship]

So we have the "fullness of time" and the "full rights" of sons, both expressions fitting in nicely with the theme of Galatians, which is the fullness offered by Christ, versus the emptiness offered by the Judaizers. Christ offers freedom; the Judaizers offer slavery. But I digress.

The importance of prophecy, as you indicated in your question, must not be underestimated.
While God may inhabit eternity, He reveals Himself in time and space. That was His plan from all eternity. That plan comprises part of the eternal decrees of God. God is the only One who works out all things according to the purpose of His will (Ephesians 1:11).

God, as the Lord of time, knows the end from the beginning and the beginning from the end. As both omniscient and omnipotent, God not only can do (i.e., He has the power to do) what He has decreed He will do, but He also will do what He has decreed, and in the best possible way (i.e., He has the wisdom and knowledge to "pull it off").

There were other, more prosaic--albeit important--factors at work when Jesus appeared on the scene at the appropriate (or the fullness of) time:

The Pax Romana, or Roman peace, which was characterized by an epoch of relative calm  made possible by the sheer power, not to mention the administrative expertise, of the dominant world power of the day, imperial Rome.
The ubiquitous presence of the Greek language, attributable to the tremendous admiration the Romans had for all things Greek. The dissemination of the message of the Christian Gospel was aided in no small measure by the existence of Greek as a significant medium of communication.
The improvement of transportation throughout the Roman Empire, thanks to the wealth of Rome, not to mention, again, its administrative ability, its military might, and ready access to slave labor to do the dirty work in creating roads, some of which are still in existence today (e.g., the Applian Way, an ancient Roman highway extending from Rome to Brundisium--now Brindisi, which was constructed beginning in 312 BC by Appius Claudius Caecus, and was about 350 miles long).  The better the infrastructure of transportation, the more readily the good news could spread to the far corners of the empire.
The spiritual state of Judaism at the time Jesus burst on the scene. If ever there was a time for a nationwide revival within the geographical heart of Judaism in Israel, it was the first century of the common era. That is why the forerunner of Jesus, His cousin (John the Baptizer), preached a message of repentance to prepare the way of the Lord. John bore witness to that light which was coming into the world as a testimony not only to the Jews but also to the Gentiles (see Luke 2:32, 38).  We must remember that God's covenant with Abraham was a far-reaching covenant which would touch with blessing all the nations of the earth, starting of course with Israel.
The receptivity of the people to the message of Jesus, due in part to the bifurcation within the Roman Empire between the "haves" and "have nots". If ever there was a time for a Redeemer who would bring a message of hope to the underdogs of society, it was in the first century (see Luke 4:14-21 in this regard).
The need for God to fulfill not only His prophecies, but also His promises.

All of which brings us back to the "fullness of time." God is a God of His word. His word is His bond. What He says He will do, He will do, and it will be done in His time, according to His timing, and in the best possible way. In short, the "who, what, when, where, how, and why" of Jesus' birth were perfectly orchestrated by God well in advance, right down to the minutest detail. (Even Martha Stewart would be proud of how perfectly things were laid out, if only her heart were directed toward what really matters in life!)

At this time of year, when we celebrate the birth of baby Jesus--Emanuel, our Savior and our Lord, it is comforting to know that God's purposes and decrees could not be thwarted, neither by a Jewish king called Herod, whose heart "the prince of the power of the air" filled with hatred for the true King of the Jews, nor by an emperor, Caesar Augustus, who decreed that the then-known world be taxed, which only served to bring the parents of Jesus to the City of David, Bethlehem, the "house of bread," where a child would be born who would one day declare Himself to be the bread of life (John 6:48 ff.).


Which Christian denomination removed trinitarian language from the hymn "Holy, Holy, Holy"?

I don't have any particular knowledge of which hymnal Gordon Clark was referring to, but on a hunch, I consulted my copy of "Christian Science Hymns" [1952 Edition], edited by Mary Baker Eddy's successors, and find that the text of Holy, Holy, Holy included there has the modifications you cite. Stanzas one and three have as the final line of the stanza, "which wert, and art, and ever more shall be".

I don't have a copy of a Jehovah's Witness hymnal in my collection, and it is possible, if the text is included in that collection, that it has been similarly altered.


What is the biblical basis for restricting administration of the sacraments to ordained church leaders?

As St. Paul explains in his letter to the Romans, you are certainly not the first to ask this question ;-)

  For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function. Rom 12, 4

“Sacraments” are intimately related to “Church”. In Scripture you will find that Jesus himself gives the Holy Spirit to his disciples so that they can give it on. By doing so, He institutes the sacraments and gives authority to the Church to administer them:

  Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." Jn 20, 21-23

This is an example of how the administration is preceded by an ordination:

He sends
He gives the Holy Spirit
He gives the power to forgive sins or not

Note that you could apply the same to Jesus Himself: “As the Father has sent me”.

Another interesting phrase is “if you retain the sins of any, they are retained”: I like to think that Jesus wants these disciples to make sure that everyone gets a chance to receive the gift of forgiveness.

I hope this helps, feel free to contemplate the whole chapter (book) of both excerpts, it often helps to get perspective.


How (and by whom) are financial decisions made in the Catholic Church?

The simple answer is: "it's very complicated". Individual churches, dioceses, national councils of bishops, religious orders, houses of those religious orders, the dicasteries of the Roman Curia, institutions like schools and hospitals: they are all to some extent independent and to some extent related. The Catholic Church is not a simple organisation, and it doesn't have a simple financial structure.

In particular, it is complicated because the exact pattern is not replicated in every country. The national Episcopal Conferences have some degree of autonomy in setting a pattern which will apply in each country, according to what is appropriate. Moreover, the Vatican finances are both complex and opaque. Some income comes directly from donations from the faithful (a system known as Peter's Pence), while other income comes from the surplus from the Istituto per le Opere di Religione, the Vatican Bank.

There isn't a simple organisational structure, with the Vatican at the top and the parishes at the bottom and a simple flow of money up and down the chain. This is because the basic structure of the Catholic Church is based around is that of the particular church. This is generally (though not always) a diocese. It is local (that is to say, defined by geography) and headed by a bishop. (Code of Canon Law, Canon 368) If you want some of the theology behind this, the document Communionis Notio is relevant.

The diocese are institutionally independent of one another, though they are grouped in the national/regional Episcopal Conferences which have certain legislative powers in their region, and they are all subject to the Canon Law of the Catholic Church. Each diocese is divided into parishes. The priests in each parish are essentially "deputies" for the bishop.

The financial relationship that we might consider best, therefore, is between the diocese and the parish. (The financial organisation of the Vatican would take years to analyse fully!) The parish-diocese relationship is the most common financial relationship. It leaves a whole lot out, as you see from my opening paragraph. So let's look at one such example. I'm going to look at the Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster and it's 2011 financial statement, for the simple reason that I could find it online.

The parishes receive income of various types (p19):

collections, donations and legacies (by far the largest)
parish activities
investment income
rent
trading income
disposal of assets

This is spent in various ways (p21). The largest are non-clergy salaries and parish assessments, which are in effect a diocesan tax: each parish provides a proportion of their income to the diocese. This proportion varies among Episcopal Conferences and possibly among dioceses: I haven't found any clear information.

In each parish, the parish priest is primarily in charge of finances:

  In all juridic affairs the pastor represents the parish according to the norm of law. He is to take care that the goods of the parish are administered according to the norm of cann. 1281-1288. (Canon 532)

On top of this, there is to be a finance council in each parish:

  In each parish there is to be a finance council which is governed, in addition to universal law, by norms issued by the diocesan bishop and in which the Christian faithful, selected according to these same norms, are to assist the pastor in the administration of the goods of the parish, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 532. (Canon 537)

So many decisions are taken on a local basis, by the priest with the advice of the finance council.

At a diocesan level, most income comes from the parish assessments mentioned above (p20 of the Diocese of Westminster report). In the diocese, there is again a finance council to manage finances:

  In every diocese a Finance council is to be established, offer which the diocesan bishop himself or his delegate presides and which consists of at least three members of the Christian faithful truly expert in Financial affairs and civil law, outstanding in integrity, and appointed by the bishop. (Canon 492)

The function of this council is to provide "a budget of the income and expenditures which are foreseen for the entire governance of the diocese in the coming year".

So a short summary.

Most income comes to individual parishes. The parish priest is in charge of this, with the assistance of a finance council. A proportion of income goes from the parish to the diocese, where a finance council appointed by and presided over by the bishop is in charge of decisions concerning the governance of the diocese.

This is obviously not the whole picture. It covers only the parishes and diocese. These are the most significant aspect of the Church, but a lot more could be said about the various other aspects of the Church on local, national, regional and international levels. Moreover, to some extent these relationships vary significantly across the world.


How can we be sure our specific Christian confession is true, when every other Christian group claims that it's not?

Very simply put, your assumption here is wrong:

  ... founded by Jesus Christ, and outside of which there is no salvation.
  Similarly numerous Protestant groups claim that if you don't adhere to
  their interpretations of scripture, you're most certainly hellbound.

Salvation is in Jesus Christ, not the church.  As a result of sin, everything on this earth is corrupt in some way, including the institutional church.  As a protestant, I would not condemn you for being an orthodox Christian.

Truth is in the Bible, not the interpretation.  Pursue discipleship - following Jesus.  Trust the work He did for you on the cross.  Join a church as a means of fellowship and serving Jesus.  Try to find the truest doctrine you can, but don't think that you will be condemned if your church isn't perfect.

If you have doubts, pursue them.  The study of apologetics can help you reason through them.


What is the Biblical basis for Unconditional Election?

Unconditional Election refers to God's choosing of people to be the object of his grace or otherwise fulfill his purpose.

There are a couple of versus specifically that are associated with this.

Romans 8:29:

  For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to
  the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among
  many brothers.

and 1 Peter 1:1-2

  1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,

  To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia,
  Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 according to the foreknowledge of
  God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to
  Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood:

  May grace and peace be multiplied to you.

The idea is that God knew these people beforehand and chose these people to be saved.  It's a similar concept to predestination.

The Calvinist argument can be found here


Eschatology, views and best commentaries. Best scriptures for each view

Does anyone have a really convincing logical or biblical argument about this ?
'This' being, I sincerely hope, the Lord's return.

'This' is exactly the problem, I find personally : that so much consideration of what is termed 'eschatology' is about complex formulations regarding the future : the future of the world, of what presently professes to be 'Jewish', of what presently professes to be 'Christian' and what presently consists, largely, of nations in conflict.
What is forgotten in many of these schemes - is the Lord himself and his return.
What is forgotten, often, is the first five words of the Apocalypse written by the Apostle John :

The Revelation of Jesus Christ. [Revelation 1:1, KJV.]

It is he who is revealed in the 'unveiling' and it shall be he who is revealed at the end of time. He, himself, personally.
And what is so often forgotten are the words of Jesus himself about the future :

Take heed that no man deceive you ... [Matthew 24:4, KJV.]
... be ye also ready ... [Matthew 24:44, KJV.]

So many schemes are, in fact, deceptive, because they take the mind off of Christ and into a labyrinth of complications about the future. And they dissuade one from being 'ready'.
The most convincing logical and biblical argument I know of (which is the crux of the above question) is to be ready for the imminent return of the Lord Jesus Christ : whatever is happening in the world, or in Israel, or in the spectrum of Christian profession, or in the heavens, or on the earth.
(After all is said and done, I may not live another hour to contemplate these happenings, in any case.)
To be ready, personally, in my own walk, my own conduct, my own prayers, my own deeds and my own words (which includes these ones) knowing that all of it will be judged and scrutinized, as it must be according to many scriptures.
And to be ready, corporately, in all my relationships, my associations, my affiliations and all my interactions, knowing that all of these, also, will be judged and scrutinized, as it must be, according to many scriptures.


What was Anselm's biblical basis for his theory of atonement by satisfaction?

Anselm's satisfaction theory of the atonement is developed in his book, Cur Deus Homo, and, as presented, is not "based on the Bible" like we might expect.  Instead, Anselm relies heavily on logic, and largely avoids citing Scripture to make his case.
However, he is forced to rely on it in a few places, and he also tangentially mentions it in others.  For example, he assumes the existence of God, and accepts the historicity of the Fall of Man as described in Genesis 3.  While arguing that sin makes mankind a debtor to God, he mentions several texts (I'm quoting the NABRE here):

Colossians 2:14 obliterating the bond against us, with its legal claims, which was opposed to us, he also removed it from our midst, nailing it to the cross
John 8:34 Jesus answered them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin.
Matthew 6:12 and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors

Elsewhere, he argues that the God-man (Jesus) had to die voluntarily, and in support of this he cites a few more:

Isaiah 53:7 Though harshly treated, he submitted and did not open his mouth; Like a lamb led to slaughter or a sheep silent before shearers, he did not open his mouth.
John 10:18  No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again.

For a few other examples, he cites Psalm 51 ("I was born in guilt, in sin my mother conceived me") to demonstrate the sinfulness of man, and uses language reminiscent of Deuteronomy 32:35 ("Vengeance is mine and recompense") to argue for God's superiority to man.
There are several more passages referenced by Anselm, but they are best explained in the context of his entire argument.  A summary of that argument, along with additional Scripture references, follows.

As mentioned above, Anselm's purpose in Cur Deus Homo is to provide a rational argument, presupposing as little as possible and not relying on proof texts:

We have made it our aim to discover by reason alone whether [Christ's] coming was essential for the salvation of mankind. (1.20)

Thus, in order to provide a reasonably comprehensive answer the question, it will be necessary to outline Anselm's argument, briefly discussing its logic, and citing the biblical passages that he references along the way.
Anselm presents his ideas through a conversation between himself and an interlocutor named Boso.  Anselm and Boso do not typically cite their sources when quoting from the Bible, and the wording they use doesn't always match modern translations.  Below, the Bible quotes are all directly from the text of Cur Deus Homo, not a "standard" translation of the Bible, but the links point to the NABRE.
Anselm's argument takes the following form:

Human sin dishonours God in such a way that repayment is required
It is unfitting for God to forgive sin without punishment or satisfaction
Humanity cannot make the required satisfaction
God has a purpose for humanity that it is necessary for him to complete
A God-man must be born with the power, obligation, and will to make the satisfaction
The death of the God-man outweighs all sins

Human sin dishonours God and makes mankind his debtor
Anselm defines sin as "nothing else than not to render to God his due" (1.11). Anselm summarizes the consequences of sin:

Therefore, everyone who sins is under an obligation to repay to God the honour which he has violently taken from him, and this is the satisfaction which every sinner is obliged to give to God. (1.11)

Commentators call this understanding "feudal in origin" (xviii), and Anselm provides only indirect biblical basis.  First, Boso, cites Colossians 2:14 ("bond of the decree") and John 8:34 ("slave of sin") as evidence that man is not a slave to the devil, but a slave to God's decree, and, by extension, to God himself (1.7).  Later, in 1.19, Boso and Anselm interact over the implications of "forgive us our debts" in the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:12).  In neither case does Anselm attempt to refute Boso, and in 1.20, he too adopts the word "bondslave" to describe man's relationship to God.
God cannot forgive sin without punishment or satisfaction
In 1.12, Anselm argues that God cannot simply overlook this debt that mankind owes him: it would be against his nature to do so. In such a case, sin would "slip by unregulated." Anselm says that "everyone knows" that righteousness is rewarded by God (cf. Deuteronomy 5:33), and on this basis argues if sin is neither paid for nor punished, it is not subject to any law (1.12). Furthermore, he says, "nothing is more intolerable" than sin, and therefore, "nothing [...] is more unjust to tolerate than the most intolerable thing" (1.13).
In challenge, Boso refers to the language of Matthew 6:12 ("forgive us our debts"), and wonders why man must simply forgive without repayment, but God cannot.  Anselm responds:

There is no contradiction in this, because God is giving us the teaching in order that we should not presume to do something which belongs to God alone.  For it belongs to no one to take vengeance, except to him who is Lord of all.

Here Anselm reflects the language of Deuteronomy 32:35 ("Vengeance is mine and recompense"), which is repeated in the New Testament in Romans 12:19 and Hebrews 10:30. (1.19)
Humanity cannot make the required satisfaction
Anselm next addresses the issue of man's attempts to repay God.  Good works cannot repay the debt, because God created man "out of nothing" and is his Master, and a slave's obedience to his master is expected:

In obedience, when truth is told, what are you giving God that you do not owe him, seeing that it is your obligation to give him, at his command, all that you are and all that you have and all that you are capable of?  (1.20)

Boso appeals to Galatians 5:6 ("faith which operates through love") and Ezekiel 18:27 ("if the wicked man turns from his wickedness and does what is right"), that faith is the means of obliterating wicked acts, but Anselm reminds him of the assumptions made so far in the argument: that, so far, Christ and the Christian faith do not exist.
Anselm argues that if given the choice between disobeying God, and allowing the destruction of the universe and everything in it, that the former option is still a sin: and that this gives us an idea of how bad sin is in God's eyes. (1.21)
He also refers to the "insult" that man gave God in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3), when he "allowed himself to be conquered" by the devil through "persuasion alone," and thereby acted "contrary to the will and honour of God."  In order to repay God for this insult, man must now do the opposite: being weak and mortal, he must "conquer the devil through the difficulty of death, and in so doing to sin in no way."  But there's a problem: man is "born in sin" (cf. Psalm 51) and cannot accomplish this. (1.22)  God recognizes man's incapacity, but since it is self-inflicted, his punishment should be increased, not reduced. (1.24)
It is necessary that God brings to completion his purpose for humanity.
Next, Anselm turns to the necessity of God completing his purpose for mankind.  He argues that God's purpose for mankind includes filling heaven with a predetermined number of angels and men.  The salvation of men, he says, does not depend on the Fall of angels, and there will be more elect men than fallen angels.  He interacts with objections based on the "angels of God" reading found in the Septuagint of Deuteronomy 32:8 ("determined the limits of the peoples according to the number of the angels of God"), and argues that men can be considered "angels of God" in the same way that Judas was called a "devil" in John 6:70. (1.18)
But Anselm doesn't use explicit biblical support to defend what he sees as the overarching purpose of mankind:

Rational nature was created righteous to the end that it might be made happy by rejoicing in the highest good, that is, in God.  Man, being rational by nature, was created righteous to the end that, through rejoicing in God, he might be blessedly happy. (2.1)

When man fell, this purpose was apparently thwarted, leaving God with two options: either dispose of his creation, or "complete what he has begun."  Anselm argues that it is "totally foreign to [God] to allow any rational type of creature to perish utterly," and therefore, God must finish what he started with respect to mankind. (2.4)
A God-man must be born with the power, obligation, and will to make the satisfaction
The problem, Anselm summarizes, is that no one is capable of paying the debt except God, and only mankind has the obligation to pay it.  Thus, a God-man is logically necessary to pay this debt.
Anselm argues that the only one who can pay the debt is "someone who would make a payment to God greater than everything that exists apart from God," who thus, logically, "must himself be superior to everything that exists apart from God." (2.6)  At the same time, the God-man must be of the same race as Adam, because otherwise he is under no obligation to pay the debt. (2.8) To deal with objections based on Psalm 51 ("conceived in sin") and Romans 5:12 ("all have sinned"), which teach that all mankind is inherently sinful, he appeals to the "cleanness" of his virgin mother, which was made possible by his sacrifice. (2.16)
Simultaneously, the God-man must be willing to make the sacrifice.  Anselm cites Isaiah 53:7 ("He was made a sacrifice, because he willed it") and John 10:18 ("power to lay down his life and take it up again") to argue that Jesus did in fact sacrifice himself voluntarily (2.17), and contends that other passages, like Philippians 2:8–9 and Matthew 26:39, do not contradict this understanding (1.9).
The death of the God-man outweighs all sins.
Finally, the satisfaction is achieved by the death of the God-man.  Anselm argues that the God-man's life is worth more than all sins, and that thus his death outweighs them all. (2.14)  Against the challenge that the sin of killing the God-man cannot be outweighed, Anselm responds by citing 1 Corinthians 2:8 ("if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory"), arguing that the killers' lack of knowledge rendered the sin less severe, and thus it too was outweighed by the God-man's death. (2.15)

Citations, including all book/chapter numbers for Cur Deus Homo, refer to Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works (Oxford World's Classics).
Book/chapter numbers can also be used in reference to public domain translations, such as this one, though there may be translation differences.


How could Jesus be descended from the royal line of David if he was born of the Virgin Birth?

The Old Testament has two distinct methods of claiming kingship. One is by descent from David, and the other is by prophetic or divine appointment. Where did David himself get his kingship? It was by prophetic appointment, through Samuel.

One was applicable to the southern Kingdom of Judah, with its capital in Jerusalem, while the other was applicable to the northern Kingdom of Israel, with its capital in Samaria. The requirement for the throne of Judah was Davidic descendancy. No one was allowed to sit on David’s throne unless he was a member of the house of David. So when there was a conspiracy to do away with the house of David (Isaiah 7:2-6), God warned that any such conspiracy was doomed to failure (Isaiah 8:9-15).

Now, Matthew’s genealogy traces the line of Joseph, the step-father of Jesus. Joseph was a direct descendant of David through Solomon, but also through Jeconiah (see Matthew 1, verses 6-16). Now here, we have a big problem, because Jeremiah 22:24-30 says,

  “As I live,” says the Lord, “though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were the signet on My right hand, yet I would pluck you off; and I will give you into the hand of those who seek your life, and into the hand of those whose face you fear—the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and the hand of the Chaldeans. So I will cast you out, and your mother who bore you, into another country where you were not born; and there you shall die. But to the land to which they desire to return, there they shall not return. “Is this man Coniah a despised, broken idol—a vessel in which is no pleasure? Why are they cast out, he and his descendants, and cast into a land which they do not know? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord! Thus says the Lord: ‘Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days; for none of his descendants shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah.’ ”

This passage says that no descendant of Jeconiah would have the right to the throne of David. Until Jeremiah, the first requirement for messianic lineage was to be of the house of David. So not only must the Messiah come from the line of David, He must also be apart from Jeconiah. But, as we read in Matthew’s genealogy, Joseph is of the lineage of Jeconiah—meaning, none of his descendants could sit on David’s throne. So then, one must beg the question: how could Jesus be the Messiah, if the Messiah must come from the line of David, but also not be of the line of Jeconiah?

This is where the Virgin Birth comes into play. Remember, Jesus is not Joseph’s biological son, so the Jeconiah curse doesn’t apply to Him. He is, however, Mary’s biological son per the Virgin Birth. But this still doesn’t explain how Jesus is the descendant of David. To answer this, we must discuss Luke’s genealogy.

Unlike Matthew, Luke follows strict Jewish procedure and custom in that he omits no names and mentions no women. However, if by Jewish custom one could not mention the name of a woman, but wished to trace her line, how would one do so? He would use the name of her husband (possible Old Testament precedents for this practice are Ezra 2:61 and Nehemiah 7:63). That would raise the second question: if someone studied a genealogy, how would he know whether the genealogy was that of the husband or that of the wife since in either case the husband’s name would be used? The answer is not difficult; the problem lies with the English language.

In English, it is not good grammar to use a definite article (“the”) before a proper name (“the” Matthew, “the” Luke, and “the” Mary). However, it is quite permissible in Greek grammar. In the Greek text of Luke’s genealogy, every single name mentioned has the Greek definite article “the” with one exception: the name of Joseph (Luke 3:23). Someone reading the original would understand by the missing definite article from Joseph’s name that this was not really Joseph’s genealogy, but his wife Mary’s.

Furthermore, although many translations of Luke 3:23 read: “…being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Heli…” because of the missing Greek definite article before the name of Joseph, that same verse could be translated as follows: “Being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph the son of Heli…” In other words, the final parenthesis could be expanded so that the verse reads that although Jesus was “supposed” or assumed to be the descendant of Joseph, He was really the descendant of Heli. Heli was the father of Mary. Ultimately, Joseph was Heli’s “son-in-law.”

Next, remember King David had more than one son. One of them was Nathan. None of Nathan's descendants had any "Jeconiah-like" curses. Mary was a descendant of Nathan (Luke 3:23 and verse 31—remember, as explained above, although the English text says “the son of Joseph, the son of Heli…” since the original Greek says Heli is the father-in-law of Joseph, logically, Heli is the biological father of Mary). Now, Jesus is completely safe from the problem of the Jeconiah curse, all while being from the line of David, and of the Tribe of Judah.


Per Ecclesiastes 7:16, Does the Bible want me to sin?

One possible interpretation is that it is warning against legalism - the type of "over righteousness" that the Pharisees were known for.  Not exactly a true righteousness, as seen from God's perspective, but a self perceived righteousness derived from a "holier-than-thou" attitude.

The Werner Bible Commentary puts it like:

  One who is overly righteous or righteous to an excess insists on the letter of the law, failing to take into consideration human limitations and the need for compassion and understanding. Such a person is quick to make a major issue about minor matters, insisting on strict adherence to certain procedures, rules, or practices even when doing so would prevent one from being helpful and kind to those in genuine need.

A bit farther down, in verse 20, it goes on to say:

  Indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous, no one who does what is right and never sins. Ecclesiastes 7:20 (NIV)

This is something that the Pharisees did not seem grasp, and righteousness through their own "over righteousness" was something that the Pharisees saw as attainable, or already attained.


Is the Wesleyan Quadrilateral present in Luther or in any other pre-Wesley theologians, Protestant or Catholic?

I don't know of anyone who made this formulation explicit. One example of where all four are present is in the Confessions of Augustine:

Scripture: Confessions quotes from scripture extensively.
Reason: Augustine describes at length the importance of Cicero and Plato in his conversion, and how even there he saw God's light through their reason.
Experience: the Confessions takes several examples from Augustine's own experience was important in his conversion and later theological work and conclusions. He meditates (for a few examples) on stealing a pear just because he felt like it, his experience as a Manichaean, his conversion experience, and dealing with death of loved ones.
Tradition: One sees the importance of Ambrose and Augustine's mother Monica in both his conversion and his ongoing contemplation of the Faith.


Does the Bible ever mention class systems?

There are no requirements in the New Testament for the establishment of or abolishment of socio-economic classes, so to the most basic aspect of your question, they can exist or not.

There are a few issues to address however.  To begin, consider that elements of redistribution are seen directly in Acts:

  32 Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common.
  33 And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.
  34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold
  35 and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.
  36 Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus,
  37 sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet. - Acts 4:32-37 ESV

This redistribution of goods comes with 2 notable caveats however:

It was entirely willful, and not a requirement placed on anyone.
It was limited to the body of believers.

In addition to giving within the church, Christians are also commanded by Christ to love our fellow man and to give freely to those in need, but again, it cannot be compulsory to be an act of faith.  As Paul writes to the church in Corinth:

  Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. - 2 Corinthians 9:7 ESV

A classless society can exist within Christianity and it fact, it could be argued that no government is necessarily mutually exclusive with Christianity, as Christians are expected to submit to governing authority provided that such authority does not directly contradict what we are otherwise commanded by God to do:

  1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
  2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
  3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
  4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
  5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
  6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.
  7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. - Romans 13:1-7 ESV

But remember:

  27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them,
  28 saying, "We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us."
  29 But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men. - Acts 5:27-29 ESV

So, to summarize, Christianity exists independent of government and socio-economic structure and takes primacy to both, without placing restrictions on either.


Why does a beheaded saint have the halo above the stump?

According to Wikipedia, the halo was initially used for Jesus as a symbol of His Glory. Applied to the saints, it could be the outpouring of God's Glory, often talked about in the Bible, where the living water would flow from you, or His Light shine from you.
If the position of the halo is usually from the Head of the body then I would make the assumption that the glory does not come from the physical body/head but from the soul/spiritual body/head.


Is the gender of the Holy Spirit, feminine or masculine?

The Hebrew language only has two grammatical genders: masculine (זָכָר) and feminine (נְקֵבָה). Therefore, every Hebrew noun has an inherent grammatical gender. In the case of the noun רוּחַ, the grammatical gender is feminine. Yet, this does not mean the natural gender of the Holy Spirit is feminine. As for why the Holy Spirit would be "male," so to speak, it is because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Yahveh (Jdg. 3:10), and Yahveh is a He. I say "so to speak" because Yahveh is "male" in a different way than animals, which are determined to be male or female based on their chromosomes. Rather, Yahveh is described as a male, in part, as a consequence of His headship over all creation.


If I win the Powerball jackpot will Catholic Church accept a donation?

There is no prohibition of it in Canon Law.

St. Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologica II-II q. 32 a. 7 ("Whether one may give alms out of ill-gotten goods?"), mentions three ways in which money may be "ill-gotten" (illicite acquisitis), the last being

  not because the taking was unlawful, but because it is the outcome of something unlawful, as in the case of a woman's profits from whoredom. This is filthy lucre (turpe lucrum) properly so called, because the practice of whoredom is filthy and against the Law of God, yet the woman does not act unjustly or unlawfully in taking the money. Consequently it is lawful to keep and to give in alms what is thus acquired by an unlawful action.

Similarly with gambling: Although excessive gambling is unlawful, one may justly take the money obtained therefrom.

Thus, even if the money you won by the lottery was ill-gotten, it would still be permitted to give it as alms.

It would be difficult to give a large sum of money anonymously, thus a priest would very likely know the person who gave they money won by the lottery and hopefully make sure that person is not addicted to gambling.