Is there a mentioning (in the Bible) about why God exists?

The Bible assumes God exists. It begins with:

Genesis 1:1 ESV

  1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Not answering the question "Why", but simply having God as a premise.

I heard Ravi Zacharias say once. That in the Occident that we asked the question if we should believe in God, but in Orient they ask which god you believe in. In Orient they take for granted that you will believe in something.

Since the Bible was written in the Est and during an age where atheism and skepticism was not what it is today, I ,personally, find it normal that they did not answer a question that was not in their mind and in their reality.

Since the vast majority of the people at the time of the writing of the Bible believe in some God the Bible defines God, it does not explain the reason why.


Should Genesis 1:2 be translated "And the earth became without form..."?

The Hebrew verb "was" is in the Qal (indicative) perfect tense.   "Became" is a fanciful translation.  There's nothing wrong with fanciful translations and midrasch.  But it's probably best to avoid basing tonnage of doctrine on midrasch or fancy.

There is an ambiguity in Hebrew about past or future actions, but that crops up when the IMperfect tense is used, not the perfect.


According to Catholicism, is the Body of Christ the same as the Bride of Christ?

In a word, No: there is no Catholic teaching which differentiates the Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ. The Catechism of the Catholic Church holds that the Church is the Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ.
Adam prefigures Jesus, the "second Adam". Just as Adam was perfect and became sinful, so Christ took on sin and conquered the death which Adam brought upon humanity. Just as woman was taken out of man, so the Bride of Christ is united to him in one Body which is the Church. This is the doctrine expounded by St Augustine and quoted in the Catechism:

CCC 788 When his visible presence was taken from them, Jesus did not leave his disciples orphans. He promised to remain with them until the end of time; he sent them his Spirit.218 As a result communion with Jesus has become, in a way, more intense: "By communicating his Spirit, Christ mystically constitutes as his body those brothers of his who are called together from every nation."219
CCC 789 The comparison of the Church with the body casts light on the intimate bond between Christ and his Church. Not only is she gathered around him; she is united in him, in his body. Three aspects of the Church as the Body of Christ are to be more specifically noted: the unity of all her members with each other as a result of their union with Christ; Christ as head of the Body; and the Church as bride of Christ.
CCC 796 The unity of Christ and the Church, head and members of one Body, also implies the distinction of the two within a personal relationship. This aspect is often expressed by the image of bridegroom and bride. The theme of Christ as Bridegroom of the Church was prepared for by the prophets and announced by John the Baptist.234 The Lord referred to himself as the "bridegroom."235 The Apostle speaks of the whole Church and of each of the faithful, members of his Body, as a bride "betrothed" to Christ the Lord so as to become but one spirit with him.236 The Church is the spotless bride of the spotless Lamb.237 "Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her."238 He has joined her with himself in an everlasting covenant and never stops caring for her as for his own body:239

This is the whole Christ, head and body, one formed from many . . . whether the head or members speak, it is Christ who speaks. He speaks in his role as the head (ex persona capitis) and in his role as body (ex persona corporis). What does this mean? "The two will become one flesh. This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the Church."240 And the Lord himself says in the Gospel: "So they are no longer two, but one flesh."241 They are, in fact, two different persons, yet they are one in the conjugal union, . . . as head, he calls himself the bridegroom, as body, he calls himself "bride."242

218 Cf. Jn 14:18; 20:22; Mt 28:20; Acts 2:33.
219 Lumen Gentium 7.
234 Jn 3:29.
235 Mk 2:19.
236 Cf. Mt 22:1-14; 25:1-13; 1 Cor 6:15-17; 2 Cor 11:2.
237 Cf. Rev 22:17; Eph 1:4; 5:27.
238 Eph 5:25-26.
239 Cf. Eph 5:29.
240 Eph 5:31-32.
241 Mt 19:6.
242 St. Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos 74:4:PL 36,948-949.


Evangelical Christians claim Jerusalem was destroyed in either 587 or 586 BCE. What is the evidence?

First of all, there were two sieges of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II:
597 BCE:

a military campaign carried out by Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon.
In 605 BC, he defeated Pharaoh Necho at the Battle of Carchemish, and subsequently invaded Judah.
According to the Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle, King Jehoiakim of Judah rebelled against Babylonian rule, but Nebuchadnezzar captured the city and installed Zedekiah as ruler.

587 BCE:

Following the siege of 597 BC, the Neo-Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar installed Zedekiah as vassal king of Judah. However, Zedekiah revolted against Babylon, and entered into an alliance with Pharaoh Hophra, the king of Egypt.
Nebuchadnezzar responded by invading Judah
Nebuchadnezzar began a siege of Jerusalem in December 589 BC. The siege lasted for either 18 or 30 months: there has been some debate as to when Nebuchadnezzar's second siege of Jerusalem took place. This gives us two possible chronologies:

the end of Zedekiah's reign and the fall of Jerusalem as 587 BCE (Albright), or
586 BCE (Thiele) based on the presentation of Zedekiah's reign on an accession basis, which he asserts was occasionally used for the kings of Judah. In that case, the year that Zedekiah came to the throne would be his zeroth year; his first full year would be 597/596 BCE

After the fall of Jerusalem, the Babylonian general Nebuzaraddan was sent to complete its destruction.

Besides the "18 or 30 months" and the "zeroeth year" interpretations, there is no diagreement among historians about the dates. There is no historical evidence for the siege of Jerusalem to have ended in 607 BCE. Multiple external sources, including Ptolemy's cannon, verify 586 BCE. It's also testified as the correct date in the Nabonidus Chronicle, Harran, Hillah Stele, the excavation of Lachish, and synchronization of Egyptian chronology. Tens of thousands of detailed Economic-administrative, business and legal documents have been unearthed outlining daily, monthly and yearly occurrences during the reign of the Babylonian kings, all of which are 20 years out of sync when using 607 BC, but line up perfectly with 586 BC.


How do Christians justify their belief and how do they convince others of their belief?

Lastly, I assume that Christians respect the laws of logic and therefore their justifications must also follow these laws.

Then you're not really going to get very far.  Yes, Christians respect the laws of logic, but we do not respect only the laws of logic.  The basis of Christian belief isn't grounded in logic, but in testimony, faith and experience.  We know that God is there because he makes his presence known through the witness of the Holy Ghost, and we know that he is good and worthy of obedience and worship because of the history of our relationship with him.

As we follow God's commandments faithfully, we can see the results in our lives. We see that living the principles of the Gospel works, that it produces positive results, helping us to resolve or avoid problems in our lives.  That increases our faith, making us better-able to trust in God, so that when we need to do something truly difficult, even if it seems to contradict what we think is logical, we can say, "God has never led me wrong before, so I can trust in him now."  Those who don't understand this principle say that Christians live by "blind faith," but that is far from the truth.

As for how Christians convince others of their belief, we don't.  While it's possible to convince another person that our viewpoint makes sense, actual faith, the kind I'm talking about in the previous paragraphs, comes from God, not from another person.  What proselyting Christians attempt to do is convince others to open their hearts, to be willing to accept that the Gospel might be true, and to be willing to pray to God to seek their own testimony and establish their own relationship with him.  Conversion is a highly personal matter between oneself and the Lord; anyone else's involvement is secondary.


What do Chinese Christians wear to a Western or Chinese Christian funeral?

It might depend on the church and the individuals.  I attended a Chinese church one time and people wore all sorts of colours to them.  Sometimes black, sometimes white, and anything in between.  I don't think the church I went to was very superstitious in that regard.


Where can I find sources showing ecclesiastical vestments of the 1200s?

Potential sources for this information include both written and visual accounts of the clergy. For the latter, we can look to illustrations in manuscripts, bearing in mind that the technical constraints of these illustrations mean that drawings may well be simplified in terms of colours and patterns. Also, artists may draw clergy as they "ought to be" rather than as they really were - if you need to show that someone is a bishop, you draw them in stereotypical bishop clothes. It's also important to look for sources of the correct time and place, as lonesomeday observes in comments above.

Some examples of bishops from manuscripts in the British Library include:

Roger Nigel, bishop of London, consecrating Edmund of Abington as archbishop of Canterbury in 1234, from Royal MS  14 C VIII f.122r - Matthew Paris's history of England (1250-1259).
Papal consecration of two English bishops and one archbishop in 1245, ibid. f.138v.
Portrait of Robert Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln 1235-1253, from Harley 3860 f.48

Another interesting data point is a 13th century stained glass window in Canterbury Cathedral, showing Thomas Becket. Again, the colours will partly be due to the technical possibilities and artistic demands of stained glass, but they probably can't be completely wrong for the popular image of a bishop.

As far as written sources, there is a tension between the rules for what clergy should have been wearing, and what they actually wore in practice. There is a long history of canon law trying to enforce modest dress, which in itself suggests that these laws were frequently being stretched or ignored.

Canon 16 of the Fourth Lateran Council (1216) says that clerics "are not to use red or green garments or curiously sewed together gloves, or beak-shaped shoes or gilded bridles, saddles, pectoral ornaments (for horses), spurs, or anything else indicative of superfluity." We can certainly deduce that some clergy before this date were accustomed to wear such garments. And even afterwards, there are wonderful texts like the 1342 canons of John Stratford, Archbishop of Canterbury, saying:

  [The clergy] scorn the tonsure ... and distinguish themselves with hair hanging down to their shoulders in an effeminate manner: and apparel themselves like soldiers rather than clerks, with an upper jump remarkably short and wide, with long hanging sleeves not covering the elbows: their hairs curled and powdered, and caps with tippets of a wonderful length, with long beards, and rings on their fingers, girt with girdles exceeding large and costly, having purses hanging with knives like swords in open view; their shoes chequered with red and green, exceeding long and variously pinked; with croppers to their saddles, and baubles like horns hanging down on the necks [of their horses], and cloaks furred on the edges.1

England is unusual in that clerical dress was less regulated than in mainland Europe. The canon law commentary by William Lyndwood (1429) asserts that English clergy have no fixed rule of dress, but can wear anything they like "appropriate to their estate", so long as it is not explicitly prohibited.2 His argument is that this is the long-established custom in England, which therefore prevails over ordinary legislation. This is later than your date of 1215 but the customs he refers to are older. Lyndwood's commentary says that the restriction on red and green implicitly also forbids clergy from wearing striped or multicoloured clothing - though, again, some of them undoubtedly did, even if they were not meant to.

In English canon law, the constitutions of Walter Gray for the province of York (1250) and of John Peckham for Canterbury (c. 1280) do not establish any particular colours for liturgical vestments, or for non-liturgical clerical use; though they do have norms for which garments should be worn, and who is responsible for them. The only colour references I see in Johnson are the Lateran prohibition of red and green, and the rule in Walter's Canons of 1200,

  Let not black monks or canons or nuns use coloured copes, but black only; nor any facings but black or white, made of the skins of lambs, cats, or foxes.

Given the date, this cannot refer to the Dominicans (conventionally "black friars") but must be the Benedictines ("black monks"). For abbots, practice varied probably as much as it did for bishops, although the sources of law were different. In theory, they should have been wearing basically normal monastic clothing, appropriate to their order. However:

Many monks, contrary to law, wore other things anyway.
An abbot was very likely to also be a priest, and some of them were consecrated as bishops.
Many English abbots had the privilege of dressing as if they were bishops, even if they were not consecrated as such ("mitred abbots").

Therefore, your twenty abbots might have been difficult to distinguish from the bishops and archbishops. Also, as far as I know, there's no colour that distinguishes an archbishop from a bishop.

The papal legate, Pandulf, was not a cardinal, and in 1215 he was only a subdeacon. However, I think that since he was a high-ranking legate (legatus a latere) he would have worn the red hat. This was the standard mark of direct papal representatives, which was later extended to all members of the college of cardinals, and which lent its colour to their other clothing. So he could well have been dressed as a subdeacon but with the wide-brimmed red hat we now think of as a cardinal's hat; or he might have worn more elaborate clothing, given the stature of his diplomatic mission.

1. From John Johnson's Collection of the Laws and Canons of the Church of England, vol. 2, 1851.
2. Tamen non habent certum Habitum eis deputatum nec in colore nec in forma; & ideo
possunt qualicunque veste usi, eorum statui congruenti, dummodo eis non sit expresse prohibita. Source.


Why is "Friends" capitalized in 1 Maccabees in the NRSV?

Why is “Friends” capitalized in 1 Maccabees in the NRSV?

The NRSV is not the only version of Scriptures that has the term Friends of the King capitalized. Other versions do the same.

The origins of the King's Friends can be seen in the history of Hushai a friend of King David and a spy according to the Hebrew Scriptures.

  Hushai or Chusai was a friend of David and a spy according to the Hebrew Bible. During Absalom's rebellion, as described in the Second Book of Samuel, he agrees to act as an advisor to Absalom to sabotage his plans while secretly sending information to David. It was on his advice that Absalom did not immediately pursue the retreating David, thus giving David time to regroup and gather his forces. Hushai's advice helped to ensure Absalom's rapid defeat.

  Life

  Hushai was an Archite, that is, a native of Archi, a place south of the portion of Ephraim, near Bethel (Joshua 16:2). He is called in 1 Chronicles 27:33 "the king's friend". This title is similar to that of counselor given to Ahitophel, or that of leader of the army to Joab: there is a similar use of the term in 1 Kings 4:5. In the Books of the Maccabees it is an official title given by the Seleucids to persons of confidence who have important military or civil functions (1 Maccabees 2:18; 3:38; 6:10, 14, 28; 7:6-8; etc.). It is likely then, that Hushai's title of "friend" of King David does not imply the intimate relations suggested by the term.

  Nevertheless, the account that is given of him during Absalom's rebellion (2 Samuel 15 - 17) shows that in his case the title was not merely official. After David has heard of the treason of his counselor Ahitophel, he organizes an evacuation of Jerusalem. On his way up the Mount of Olives he is met by Hushai, whose garments are rent and whose head is covered with dust. He is probably an old man, for David tells him he would be a burden in the flight.3 But the king does honour to Hushai's cleverness by sending him to Jerusalem, to "defeat the counsel of Ahitophel". Hushai persuades Absalom to take him into his confidence, and, in the council held shortly afterwards in regard to the measures to be taken against David, he overrules Ahitophel and obtains a delay which secures the safety of the king. He is able likewise to convey information to David through Zadok, Abiathar, and their sons: Ahimaaz, Zadok's son and Jonathan, Abiathar's son. (2 Samuel 15:36) - Hushai (Wikipedia)

The Jewish Virtual Library states that Hushai actually held the office of the King's Friend and as such it would be capitalized:

  HUSHAI THE ARCHITE (Heb. חוּשַׁי הָאַרְכִּי), biblical figure listed in I Chronicles 27:33 as holding the office of "the king's friend" under David. In II Samuel 15:37; 16:17 he is referred to as "David's friend." Hushai figures prominently in the story of the rebellion of *Absalom. At the time of David's flight from Jerusalem, Hushai, deeply grieved and wearing the traditional rent garments and ashes, sought to join David's company on The Mount of Olives, to which they had fled when Jerusalem's capitulation to Absalom appeared inevitable. David, however, persuaded Hushai to return and offer his allegiance to Absalom, so that he might defeat the counsels of *Ahithophel, David's adviser, and that he might supply information to David (II Sam. 15:32–37). Hushai, accepted as a loyal adviser by Absalom, successfully opposed Ahithophel's plan to pursue and attack David immediately, proposing instead that Absalom mass his forces and attack David in person. Having thus afforded David time to escape, Hushai sent word to David through his couriers, the sons of the priests *Abiathar and *Zadok, to cross the Jordan immediately (II Sam. 17:5–16). Although no more is heard of Hushai himself, Baana son of Hushai, one of the prefects of Solomon listed in I Kings 4:16, is probably his son.

  The term "the Archite" indicates that Hushai belongs to the clan named in Joshua 16:2–3 as dwelling in the vicinity of Ataroth, on the border between Ephraim and Benjamin. The name Hushai itself is most probably a short form of the name Ahishai, Ahushai.


Efforts and motivation on sanctification

Sanctification is a word that has multiple meanings within Christianity.  To answer your question we need to examine the definitions, and the teachings of the various groups.

One definition (the more "ordinary" one) of Sanctify is "to set apart".  A person or object can be sanctified (set apart) for a particular purpose.

From http://www.theopedia.com/Sanctification

  Sanctification, or in its verbal form, sanctify, literally means "to
  set apart" for special use or purpose, that is, to make holy or
  sacred. Therefore, sanctification refers to the state or process of
  being set apart, i.e. made holy. In systematic theology, the term
  often carries a technical meaning that differs from the biblical word
  group

In this sense, a person is sanctified by God without effort on the part of the believer.  God chooses whom He sets apart.It is solely the work of God.

The above definition often leads people to get confused, which leads them to mistake Justification to Sanctification.  Justification is, in Protestant denominations, the instant where we are saved by Grace, and are "made right" by God.  It is instant and also solely the work of God.

The next, commonly held Protestant definition of Sanctification makes the distinction more clear.  It's a more precise theological definition.  If I'm reading your question correctly, I believe that this is the sense of the word you are asking about, and the answer you're looking for is found at http://carm.org/justification-and-sanctification

  Sanctification is the process of being set apart for God's work and
  being conformed to the image of Christ.  This conforming to Christ
  involves the work of the person.  But it is still God working in the
  believer to produce more of a godly character and life in the person
  who has already been justified (Phil. 2:13).  Sanctification is not
  instantaneous because it is not the work of God alone. The justified
  person is actively involved in submitting to God's will, resisting
  sin, seeking holiness, and working to be more godly (Gal. 5:22-23).
  Significantly, sanctification has no bearing on justification.  That
  is, even if we don't live a perfect life, we are still justified.

Finally, there is the Catholic teaching on Sanctification, which is a bit long to summarize in this answer, but you can review an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia article here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm


Who in the fourth century had milk instead of wine at communion?

In some early church liturgies, and continuing even up to the Middle Ages, there was a custom of offering milk and honey to a newly baptized person as part of their first Eucharist. This took place after the bread and before the wine.1 An example is the liturgy of the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (c. 215), 21:27-30:

  Then the deacons shall immediately bring the oblation. The bishop shall bless the bread,
  which is the symbol of the Body of Christ; and the bowl of mixed wine, which is the
  symbol of the Blood which has been shed for all who believe in him; and the milk and
  honey mixed together, in fulfillment of the promise made to the fathers, in which he said,
  "a land flowing with milk and honey," which Christ indeed gave, his Flesh, through which
  those who believe are nourished like little children, by the sweetness of his Word,
  softening the bitter heart; and water also for an oblation, as a sign of the baptism, so
  that the inner person, which is psychic, may also receive the same as the body. The
  bishop shall give an explanation of all these things to those who are receiving.

Jerome's Dialogue against the Luciferians (c. 379) also talks about this baptismal custom, though he does not embed it within the Eucharist:

  For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law, as for instance the practice of dipping the head three times in the laver, and then, after leaving the water, of tasting mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy.

The symbolism of milk and honey, and its biblical resonance, is pretty clear. There is no reference here to having milk instead of wine, and it is meant to be only for the first communion. The existence of this tradition, though, does demonstrate a background where  milk was not completely alien to the liturgy.

Clement of Alexandria wrote a long discussion in his Paedogogus (c. 198) I.6, where he takes the view that milk can represent blood, and even the blood of Christ. Part of his reasoning is that in his view of human physiology, milk is basically blood that has been somehow sweetened and purified.2 He also appeals to 1 Corinthians 3:2, in which Paul likens his teaching to milk and meat. Clement continues:

  The blood of the Word has been also exhibited as milk. [...] Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord's blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine?  [...] The same blood and milk of the Lord is therefore the symbol of the Lord's passion and teaching.

He also talks about drinking a mixture of milk and wine (yuck!):

  Furthermore, milk is mixed with sweet wine; and the mixture is beneficial, as when suffering is mixed in the cup in order to immortality. For the milk is curdled by the wine, and separated, and whatever adulteration is in it is drained off. And in the same way, the spiritual communion of faith with suffering man, drawing off as serous matter the lusts of the flesh, commits man to eternity, along with those who are divine, immortalizing him.

It seems quite possible that some people, following this teaching of Clement, considered it acceptable to add a milk element to the Eucharist, mix wine and milk together, or to substitute milk for wine completely.

1 Eucharistic doctors: a theological history, Owen F. Cummings (Paulist Press, 2005), p34.
2 Honestly, that entire chapter is pretty startling in a lot of ways. Apparently semen is also blood, that's been whipped into a foam. Thankfully the digression ends there.


What is the relationship between Gabriel and Noah in LDS/Mormon teaching?

According to LDS doctrine, it's not so much that men or angels "become" one another, as that they are the same order of creation.

From the same reference, under Angels, we read:

  There are two kinds of beings in heaven who are called angels: those
  who are spirits and those who have bodies of flesh and bone. Angels
  who are spirits have not yet obtained a body of flesh and bone, or
  they are spirits who have once had a mortal body and are awaiting
  resurrection. Angels who have bodies of flesh and bone have either
  been resurrected from the dead or translated.

  There are many references in scripture to the work of angels.
  Sometimes angels speak with a voice of thunder as they deliver God’s
  messages (Mosiah 27:11–16). Righteous mortal men may also be called
  angels (JST, Gen. 19:15). Some angels serve around the throne of God
  in heaven (Alma 36:22).

The angel Gabriel is primarily known to Christians through his role in informing Mary and Zacharias about the important roles that their unborn children would play.  Genesis 9:29 informs us that Noah died, and as these events (as well as certain events in the book of Daniel that mention Gabriel) took place before the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, it's safe to say that he was, at this point, one of the spirits who "once had a mortal body and are awaiting resurrection."

The distinguishing characteristic seems to be not so much one of nature as of vocation; an angel is a servant of God--generally a non-mortal one (the one exception mentioned in the reference article refers to the messengers sent to Lot in Sodom, which is a somewhat ambiguous case)--with some special mission or duty to perform.


What does the moniker "the beloved disciple" imply about the marital status of John the Evangelist?

In Church Tradition, St. John was very young, perhaps an adolescent, when he first followed Jesus, and it is said he was never married.

In Chap. 16 That All May Be Saved, 266 in the book Friends of God, St. Josemaría Escrivá preaches:

  'Whereupon the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, It is the Lord.' Love, love is farsighted. Love is the first to appreciate
  kindness. The adolescent Apostle, who felt a deep and firm affection
  for Jesus, because he loved Christ with all the purity and tenderness
  of a heart that had never been corrupted, exclaimed: 'It is the
  Lord!'

  'Simon Peter, hearing him say that it was the Lord, girded up the
  fisherman's coat, and sprang into the sea.' Peter personifies faith.
  Full of marvellous daring, he leaps into the sea. With a love like
  John's and a faith like Peter's, what is there that can stop us?

In the Gospels there is another young man who Jesus looked at and loved, and that was the Rich Man, who had observed ALL the commandments from his youth.

Where can therefore conclude from the preaching of St. Josemaría and from the Gospels that St. John was the beloved disciple because he, like the Rich Young Man, was uncorrupted from his youth, but unlike the the Rich Young Man, St. John followed Jesus and was faithful to the end of his very long life.

Conclusion

From Catholic Tradition and from Scripture, one cannot imply anything about the marital status of St. John the Evangelist from the moniker "the beloved disciple" .


What is the test that determines doctrine from discipline?

Dogmas are truths proclaimed either directly by God or by God through His Church. That one cannot and should not receive Communion in the state of mortal sin is not a changeable discipline but a dogma of the highest degree, de fide.

The 24th Session of the Council of Trent says:

  Canon VII.—If any one saith, that the Church has erred, in that she hath taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolical doctrine, that the bond of matrimony can not be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties; and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, can not contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other; and, that he is guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband: let him be anathema.

Now,

adultery is a mortal sin (cf. Matt. 19:9).
Divorcing and remarrying is adultery.
Therefore, divorcing and remarrying is a mortal sin.

He who receives Communion in the state of mortal sin, i.e. "unworthily…shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of our Lord. … [He] eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of our Lord." (1 Cor. 11:27,29).

Living in sin also causes more sins: scandal, temptation to other spouse to commit adultery, and a grave injustice to the children.


What specifically is in the Pentateuch that later writers could not have known?

To head off non-constructive debate in comments, bear in mind that whether these are convincing arguments is off-topic for the site.  That sort of thing belongs in chat.

If I'm not mistaken, you're referring to the medical knowledge implicit in some of the Mosaic law.  The standard Apologetic argument goes that long before modern medical knowledge, God gave Laws relating to cleanliness and avoiding disease and other scientific knowledge that was well ahead of its time.

An example is found at bibleevidences.com

Sample:

  Sanitary Practices

  For centuries doctors denied the possibility that disease could be
  transmitted by invisible agents. However, in the late 19th century
  Louis Pasteur demonstrated in his Germ Theory of Disease that most
  infectious diseases were caused by microorganisms originating from
  outside the body. This new understanding of germs and their means of
  transmission led to improved sanitary standards that resulted in an
  enormous drop in the mortality rate. Yet these core principles of
  sanitation were being practiced by the Israelites thousands of years
  earlier.

  The Israelites were instructed to wash themselves and their clothes in
  running water if they had a bodily discharge, if they came in contact
  with another person's discharge, or if they had touched a dead human
  or animal carcass. They were also instructed to wash any uncovered
  vessels that were in the vicinity of a dead body, and if a dead
  carcass touched a vessel it was to be destroyed. Items recovered
  during war were also to be purified through either fire or running
  water. In addition, the Israelites were instructed to bury their human
  waste outside of camp, and to burn the waste of their animals (See
  Numbers 19:3-22, Lev. 11:1-47; 15:1-33, Deut 23:12).

  Circumcision and Blood Clotting

  For centuries scholars must have been perplexed by God's law of
  circumcision which required the procedure to be performed on the 8th
  day after birth (Gen 17:12, 21:14, Lev 12:3, Luke 2:21). Medical
  researchers recently discovered that the two main blood clotting
  factors, Vitamin K and Prothrombim, reach their highest level in life,
  about 110% of normal, on the 8th day after birth. These blood clotting
  agents facilitate rapid healing and greatly reduce the chance of
  infection. You can verify with any Obstetrician that the 8th day of
  life is the ideal time for a circumcision, and that any circumcision
  done earlier requires an injection of Vitamin K supplement.

If you move beyond the Pentateuch and into other Old Testament books, there are other scientific statements that don't match up with the beliefs of Pagan societies at the time.

  The Earth and Space

  The earth's shape is perhaps the most important to deal with first
  since many critics claim that the Bible portrays the earth as flat.
  This couldn't be farther from the truth and in my opinion is one of
  the most vaporous arguments used by skeptics against the Bible. There
  is not a single passage that plainly states that the earth is flat1.
  The groundswell of this criticism gets its roots from the inaccurate
  but common belief among many that the ancients on up through the
  middle ages believed that the earth was flat. The truth is, virtually
  all learned people have known for the last 2500 years that the earth
  is spherical [please see footnote 2].

  Before the learned ancients surmised that the earth was spherical, the
  divinely inspired Isaiah wrote "It is He who sits above the circle of
  the earth...(Isaiah 40:22)". In addition, from the Book of Job we have
  "He stretches out the north over empty space; he hangs the earth on
  nothing (Job 26:7)". It should be noted that just last century
  scientists believed space consisted of a hypothetical substance called
  Ether (not the chemical), which was the medium between the celestial
  bodies.  Also, the pagans of that time believed in such things as a
  mythical Atlas character who supported the pillars that held heaven
  and earth apart, and later carried the earth around on his shoulders.
  Another interesting tidbit that illuminates the divine nature of Job
  26:7 is the recent discovery of a huge hole in space in the direction
  of the northern hemisphere3.

and...

  The Hydrologic Cycle

  The circulation and conservation of earth's water is called the
  hydrologic cycle, which is accurately portrayed in several passages of
  the Bible, including the following: "For He draws up drops of water,
  which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and
  pour abundantly on man. (Job 36:27-28)" . Centuries after the Book of
  Job was written, Aristotle demonstrated only a vague understanding of
  this process. Though he recognized that rain came from clouds, he
  incorrectly postulated that air turned into water and vice versa.

There are more, and the site I linked to covers them in more depth, as does this site.  Putting them all here would be counter-productive (and plagiarism) so I'll stop there.


What is omitted from the current Western, Catholic Psalter?

The following is a list of omitted verses and Chapters from the four week plaster, currently in use. It follows modern numbering. Not Septuagint numbering.

Psalms Omitted Completely:

Psalm 58
Psalm 83
Psalm 109

Verses Omitted from Particular Psalms:

Psalm 5: 11
Psalm 21: 9-13
Psalm 28: 4-5
Psalm 31: 18-19
Psalm 40: 15-16
Psalm 54: 7
Psalm 55: 16
Psalm 56: 8
Psalm 69: 23-29
Psalm 72: 20
Psalm 79: 6-7,12
Psalm 110: 6
Psalm 137: 7-9
Psalm 139: 19-22
Psalm 140: 10-12
Psalm 141: 10
Psalm 143: 12

Source: Psalms and Verses Omitted from the Four-Week Psalter  Compiled by Fr. Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D.


Can I be baptized as a non-Catholic Christian if I was baptized as a Catholic when I was little?

It's going to depend on the denomination you want to be baptized by.

For denominations that accept infant baptism you have no need to be rebaptized. Your Catholic baptism is a valid Christian baptism. Even if you want to  those denominations probably won't baptise you again, because it is virtually universally believed that you cannot be validly baptized twice. However they will happily admit you to their denomination on the basis of your Catholic baptism. They may even have a ceremony for admitting you.

Denominations that do not accept infant baptism will not consider your previous baptism valid, and will be very happy to baptize you. They will probably require it if you are to join their church.

If you want to be rebaptized, but your new denomination considers you already baptized, there is nothing to stop you having a private ceremony in which you dedicate you life to Jesus and are immersed in water. Your denomination may not consider it a baptism, but since they believe you are already baptized it won't be a problem.

A few denominations such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter Day Saints will require you to be rebaptized when you join them no matter who previously baptized you. There may also be a few other exceptions, mostly denominations that do not believe in the Trinity.


Perhaps a more literal translation:

  Exodus 21:22: And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman's husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges' [orders].

The great medieval rabbi known as Rashi comments on this passage:

And should men quarrel: with one another, and [one] intended to
strike his fellow, and [instead] struck a woman. [From Sanh. 79a]
and hit a pregnant woman: Heb. נְגִיפָה וְנָגְפוּ is only an
expression of pushing and striking, as [in the following phrases:]
“lest you strike ךְתִּגֹף your foot with a stone” (Ps. 91:12); “and
before your feet are bruised (יִתְנְַָפוּ) ” (Jer. 13:16); “and a
stone upon which to dash oneself (נֶגֶף) ” (Isa. 8:14).
[Here Rashi is emphasising that the blow need not be such as to endanger the woman herself.]
but there is no fatality: with the woman. [my emphasis]

The assailant must pay to the husband the value of the foetus.

  Exodus 21:23: But if there is a fatality, you shall give a life for a life,

Rashi says:

But if there is a fatality: with the woman.
you shall give a life for a life: Our Rabbis differ on this matter. Some say [that he must] actually [give up his] life, and some say [that he must pay] money, but not actually a life, and if one intends to kill one person and kills another, he is exempt from the death penalty and must pay his [the victim’s] heirs his value, as [it would be if] he were sold in the marketplace. -[From Mechilta, Sanh. 79]


Had Moses changed  something in the Law as when Deuteronomy 12:15 - 16 is compared  to Leviticus 10:10 and 11:4-8?

The simple answer is no.

First of all, let us look at the texts in question more closely.

  15 “However, you may slaughter and eat meat within any of your towns, as much as you desire, according to the blessing of the Lord your God that he has given you. The unclean and the clean may eat of it, as of the gazelle and as of the deer. 16 Only you shall not eat the blood; you shall pour it out on the earth like water. - Deuteronomy 12:15-16

  8 Then the Lord said to Aaron, 9 “You and your sons are not to drink wine or other fermented drink whenever you go into the tent of meeting, or you will die. This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, 10 so that you can distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean, 11 and so you can teach the Israelites all the decrees the Lord has given them through Moses.” - Leviticus 10:8-11

  4 “‘There are some that only chew the cud or only have a divided hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. 5 The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you. - Leviticus 11:4-8

In all three biblical quotes, Moses is in the mists of defining and explaining what the Law allows and does not allows when it comes to dietary rules for the People of God.

First of all, Moses explains that both clean and unclean amongst the Ancient Israelites may eat the (clean) flesh of animals, which are permitted to be eaten. Here he is simply making a statement. Both those who are clean and those whose are ritually unclean may eat the flesh of animals, but not their blood. Sorry, no blood sausage is permitted. The blood of animals must be poured on the ground.

In both the Leviticus quotes, Moses explains what constitutes is permitted to be eaten or drunk according to the rules of the Law.

For example, if one wishes to go into the tent of meeting, one must not drink fermented beverages prior to doing so. Doing so will make one common and unclean.

The last quote involving Leviticus, Moses is explaining what constitutes unclean animals which may not be eaten by the Chosen People. Again eating unclean animals will make one ritually unclean according to the Law.

I like to look at Moses division between clean and unclean animals as something of being done as a medial officer to keep the People of God healthy. For example, pigs are notorious for passing on worms to other hosts, people included.

Swine flesh if eaten by non-Jewish people must always be well cooked to avoid any contamination from various parasites of this animal. Moses is simply keeping the Ancient Israelites pure and healthy through dietary edicts!

To stay clean do not eat unclean animals!


What is the evidence that Thomas Aquinas was assassinated?

A recent biographer of St. Thomas, Jean-Pierre Torrell, says in Saint Thomas Aquinas. Volume I, The Person and His Work (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2005), p. 294:

  The rumor must have circulated rather widely; the chronicler Giovanni Villani and Dante Alighieri himself echo it. It seems that all the historians are in agreement today in discarding this rumor as without serious foundation.


Does the pope get paid for being the pope?

Actually the opposite: his pay went down to 0. The pope receives no salary.

His modest daily needs (food, shelter, clothing, medical care) are provided for by the Vatican1. Popes do not accumulate wealth, and usually die in office. It's difficult to even imagine what he would use money for. He has all he needs. He is able to say the Mass, and he is able to serve God and people. He lives in the midst of a beautiful historic site.

Sometimes, Catholics try to give him money, but he just gives it all away.

1 - though perhaps not always to our standards: "Reportedly, the Papal Apartments had been in disrepair, with 'outmoded furnishings and lack of lighting' and large drums placed in the false ceiling to catch water leaks." (Wikipedia)


It's actually kind of a contradiction.  Which isn't surprising as Christ was a sign which would be contradicted (see Luke 2:34).  Purple is a kingly color, which is why they put it on Jesus to mock Him.  Purple is also, or has become, the penitential color for the Church, it is also the color worn and used to decorate churches during Advent.

Purple is certainly penitential in contrast to Rose, which is the color of Joy, worn on Laetare in Lent and Guadete sunday in Advent. But, the only other person to wear Purple clothes in the New Testament was the rich man (who went to Hell) in the parable of Lazarus (Luke 16:19). But his wearing purple is a sign of his wealth and vainglory.

Each of the ways the soldiers mocked Jesus have become for Christians a sign of His eternal glory.


What is the meaning of 'the Sun and the Moon' in Joseph's dream?

The Sun and the Moon do definitely represent his father and mother:

  Genesis 37:10 NKJV  So he told it to his father and his brothers; and his father rebuked him and said to him, "What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall your mother and I and your brothers indeed come to bow down to the earth before you?"

The bowing down does not refer to the physical act of bowing; what it refers to is his having a position superior to them.

Which actually happened and not only did he hold a superior position, but he became their provider and benefactor. And even though he had much power over their lives he still acquiesced to his father with his sons.

  Genesis 48:11through 14 NKJV  And Israel said to Joseph, "I had not thought to see your face; but in fact, God has also shown me your offspring!" 12  So Joseph brought them from beside his knees, and he bowed down with his face to the earth. 13  And Joseph took them both, Ephraim with his right hand toward Israel's left hand, and Manasseh with his left hand toward Israel's right hand, and brought them near him. 14  Then Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on Ephraim's head, who was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh's head, guiding his hands knowingly, for Manasseh was the firstborn.

and

  Genesis 48:17 through 19 NKJV  Now when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand on the head of Ephraim, it displeased him; so he took hold of his father's hand to remove it from Ephraim's head to Manasseh's head. 18  And Joseph said to his father, "Not so, my father, for this one is the firstborn; put your right hand on his head." 19  But his father refused and said, "I know, my son, I know. He also shall become a people, and he also shall be great; but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his descendants shall become a multitude of nations.

Even though Joseph's dream was predictive of events to come, it in no way degraded the positions of Joseph's parents. It was not God's intent to change the family hierarchy, but to save the Hebrew Nation for his future purposes.

Hope this helps.


Why did the Jansenists practice such harsh penances?

Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., Three Ages of the Interior Life, pt. 2 "Purification of the Soul in Beginners", ch. 19 "Practical Naturalism: Of Action and of Inaction" (ref:35.21):

In the seventeenth century the Jansenists fell into a pessimism which is an alteration of the Christian doctrine of penance. Like the first Protestants, they exaggerated the results of original sin to the point of saying that man no longer has free will, the liberty of indifference, but only spontaneity, and that all the acts of infidels are sins.759 They taught that “all his life long, a man must do penance for original sin.”760 As a result, they retained souls during a whole lifetime in the purgative way, and kept them away from Holy Communion, saying that we are not worthy of such a union with our Lord. According to their doctrine, only those should be admitted to Holy Communion who have a pure, unalloyed love of God.761 They forgot that this very pure love of God is precisely the effect of Communion, when it is accompanied by a generous struggle against all that is inordinate in us. Jansenism never attained to deliverance and peace.762759. Cf. Denzinger, nos. 1094 [Cum occasione, May 31, 1658, condemned: "3. In order to merit or demerit in the state of fallen nature, freedom from necessity is not required in man, but freedom from external compulsion is sufficient."], 1291 [Condemned in a Decr. of the Holy Office, Dec. 7, 1690: "1. In the state of fallen nature, for mortal [Viva: formale] sin and for demerit that liberty is sufficient by which the mortal sin or demerit was voluntary and free in its cause, namely, in original sin and in the will of Adam sinning."], 1298 ["8. Of necessity, an infidel sins in every act."].760. Ibid., no. 1309: “Homo debet agere tota vita poenitentiam pro peccato originali.” ["Man ought to do penance during his whole life for original sin."]761. Ibid., no. 1313: “Arcendi sunt a sacra communione, quibus nondum illest amor Dei purissimus et omnis mixtionis expers.” ["23. Similarly, they must be prevented from Holy Communion, who have not yet a pure love of God, without any admixture."]762. It has been said of Pascal that throughout his life he thought of sanctity without ever attaining it, because he remained in his own presence instead of in the presence of God.

It seems the Jansenists placed all the blame on Adam, thinking his sin was the only truly voluntary sin?


What was Saint Thomas Aquinas's girding by the two angels?

St. Thomas Aquinas's mother, a countess, tried to dissuade him from entering the Dominican Order because she hoped St. Thomas would become a prominent political figure. His brothers locked him up in a tower for a whole year and tempted him with a prostitute, whom he struck and chased out with a fiery brand. Two angels then girded him as a sign that God will always protect his purity.

Here's how Fr. Alban Butler recounts the story, from his The Lives of the Saints, "St. Thomas Aquinas":

  …the saint, not listening to flesh and blood in the call of heaven, demanded with earnestness to be admitted into the Order, and accordingly received the habit in the convent of Naples, in 1243, being then seventeen years old. The Countess Theodora his mother, being informed of it, set out for Naples to disengage him, if possible, from that state of life. Her son, on the first news of her journey, begged his superiors to remove him, as they did first to the convent of St. Sabina in Rome, and soon after to Paris, out of the reach of his relations. Two of his brothers, Landulph and Reynolds, commanders in the emperor’s army in Tuscany, by her directions so well guarded all the roads that he fell into their hands, near Acqua-pendente. They endeavoured to pull off his habit, but he resisted them so violently that they conducted him in it to the seat of his parents, called Rocca-Secca. The mother overjoyed at their success, made no doubt of overcoming her son’s resolution. She endeavoured to persuade him that to embrace such an Order, against his parents’ advice, could not be the call of heaven; adding all manner of reasons, fond caresses, entreaties, and tears. Nature made her eloquent and pathetic. He appeared sensible of her affliction, but his constancy was not to be shaken. His answers were modest and respectful, but firm in showing his resolution to be the call of God, and ought consequently to take place of all other views whatsoever, even of his service any other way. At last, offended at his unexpected resistance, she expressed her displeasure in very choleric words, and ordered him to be more closely confined and guarded, and that no one should see him but his two sisters. The reiterated solicitations of the young ladies were a long and violent assault. They omitted nothing that flesh and blood could inspire on such an occasion, and represented to him the danger of causing the death of his mother by grief. He on the contrary spoke to them in so moving a manner, on the contempt of the world, and the love of virtue, that they both yielded to the force of his reasons, for his quitting the world, and by his persuasion, devoted themselves to a sincere practice of piety.

  This solitude furnished him with the most happy opportunity for holy contemplation and assiduous prayer. Some time after, his sisters conveyed to him some books, viz., a bible, Aristotle’s Logics, and the works of the Master of the Sentences. During this interval his two brothers, Landulph and Reynold, returning home from the army, found their mother in the greatest affliction, and the young novice triumphant in his resolution. They would needs undertake to overcome him, and began their assault by shutting him up in a tower of the castle. They tore in pieces his habit on his back, and after bitter reproaches and dreadful threats they left him, hoping his confinement, and the mortifications every one strove to give him, would shake his resolution. This not succeeding, the devil suggested to these two young officers a new artifice for diverting him from pursuing his vocation. They secretly introduced one of the most beautiful and most insinuating young strumpets of the country into his chamber, promising her a considerable reward in case she could draw him into sin. She employed all the arms of Satan to succeed in so detestable a design. The saint, alarmed and affrighted at the danger, profoundly humbled himself, and cried out to God most earnestly for his protection; then snatching up a firebrand struck her with it, and drove her out of his chamber. After this victory, not moved with pride, but blushing with confusion for having been so basely assaulted, he fell on his knees and thanked God for his merciful preservation, consecrated to him anew his chastity, and redoubled his prayers, and the earnest cry of his heart with sighs and tears, to obtain the grace of being always faithful to his promises. Then falling into a slumber, as the most ancient historians of his life relate, he was visited by two angels, who seemed to gird him round the waist with a cord so tight that it awoke him, and made him cry out. His guards ran in, but he kept his secret to himself. It was only a little before his death that he disclosed this incident to F. Reynold, his confessor, adding that he had received this favour about thirty years before, from which time he had never been annoyed with temptations of the flesh; yet he constantly used the utmost caution and watchfulness against that enemy, and he would otherwise have deserved to forfeit that grace. …

The prostitute is shown in the background of Velázquez's painting. Bernardo Daddi's The Temptation of St. Thomas Aquinas shows her more prominently, and she lacks a halo:

cf. also the Angelic Warfare Confraternity


In heaven, will we have desires (Catholic)?

Catholic theology speaks of The Satiety of the Blessed in the following manner:

  This state of satiety is always new and never passes away. St. Augustine writes: "All our life will be one Amen, one Alleluia. Sadden
  not yourselves by considering this truth in a carnal manner, as if in
  heaven, just as on earth, we could become weary by repeating the
  words: Amen, Alleluia. This heavenly Amen, this Alleluia, will not be
  expressed by sound which passes away, but by the emotions of love, the
  emotions of the soul embraced by love. "Amen" means "It is true."
  "Alleluia" means "praise God." God is the immovable truth, who knows
  neither defect nor progress, neither decline nor growth. He is truth,
  eternal and stable: truth forever incorruptible.

  "We shall sing our Amen forever but with a satiety that is insatiable. With satiety, because we live in perfect abundance, but
  with an insatiable satiety, because this good, while it satisfies
  completely, produces also a pleasure ever new. Insatiably satiated
  by this truth, we shall repeat forever: Amen. Rest and gaze: that is
  our eternal Sabbath."

And St. Josemaría Escrivá writes:

  Think how pleasing to God Our Lord is the incense burnt in his honour.
  Think also how little the things of this earth are worth; even as they
  begin they are already ending. In Heaven, instead, a great Love awaits
  you, with no betrayals and no deceptions. The fullness of love, the
  fullness of beauty and greatness and knowledge... And it will never
  cloy: it will satiate, yet still you will want more. - The Forge,
  995.

Therefore Catholic theology speaks of the satiety of the blessed in heaven that is always new, never passes away, is full and complete, yet still wants more i.e., it is an insatiable satiety.


What's the point of the tenth commandment?

In the story of the Rich Young Ruler, Jesus asks the man what commandments he has kept from his youth. He responds with the complete "second table" - i.e. those command which represent man's duty to man, rather than his duty to God - minus one.  The young man admits that he hadn't lied, killed, stolen, committed adultery, and honored his parents - but doesn't mention that he avoid covetousness. And, Jesus knew this about him.

That is why Jesus told the young man, "Go, sell all that you have, and follow me."

In telling the young man to divest himself of all he owned, he was telling the young man that he must learn to lean on God, and not his own power.

Stealing says, "Things should be mine." It is a kind of pride that says "I deserve this." God says, "I have given you what you need."

Covetousness says, "If only I had the resources, I could meet my own needs."  God says, "I am your only need." It is not a sense of entitlement - It is a sense of self-sufficiency, the opposite of the interdependent relationship that God would have.

The "point" of the prohibition on covetousness was simply this - God is all we need. Absent God, we can never have what we need to live a full life. With God, we need nothing else.


What is the earliest documented usage of the term "Sola Scriptura"?

In 1520 Luther wrote the following in his defense against the bull of Pope Leo X:

  Nolo omnium doctior iactari, sed solam scripturam regnare, nec eam meo spiritu aut ullorum hominum interpretari, sed per seipsam et suo spiritu intelligi volo. (WA 7:98.40–99.2)

Mark D. Thompson gives this translation:

  I do not want to throw out all those more learned [than I], but Scripture alone to reign, and not to interpret it by my own spirit or the spirit of any man, but I want to understand it by itself and its spirit.


What is the purpose and basis for the special garments issued to temple-going Mormons?

The "temple garments," as they're commonly known, serve as a constant physical reminder of the covenants that the person wearing them have made.  They are associated with the temple ceremonies, as you noted in the question.  These ceremonies were revealed to Joseph Smith, and as they are not meant for the world in general, the details have not been published in works of scripture meant for the world in general, such as the Doctrine and Covenants.

I have not heard of any doctrine that directly equates them to the Levitical priestly garments, though Boyd K. Packer, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, gave an explanation along those lines at one point, in the spirit of analogy and explanation rather than as solid doctrine:

  On one occasion one of the brethren was invited to speak to the faculty and staff of the Navy Chaplains Training School in Newport, Rhode Island. The audience included a number of high-ranking naval chaplains from the Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish faiths.

  In the question-and-answer period one of the chaplains asked, “Can you tell us something about the special underwear that some Mormon servicemen wear?” The implication was, “Why do you do that? Isn’t it strange? Doesn’t that present a problem?”

  To the chaplain who made the inquiry he responded with a question: “Which church do you represent?” In response he named one of the Protestant churches.

  He said, “In civilian life and also when conducting the meetings in the military service you wear clerical clothing, do you not?” The chaplain said that he did.

  He continued: “I would suppose that that has some importance to you, that in a sense it sets you apart from the rest of your congregation. It is your uniform, as it were, of the ministry. Also, I suppose it may have a much more important place. It reminds you of who you are and what your obligations and covenants are. It is a continual reminder that you are a member of the clergy, that you regard yourself as a servant of the Lord, and that you are responsible to live in such a way as to be worthy of your ordination.”

  He then told them: “You should be able to understand at least one of our reasons why Latter-day Saints have a deep spiritual commitment concerning the garment. A major difference between your churches and ours is that we do not have a professional clergy, as you do. The congregations are all presided over by local leaders. They are men called from all walks of life. Yet they are ordained to the priesthood. They hold offices in the priesthood. They are set apart to presiding positions as presidents, counselors, and leaders in various categories. The women, too, share in that responsibility and in those obligations. The man who heads our congregation on Sunday as the bishop may go to work on Monday as a postal clerk, as an office worker, a farmer, a doctor; or he may be an air force pilot or a naval officer. By our standard he is as much an ordained minister as you are by your standard. He is recognized as such by most governments. We draw something of the same benefits from this special clothing as you would draw from your clerical vestments. The difference is that we wear ours under our clothing instead of outside, for we are employed in various occupations in addition to our service in the Church. These sacred things we do not wish to parade before the world.”

  He then explained that there are some deeper spiritual meanings as well, connecting the practice of wearing this garment with covenants that are made in the temple. We wouldn’t find it necessary to discuss these—not that they are secret, he repeated, but because they are sacred.

  -- Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple

Likewise, the symbols on the garment are meant to serve as reminders of specific spiritual truths.  Exactly what they represent cannot be effectively discussed in a setting such as this, where objectively correct answers are desired above all else, because those who have been through the temple ceremonies are under a strict covenant obligation to not reveal the knowledge gained therein to the world.

This means that anyone who claims to explain their meaning either have not actually received the ceremony and so they are just making it up, or they have received it and, in telling, are willing to break a solemn vow made to God, and thus their explanation cannot be trusted, especially as in practice, those who do are almost invariably doing so for the specific purpose of trying to make the church look bad, which should automatically call their objectivity into question.


According to Catholic Teaching: Why is God allowing COVID-19, when there seems to be no physical or moral good resulting from it?

In the Book of Job, that man's greatest insights into his need for a savior and what that savior needed to do for him came in the midst of his suffering. In my own life, times of suffering have also pushed me to deeper understanding of my failings, need for change, and drove me to seek God. Are there people in the world today who are finding in COVID-19 a force urging them toward God? I have been forced to work from home most of the past year. The savings in commute time is about 12 hours a week. I have used about half that time for additional prayer, Bible study, and writing. I doubt I am alone; many people have seen their priorities change. I just finished the first draft of a book on how to find peace. I would not have chosen the topic or had the time to do the research and write it without the disruption of the pandemic.
Some people are isolated because of the disease. What will they do with this isolation?
Some people are spending more time with their children than before. I am one; all my daughters are in college, but college is now on Zoom from home. What will that do with their relationships?
Some people will die. What effect will this have on the people they leave behind? Years ago, I visited a terminally ill woman a few times, to pray for her and console her. She died and I was changed. Seeing the strength of her faith in the midst of such horrible pain and suffering transformed me. That experience set me free from over a decade of depression. Will God waste so many deaths, or make good use of them?
The Bible has examples of how horrible times can yield surprising results. My church is studying Ruth. In that story, Naomi and her husband leave Israel during a famine to try their luck in Moab. It doesn't work out. Her husband and two sons die and she returns to Israel with her daughter in law, Ruth, because the famine is starting to lift. In the end, Ruth ends up marrying Boaz and from their union come the ancestors of King David and after that, Jesus.
A famine drove Naomi from Israel and then it brought her back, but with a daughter-in-law in tow. That would not have happened without the famine.
What caused the famine? Scientists reconstructing ancient climate believe that the time of Ruth was during the Great Drought. It lasted 50 years and was the worst drought in recorded history. It caused the Late Bronze Age collapse and destroyed several empires, like the Hittites. Archaeologists say every single major city from Greece all the way to Gaza was burned to the ground by the fighting that attended that civilizational collapse. The destruction of those empires cleared the stage for the rise of Israel under David.
The big picture is hard to see. Will Covid-19 spell the downfall of great powers as ordained by God, who is preparing superior replacements? We won't know until many years from now. One of the vaccines going through trial was developed in under two months - a record. When one of the vaccines is ready for distribution, it will hav e been the fastest vaccine developed ever. Perhaps God is using this pandemic to train our scientists and factories to ready them for rapid response to an even worse disease in our near future? Time will tell.
The most important thing to realize is that God has given us free will and given us jobs to do. Our actions count. They matter. Our lives are consequential. How we respond to tragedy is a test of our love. A world of suffering is a stage for us to prove who we are. There is no other way. The only test for a doctor is if they can cure the sick. All our diseases have been the force driving us to understand biology and every other science.


Does the Catholic Church teach that we can choose when to use an indulgence?

Can we choose when to use an indulgence?

The short answer is no.

Here is the thing: Indulgences are applied to the soul at the moment that all the requirements of gaining a particular indulgence (partial or plenary)  are accomplished.

  The Church has always taught that indulgences do not apply to sins not yet committed. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes, "[An indulgence] is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power." - Myths about Indulgences

What an indulgence is not:

  It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power. It is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility of subsequent lapses into sin. Least of all is an indulgence the purchase of a pardon which secures the buyer's salvation or releases the soul of another from Purgatory. The absurdity of such notions must be obvious to any one who forms a correct idea of what the Catholic Church really teaches on this subject. - Catholic Encyclopedia

Here are a few points on indulgences from the Vatican:

  To gain indulgences, whether plenary or partial, it is necessary that the faithful be in the state of grace at least at the time the indulgenced work is completed.

  A plenary indulgence can be gained only once a day. In order to obtain it, the faithful must, in addition to being in the state of grace:

  — have the interior disposition of complete detachment from sin, even venial sin;

  — have sacramentally confessed their sins;

  — receive the Holy Eucharist (it is certainly better to receive it while participating in Holy Mass, but for the indulgence only Holy Communion is required);

  — pray for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff. - THE GIFT OF THE INDULGENCE.

Now if the faithful have the interior disposition of complete detachment from sin there is no reason to save up points for a rainy day since they are in earnest about remaining in the state of grace at all times.


John 3:5: "Of water" refers to physical birth from amniotic sac --- who first proposed that theory?

Short Answer: I was unable to find anything in support of this view prior to 1989.

D. A. Carson's commentary on John (generally considered to be the best available commentary on this book of the Bible) explains the following: (See p. 191)

  Noting that v. 6 describes two births, one from flesh to flesh and the other from Spirit to Spirit, some interpreters propose that 'born of water and the Spirit' similarly refers to two births, one natural and the other supernatural. . . . To support this view, 'water' has been understood to refer to the amniotic fluid that breaks from the womb shortly before childbirth, or to stand metaphorically for semen. But there are no ancient sources that picture natural birth as 'from water', and the few that use 'drops' to stand for semen are rare and late.

Thus, it would seem that there are no ancient sources to cite for this view. This is confirmed by The NIV Application Commentary: (see p. 115)

  The chief problem here is that this culture did not refer to natural birth as birth "by water" (although we may do so today, thinking of water as either amniotic fluid or semen.)

For a defense of the natural birth view, Carson points us to two sources:

Ben Witherington III, New Testament Studies 35, (1989), 155-160
L. Morris, Jesus is the Christ: Studies in the Theology of John, (IVP, 1989), 150-151

Andreas Kostenberger's commentary on John (which is ranked #2 on the aforementioned site) suggests two additional sources for a defense of the physical birth view:

B. Witherington, John's Wisdom, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox., 1995), 97
J. C. Laney, Moody Gospel Commentary: John, (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 78

Here is some additional information that I came across which may be helpful:

The New American Commentary also supports Carson's claim: (see p. 173-174)

  These two words also should not be bifurcated as in some inadequate folk interpretations of the text where water is equated with the water of natural birth (either that of the sack in which the baby floats or the male fluid of the sex act).

Two sources are suggested for further research (although I am not sure if they are defenses or refutations):

Beasley-Murray, John, 48
H. Odeberg, The Forth Gospel Interpreted in Its Relations to Contemporaneous Religious Currents (1929; reprint, Amsterdam: B. RR. Gruner, 1986), 63

Note that The New International Commentary on the New Testament identifies Odeberg as a proponent of the "water = semen" view, which suggests that the latter citation may not be relevant to the amniotic fluid view. (see p. 191-192) The citation given appears to be the same source:

Hugo Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel, (Uppsala, 1929), 48-71

I also learned from this commentary that Calvin viewed "water and Spirit" as synonymous, and that Luther said that "water" refers to water baptism, which I thought was interesting.

Anyway, I hope that helps point you in the right direction.


Question: What general theological framework(s) are represented in the Life Application Study Bible commentary?
KB: The Life Application Study Bible NIV (LASB) is the version I have used for about 16 years now so I’m very familiar with it. I use both the Kindle version and the leather-bound version of the LASB. You mention the LASB 'commentary' by which I take it you mean the application notes and other material outside of the Bible itself.
Here is how the NIV Bible describes its theological framework:
From the Preface to the LASB (2nd Edition):

“The complete NIV Bible was first published in 1978. It was a
completely new translation made by over a hundred scholars working
directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts.
The translators came from the United States, Great Britain, Canada,
Australia and New Zealand, giving the translation an international
scope. They were from many denominations and churches — including
Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethren, Christian Reformed,
Church of Christ, Evangelical Covenant, Evangelical Free, Lutheran,
Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and others.
This breadth of denominational and theological perspective helped to safeguard the translation from sectarian bias...”
[KB: emphasis added]

The publisher makes this mention of contributors specifically to the life application study notes:

Tyndale House Publishers gratefully acknowledges the role of Youth for Christ/USA in preparing the Life Application Notes and Bible Helps.

KB: The full list of contributors is about 10 pages long so I won't reproduce it. There are many types of notes and ‘commentary’outside of the actual Bible itself in the LASB. Some of them may have a point of view while others are strictly textual or historical in nature. I have read much of the extra material in the LASB and I have not found a particular bias or personal point of view.
You had many in-depth questions that are far beyond the scope of this answer so I won't be able to help with those.
If you want more in-depth information, I recommend you go to the NIV web site or take a look at this page: The History of the NIV Translation.


The first conception or the first coitus?

Did Adam and Eve have sex with each other in the Garden of Eden?

Sure, it is possible, since the Scriptures do not say clearly one way or another. According to tradition, these theologians do not think so. If Adam and Eve did have intimacy of a sexual nature before the fall, there would have been, to what degree I do not know, a chance the Eve could have conceived a child and that child would have been born without original sin! This fact alone must be weighed in on the minds of all the Church Fathers in this issue.

From reading Scriptures alone it is impossible to say one way or another.

  The Bible does not say whether or not Adam and Eve had sexual relations in the Garden of Eden. Therefore, we cannot say they did or did not.  Still, let's take a look at the issue a little more deeply.

    "Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth," (Genesis 1:26-25).

  God commanded them to multiply and fill the earth.  But, we do not know if they had begun to fulfill that command by having relations in the Garden. Furthermore, we do not know how long they were in the Garden before they fell.

  In Genesis 2 there is a more detailed account of the creation order that Genesis 1:26-25 goes over.

  Man is formed.  "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being," (Genesis 2:7).
  Not good for man to be alone. "Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him," (Genesis 2:18).
  God made Eve. "So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place, 22 the LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man." (Genesis 2:21-22).

  So, there is no way to know for sure whether or not Adam and Eve actually had sexual relations before they were expelled from the Garden of Eden. - Did Adam and Eve have sex with each other in the Garden of Eden?

Thus we a forced to take a look at one more sacred text before moving on.

When God put Adam and Eve out of the Garden, He told Eve the following:

  I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. - Genesis 3:16

This last text tends to imply that both Adam and Eve did not have sexual relations while in the Garden, for now they knew that such relationship could result in a painful delivery of a child for all women. God had foreseen this moment to reveal this punishment for sinning in the Garden.

Again tradition holds that both Adam and Eve were virgins in the Garden. St. Justin Martyr, writing about 155 A.D. in his work 100 Dialogue with Trypho, and St. Irenaeus, writing about 189 A.D. in his work 3, 22 Against Heresies, both say Eve was still a virgin at the time she and Adam committed the first sin.


Numbers 20:25–29 says (NABRE)

  Take Aaron and Eleazar his son and bring them up on Mount Hor. Then strip Aaron of his garments and put them on Eleazar, his son; but there Aaron shall be gathered up in death. Moses did as the LORD commanded. When they had climbed Mount Hor in view of the whole community, Moses stripped Aaron of his garments and put them on Eleazar his son. Then Aaron died there on top of the mountain. When Moses and Eleazar came down from the mountain, all the community understood that Aaron had breathed his last; and for thirty days the whole house of Israel mourned Aaron.

The New American Bible has a note to this passage; it states

  Mount Hor: not definitively identified, but probably to be sought in the vicinity of Kadesh. According to Dt 10:6, Aaron died at Moserah (cf. "Moseroth" in Nm 33:30–31), which is apparently the name of the region in which Mount Hor is situated.

That's one possibility.

Similarly, the Pulpit Commentary on Deuteronomy 10 states

  As Aaron died there, Mosera must have been in the vicinity of Mount Her [sc. Hor].


From the perspective of Roman Catholicism, what do Orthodox churches have to do to become "Eastern Catholic Churches"?

The Vatican II document which talks about the Eastern Churches is Orientalium Ecclesiarium. In it, the Conciliar Fathers turn their attention to these Churches and their Orthodox counterparts.

In particular, the Church deems it very important that the Eastern Churches maintain their own liturgical and spiritual tradition:

  All members of the Eastern Rite should know and be convinced that they can and should always preserve their legitimate liturgical rite and their established way of life, and that these may not be altered except to obtain for themselves an organic improvement. All these, then, must be observed by the members of the Eastern rites themselves. Besides, they should attain to an ever greater knowledge and a more exact use of them, and, if in their regard they have fallen short owing to contingencies of times and persons, they should take steps to return to their ancestral traditions.

In particular, latinisation (and byzantinisation, as well) is to be avoided where possible, and in fact much work has been done to remove accretions to the Eastern Rites that have come from the Western ones, sometimes to the dismay of the people who have grown accustomed with those.

Regarding the requirements for Orthodox Churches to join the Catholic one, they are mentioned in §25:

  If any separated Eastern Christian should, under the guidance of the grace of the Holy Spirit, join himself to the unity of Catholics, no more should be required of him than what a bare profession of the Catholic faith demands. Eastern clerics, seeing that a valid priesthood is preserved among them, are permitted to exercise the Orders they possess on joining the unity of the Catholic Church, in accordance with the regulations established by the competent authority.

To a Chalcedonian Church, this "bare profession of Catholic faith" involves basically recognising the authority of the Holy Father. The Union of Brest, by which the Ruthenian Church came into union with Rome, stipulates that the Eastern Catholics need not insert the filioque clause into the Creed, they need not accept the doctrine of Purgatory (though they may not explicitly deny it), and need not hold fast into any of the elaborations that the Western Church has performed upon Transubstantiation (it is enough to believe in the Real Presence).

To a Miaphysite Church, they need to accept furthermore a Chalcedonian Christology, even if only by accepting that what the Miaphysites call φύσις (physis, nature) the Chalcedonians call ὑπόστασις (hypostasis, being).

Regarding the Church of the East, it's not clear that they have a truly Nestorian Christology, though they honour Nestorius. The records of the Synods of the Bishops of the Sassanid Empire during the fourth and fifth Centuries show a studious silence on the question of the natures and hypostases of Christ, and the schism of the Eastern Church was more a question of the needs of the Persian Church to distance itself from the Roman Emperor than an actual question of theology.

In summary, there is very little that the Orthodox would need to do to restore unity with Rome. Foremost would be to accept the primacy of the Holy Father, and most of the rest can be left to the discretion of each Church. Again from Orientalium Ecclesiarium:

  History, tradition and abundant ecclesiastical institutions bear outstanding witness to the great merit owing to the Eastern Churches by the universal Church. The Sacred Council, therefore, not only accords to this ecclesiastical and spiritual heritage the high regard which is its due and rightful praise, but also unhesitatingly looks on it as the heritage of the universal Church. For this reason it solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, as much as those of the West, have a full right and are in duty bound to rule themselves, each in accordance with its own established disciplines, since all these are praiseworthy by reason of their venerable antiquity, more harmonious with the character of their faithful and more suited to the promotion of the good of souls.

Thus the Churches of the East can and must enjoy a large degree of autonomy.


How much did the Cross of Jesus weigh?

  30At that time ‘they will say to the mountains, “Fall on us!” and to the hills, “Cover us!”’ 31For if men do these things while the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?” 32Two others, who were criminals, were also led away to be executed with Jesus.… - Luke 23:30-32

The Cross on which Our Savior was crucified seems to be made of pine:

  A microscopic examination of the fragments of the Cross scattered through the world in the form of relics reveals the fact that it was made from a pine-tree (Rohault de Fleury, "Mémoire sur les instruments de la Passion", Paris, 1870, 63). According to an ancient, but somewhat dubious, tradition the Cross of Jesus Christ measured in length very nearly 189 inches (4.80 metres), from 90½ to 102½ inches (2.30 to 2.60 metres). As noted by the Evangelists, two thieves were crucified, one on either side of Christ. Their crosses must have resembled the one on which He suffered; in Christian art and tradition they generally appear lower (St. John Chrysostom, Hom. i, xxvi, on I Cor.; on Rom., v, 5). A large portion of the cross of the good thief (traditionally known as Dismas) is preserved at Rome in the altar of the Chapel of the Relics at Santa Croce in Gerusalemme. - The crucifixion of Jesus Christ (Catholic Encyclopedia)

There are no exact figures available as to what the Cross truly weighed, but tradition is that Jesus only carried the heavy patibulum, the crossbar to the place of crucifixion.

  In John 19:17, John says Jesus carried the cross while in Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21 and Luke 23:26 we are informed that Simon of Cyrene helped Jesus to carry the cross. There are no exact figures on the weight of the cross. It is believed to have been made of solid wood , so the whole cross is estimated to be over 300 pounds (136 kilograms) while the crossbar is estimated to be around 70-90 pounds (32-41 kilograms). - What is the weight of the cross that Jesus carried?

This article puts the weight of Christ’s crossbar from 75-125 lbs or 34-57kgs); 5-6 ft long (or 1.5-1.8 m long).
Jesus probably only carried the patibulum portion of the Cross:

  The episode is mentioned, without much detail, in all the canonical Gospels: Matthew 27:31–33, Mark 15:20–22, Luke 23:26–32 and John 19:16–18. Only John specifically says Jesus carried his cross, and all but John include Simon of Cyrene, who was recruited by the soldiers from the crowd to carry or help carry the cross. Modern scholars, following descriptions of criminals carrying crossbars by Plautus and Plutarch, often take the Gospel description as meaning Jesus, then Simon, carried only a heavy patibulum, the crossbar, to a pole, stipes, which was permanently driven into the ground at Golgotha. However, in Christian imagery Jesus, and Simon, carry the complete cross—both patibulum and stipes. - Christ Carrying the Cross

Christ at the Cross by Carl Bloch, painting c. 1870

Many Catholics hold that Our Lord's Cross was low to the ground as the above painting suggests and that He was pierced with a lance and not a spear as is commonly displayed in many Crucifixion scenes.

  Biblical references:

  The lance (Greek: λόγχη, lonkhē) is mentioned in the Gospel of John (19:31–37), but not the Synoptic Gospels. The gospel states that the Romans planned to break Jesus' legs, a practice known as crurifragium, which was a method of hastening death during a crucifixion. Just before they did so, they realized that Jesus was already dead and that there was no reason to break his legs. To make sure that he was dead, a Roman soldier (named in extra-Biblical tradition as Longinus) stabbed him in the side.

    One of the soldiers pierced his side with a lance (λόγχη), and immediately there came out blood and water. — John 19:34

  Holy Lance (Wikipedia)

Three types of crosses commonly used by the Roman army

  Pictured are three types of crosses commonly used by the Roman army in the first century A.D. Each carried an inscription stating the victim's capital offense and a seat-like projection, not designed for the victim's comfort, but to prolong their agony. Nails and ropes held the victim's legs and arms in place.

  The cross on the left was called a “high tau” cross because it was shaped like the capital Greek letter tau (“T”). The middle cross was known as a “low tau” cross, shaped like the lower case tau (“t”). In both cases the central post was generally set permanently in the ground while the cross bar was carried to the site by the victim. The cross on the right was an actual tree still in the ground (dead or alive) with its limbs serving as the cross bar. Jesus was probably crucified on a “low tau” type cross. - What kind of cross was Jesus crucified on?

I would like to recommend the following books:

A Doctor at Calvary: The Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ as Described by a Surgeon by Pierre Barbet M.D. to those who genuinely desire what the physical sufferings Our Lord went through in his Crucifixion. It is not for the squeamish.

Another Doctor at Calvary What does medicine tell us about the Passion of Our Lord?
Thomas McGovern, MD


How does one reconcile the sinlessness of Mary with her sin offering in Luke 2:24?

There are two facets to the answer, one regarding the nature of the sin offering itself, and one regarding Mary’s motivations for making the offering.

In summary, in Israel, so-called “sin” offerings were offered for transgressions agains the ritual law, not so much for offenses against the moral law.

Moreover, just as Jesus submitted himself to the baptism of John, even though he did not need to repent of any sins, Mary wished to fulfill the requirements of the Jewish law out of loving obedience to God.

There is, thereore, no contradiction between Mary’s sinlessness (in the moral sense) and her offering a sacrifice to remove the merely ritual impurity associated with childbirth.

Regarding the sin offering itself

The sin offering for women after childbirth, as the O.P. points out, is spelled out in chapter 12 of Leviticus.

In ancient Israel, women were considered ritually unclean for a few weeks after the birth of her child. (It varied according to the sex of the child; a total of 40 days for a boy, and 80 days for a girl. See vv. 2-6.) That essentially meant that they were unable to partake of the liturgical celebrations until their uncleanliness was over, at which time they were to make a sin offering, or either a lamb or a pair of pigeous or turtledoves (vv. 6-8).

But it is important to note that ritual uncleanliness had nothing to do with moral uncleanliness. Leviticus chapter 4 introduces the concept of sin offerings in this way:

  And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, If anyone sins unintentionally in any of the Lord’s commandments about things not to be done, and does any one of them, if it is the anointed priest who sins … [and it goes on to spell out what each group should do] (Lev. 4:1-3).

Sin offering could only be offered for unintentional transgressions and, in general for the removal of ritual uncleanliness. There was, in fact, no provision in the Law for the forgiveness of moral offenses—and this lack was one of the constant sufferings of the People of Israel.

(The problem of the forgiveness of sin, in the proper sense of the term, is the topic of the second half of 2 Samuel, for example: King David commits some grave moral offenses—his adultery with Bathsheeba, the murder of Uriah, and his taking of the census against God’s orders—and yet the Law offers no provisions for reconciliation with God. Although God makes his forgiveness known through the prophets, he is extremely stern by our standards.)

In the words of the Letter to the Hebrews, “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins [in this case, moral offenses]” (Heb. 10:4). For that, says Hebrews, the Blood of Jesus Christ is necessary.

Hence, even though Mary herself was completely endowed with grace (kecharitomene, Lk 1:28) at the birth of Jesus, and even though her son was, evidently, perfectly pure, she still incurred ritual uncleanliness under the Law of Moses.

It should be observed that the Law did not make any exceptions. The moral character of the woman was never considered; all women had to make the sin offering after childbirth.

Why Mary chose to fulfull the Law

Was Mary strictly obliged to make the offering? No, because she was already full of grace and, in fact, already redeemed. Mary, however, fulfilled the prescriptions of the Law out of loving obedience to God. (It probably never occurred to her to ask whether she was “exempt” from the Law or not.)

Jesus did something similar when he received the baptism of John. Jesus was also sinless and (unlike Mary) incapable of sinning; and yet he received the baptism of repentence, because it was “fitting … to fulfill all righteousness” (Mt. 3:15).


In the belief of the Pentecostals, is God moral, immoral or amoral?

Leading Pentecostal theologian J. Rodman Williams deals with the character of God in his systematic theology, Renewal Theology, volume 1, chapter 3.  Here are a few quotes that teach God's holiness and righteousness, which Wiliams considers to be aspects of God's "moral nature":

Holiness is the foundation of God’s nature; it is the background for everything else we may say about God. (59)
It is sometimes assumed that the Old Testament depicts a God of holiness, whereas the New Testament depicts a God of love. This is an unfortunate misapprehension, for the God of the New Testament is the same holy God. (60)
There is in God utterly no taint of anything unclean or impure. (61)
God is a God of total integrity and uprightness. [...] The divine nature is that of absolute rectitude. Wrongdoing is foreign to His life and action. (62)

Out of this holiness and righteousness, says Williams, flow God's justice and punishment:

God expects His people to demonstrate uprightness [...]. When they depart from His way, punishment must follow, for God’s righteousness cannot tolerate any unrighteousness in man. (61–62)
God in His justice renders to each person according to his works. God is “the Judge of all the earth” (Gen. 18:25), and accordingly metes out both penalties and rewards. (62)

This is a huge topic, but these quotes should make the point – God's punishes people (in both the Old Testament and New Testament – read Acts 5 sometime) because they fall short of his standard of righteousness.  That said, he offers grace as well, as Williams writes:

The word grace speaks of the way in which God in Christ has condescended to us. It highlights that aspect of God’s love that refers to His self-giving regardless of merit. (66)
In the Old Testament God is frequently spoken of as one who “abounds in lovingkindness.” The words of God to Moses that begin, “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious” continue with “slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and faithfulness, keeping lovingkindness for thousands, forgivinginiquity and transgression and sin.” (66–67)


Can a Christian in a state of grace know that they are?

To the question of "Whether man can know that he has grace?" (Summa Theologica I-II q. 112 a. 5), St. Thomas Aquinas responds by explaining the ways the reality of grace can or cannot be known:

There are three ways of knowing a thing:

by revelation, and thus anyone may know that he has grace, for God by a special privilege reveals this at times to some, in order that the joy of safety may begin in them even in this life, and that they may carry on toilsome works with greater trust and greater energy, and may bear the evils of this present life, as when it was said to Paul (2 Cor. 12:9): "My grace is sufficient for thee."

a man may, of himself, know something, and with certainty; and in this way no one can know that he has grace. For certitude about a thing can only be had when we may judge of it by its proper principle. Thus it is by undemonstrable universal principles that certitude is obtained concerning demonstrative conclusions. Now no one can know he has the knowledge of a conclusion if he does not know its principle. But the principle of grace and its object is God, Who by reason of His very excellence is unknown to us, according to Job 36:26: "Behold God is great, exceeding our knowledge." And hence His presence in us and His absence cannot be known with certainty, according to Job 9:11: "If He come to me, I shall not see Him; if He depart I shall not understand." And hence man cannot judge with certainty that he has grace, according to 1 Cor. 4:3,4: "But neither do I judge my own self … but He that judgeth me is the Lord."

things are known conjecturally by signs; and thus anyone may know he has grace, when he is conscious of delighting in God, and of despising worldly things, and inasmuch as a man is not conscious of any mortal sin. And thus it is written (Apoc. 2:17): "To him that overcometh I will give the hidden manna … which no man knoweth, but he that receiveth it," because whoever receives it knows, by experiencing a certain sweetness, which he who does not receive it, does not experience. Yet this knowledge is imperfect; hence the Apostle says (1 Cor. 4:4): "I am not conscious to myself of anything, yet am I not hereby justified," since, according to Ps. 18:13: "Who can understand sins? From my secret ones cleanse me, O Lord, and from those of others spare Thy servant."

source: this answer to the question "What are the practical effects of sanctifying grace?"