What is the importance of reading the Bible personally in Catholicism?

Edited to respond to the new version of the question.

Catholics, like other Christians, do not believe that going through certain rituals (such as mass and confession) get you to heaven. They believe that there is benefit from doing those things, but they are not the criteria for salvation. So to respond to your edited question

Catholics do not believe that attending mass and going to confession will get you to heaven, nor will doing those things with bible reading. No Christian denomination that I am aware of believes those things. Salvation comes through the saving power of Jesus Christ.

To respond more generally about Bible Study as necessary for salvation:

A moment's reflection will reveal that such a demand would be ridiculously burdensome. As lonesomeday says, for hundreds or thousands of years the average person was not able to read, and had no books - Bible or otherwise. Even today there are countries where the literacy rate is low enough that such a rule would condemn millions of people to Hell purely because of lack of education. That is to say nothing of people who have no Bible translation in their own language, or simply cannot afford books. Or are blind. It is also extremely hard to imagine a person locked in an oppressive prison without access to books, hearing and accepting the good news from a fellow prisoner, would be denied salvation simply because no written copy of the Bible was available.


Is there a Biblical precedent for the Petrine privilege?

No.

Petrine privilege and all the customs around it grew out of the practical administration of the sacraments over time.  There is nothing in the scripture recognized as the canonized New Testament that speaks directly to any of this.  If anything all of this can be said to have grown out of Jesus admonition not to divorce - Matthew 19:1-12.


What do Jehovah's Witnesses believe about the nature of God?

Only Jehovah is God; Jesus Christ is Michael the
archangel. He is different from the other angels in that he was the
first one created. They quote the following verse to prove that he
is Michael:

  1 Thessalonians 4:14 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command,
  with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and
  the dead in Christ will rise first.

Only Jehovah is the true creator. Jehovah created Jesus and then used him to create everything else. So Jesus
is the creator of everything except that he himself was created by
God.

  John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was
  made that has been made.

Only Jehovah is omniscient. Jesus does not know
everything.

  Matthew 24:36 No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels
  in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Only Jehovah is completely holy, not Jesus.

  Mark 10:18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good
  except God alone.

Jesus, being an angel, cannot be completely holy.

  Job 4:18 Even in his servants he puts no trust, and his angels he charges with error.

Only Jehovah is the eternal King and true Judge. He has submitted
the judgement of this world to Jesus for the time being but
ultimately all authority will return to him.

  1 Corinthians 15:28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will
  be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may
  be all in all.

The Holy spirit is Jehovah's active power. It is an impersonal force just
like wind or fire and does not have a mind or will. This is from
the July 2006 issue of Awake! magazine, published by The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society:

  When Mary, the mother of Jesus, visited her cousin Elizabeth, the
  Bible says that the unborn child in Elizabeth’s womb leaped, “and
  Elizabeth was filled with holy spirit.” (Luke 1:41) Is it reasonable
  that a person would be “filled” with another person?

  John could hardly have been referring to the holy spirit as a person
  when he spoke of baptizing people with it.

  It is not unusual for God’s Word to personify things that are not a
  person. These include wisdom, discernment, sin, death, and undeserved
  kindness.

  The holy spirit is not a person simply because in some instances it is
  personified.


What is the biblical basis for interpreting "born again", "baptized in the Holy Spirit" and "filled with the Holy Spirit" as different experiences?

If you want a full list of every denomination's doctrinal and traditional interpretations of these terms, you're not going to get it.
But if all you want is a simple biblical explanation of the terms, then consider these example usages.
(Note that each succeeding one is accepted by fewer denominations.)
Human spirit:

Thus says the LORD, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him:
— Zechariah 12:1

But there is a spirit in man,
And the breath of the Almighty gives him understanding.
— Job 32:8

Humans are born already possessing a spiritual nature.
It is this spirit that makes us self-aware and distinguishes us from animals.
Filled with the holy spirit:

“And I have filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship,
— Exo 31:3

When they came there to the hill, there was a group of prophets to meet him; then the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them.
— 1Samuel 10:10

And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness. — Acts 4:31

Sometimes people receive a boost, filling them with extra spirit.
(This would typically be to accomplish some task for God, or as a result of requesting help for some specific purpose.)

But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and a distressing spirit from the LORD troubled him.
— 1Samuel 16:14

This guiding spirit may last a lifetime or be only temporary, and may come upon anyone, regardless of whether they have been baptized into Christ.
Baptized in the holy spirit:

Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. — Acts 2:38

To become a Christian, one must repent (change one's behaviour and attitude) and then be baptized.
During this ceremony, one will receive a special portion of God's holy spirit, as a gift, not as something that can be earned or deserved.
Born again:

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’
The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” — John 3:6–8

Being "born again" in this case does not refer to the "I feel like a new man!" emotion that many people experience when they discover a new way of looking at things.
Jesus literally meant what he said; born again Christians will no longer be physical beings.
They will be able to move anywhere, freely, not being constrained by physical obstacles.

And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.
— Colossians 1:18

For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
— Romans 8:29

Following his Resurrection, Jesus became the firstborn from the dead of many spiritual beings, the literal sons of God.
Interpretation:
Our human spirits (what we think of as "ourselves") were combined at baptism with God's holy spirit, in a manner similar to physical conception.
That combined spirit not only guides us, it also grows and develops within us like a human fetus, destined to eventually be born as a child of God.

in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
— 1Corinthians 15:52–53

When Christ returns, Christians, both dead and still alive, will lose their physical bodies and their embryonic spirits will be reborn as one of Jesus's siblings, no longer in the physical image of God, but now in the spiritual image of God.


Is there a biblical basis for God's omnipotence or have we mistaken 'symbolism'?

From the King James translation; There are several Scriptures which tell us that God is Omnipotent, Not the least of which is creation itself.

Then the first time God brought rain upon the Earth He caused a flood which Killed all life except Those animals he saved and those eight people aboard the Ark.

Beyond that we see God parting the red sea, for Israel, and drowning Pharaoh's Army in it.

God stopped the Rain for three years, at the behest of Elijah.

He also caused wood soaked with massive amounts of water to burn when he sent fire from Heaven.

He took Elijah to Heaven in a whirlwind as Elisha watched.

He caused Elisha's mule to talk.

He caused the sun to retreat 10 hours.

And that is a few of the passages covered in only in the Old Testament.

So let's look at Jesus in the New Testament.

  Matthew 9:6  But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

Jesus not only claimed to have the power of God but he also demonstrated it, in that passage.

  Matthew 28:18  And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

In the above passage Jesus is telling us His power is given to him by the Father.

  Mark 14:62  And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Here Jesus is telling us that one day we will see him sitting next to the Father who is Power.

  Luke 1:35  And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Here we find the Angel Gabriel telling Mary that It is God's power that will cause her to become pregnant yet remain a virgin.

I could go on citing Scriptures from both the Old and New Testaments attesting to God's omnipotence, but either you believe that the Bible is true or you do not, but in answer as to whether there is Biblical backup for God's omnipotence the answer is a resounding yes!


St. Thomas Aquinas discusses recreation in his question on the modesty of the outward movements of the body (Summa Theologica II-II q. 168). In Article 3 on "Whether there can be a virtue about games?," he writes (co.):

Just as man needs bodily rest for the body's refreshment, because he cannot always be at work, since his power is finite and equal to a certain fixed amount of labor, so too is it with his soul, whose power is also finite and equal to a fixed amount of work. Consequently when he goes beyond his measure in a certain work, he is oppressed and becomes weary, and all the more since when the soul works, the body is at work likewise, in so far as the intellective soul employs forces that operate through bodily organs. […] Now just as weariness of the body is dispelled by resting the body, so weariness of the soul must needs be remedied by resting the soul: and the soul's rest is pleasure
sicut homo indiget corporali quiete ad corporis refocillationem, quod non potest continue laborare, propter hoc quod habet finitam virtutem, quae determinatis laboribus proportionatur; ita etiam est ex parte animae, cuius etiam est virtus finita ad determinatas operationes proportionata, et ideo, quando ultra modum suum in aliquas operationes se extendit, laborat, et ex hoc fatigatur, praesertim quia in operationibus animae simul etiam laborat corpus, inquantum scilicet anima, etiam intellectiva, utitur viribus per organa corporea operantibus. […] Sicut autem fatigatio corporalis solvitur per corporis quietem, ita etiam oportet quod fatigatio animalis solvatur per animae quietem. Quies autem animae est delectatio

Although intellectual and spiritual pleasures are greater than sense pleasures, contemplatives can still grow weary of contemplating too long due to weariness of the body.
Community meals and especially feast days are certainly times for recreation.
The Primitive Constitutions of the Order of Friars Preachers (c. 1228) demands rest on Sundays and feasts, in accordance with the 3rd Commandment:

On Sundays and special feasts, they shall refrain from writing manuscripts. Likewise we forbid servile work on Sundays; for example, to carry stones, collect wood, and so on.

St. Thomas did recreate in the parlor with his fellow Dominican brothers, but not excessively. From the Ystoria sancti Thome de Aquino by William de Tocco (1323), his first biographer (translation from Saint Thomas Aquinas: The Person and His Work by Torrell, O.P., p. 33):

he had the habit since youth of immediately leaving the parlor or meeting, whatever it might be, when, in their common recreations, his interlocutors diverted the conversation toward subjects other than God and what is ordered to him.

St. Thomas did have a sense of humor, too. See Joseph M. Magee's Thomistic Humor Page, esp. Quodlibet q. 12 a. 20 ("Whether truth is stronger than either wine, the king, or woman."), to which I'd add Summa Theologica II-II q. 189 a. 1 ad 5:

it is not necessary for one to be an ass before being a mannon oportet quod aliquis prius sit asinus quam sit homo

☺


Conversion of the Romans and the Bible's Portrayal of the Romans

You seem to have a basic confusion over who are the ‘good people’ in the Bible. The Bible declares all are equally bound up under sin and are equally guilty before God. Therefore, all require salvation by Christ who personally died for the penalty of their sin.  In this sense the more wicked you are, the greater candidate you are for Christianity. The blood of Christ brings peace between sinners and God by his free loving kindness not by collecting the good people together, but by forgiving and collecting the bad people together by salvation. Salvation is not at all dependent upon any good behavior or lack of animosity on the part of those who are converted to Christ by faith.

  “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Ro 3:10–12).

You also seem to think the Bible had a long-term view of treating the Jews as ‘God’s people’ as though he was not always planning to include the entire world into his salvation. God is not a racist. God planned to save the world by calling one physical race, from which a Messiah would be born, in order that the whole world might be offered salvation. Right from the beginning God called Abraham in order that through his seed, (i.e. the Christ) Abraham would be the genealogical source of a ‘blessing to many nations’. The fact that the non Jewish world has accepted the Jewish Messiah, vindicates that Jesus is how Abraham became a source of blessing to the world. There has been no other 'Jewish religion' received by the world. Only this one by faith in the Jewish Messiah, Jesus Christ. This is miraculous that what happened was predicted to occur so long ago.

  I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these lands. And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed (The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Ge 26:4)

The basic idea to Christianity is that Jesus was the long awaited ‘Jewish Messiah’ to extend the Jewish religion to the entire world. Therefore the good people are the sinners who have taken hold of this Savior, who forgives and frees them from their sins, through his dying love. This includes Jews, Romans, Chinese, etc. In this sense a Jew (a person separated to God) is not a Jew according to race but is a Jew inwardly, according to faith in Christ.

  For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.  But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. (The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Ro 2:28–29))

Basically race and moral dispositions have no relevance to our candidacy for Christianity. The only qualification is that we recognize we are all sinners and have faith that Christ died for our sins.  The Romans were ideal candidates as they were clearly a wicked and violent part of human history. They were just the type of people God has great joy in forgiving, saving and making holy. We are also just that type.


Which eschatological belief does Catholicism profess? Deem heretical?

See the Decree of the Holy Office, July 21, 1944, on Millenarianism (Chiliasm):

  2296 In recent times on several occasions this Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has been asked what must be thought of the system of mitigated Millenarianism, which teaches, for example, that Christ the Lord before the final judgment, whether or not preceded by the resurrection of the many just, will come visibly to rule over this world. The answer is: The system of mitigated Millenarianism cannot be taught safely.


Edward Schillebeeckx was a Dominican priest, born in Belgium in 1914, taught theology  at the  University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands, and was influential at the Vatican Council. He was a very prolific writer. He expired in 2009.
William J Hill OP, a fellow Dominican, wrote a "non-technical" summary of Schillebeeckx work in this field called "Christ, the Sacrament of the Encounter with God". Google William J Hill Christ Sacrament Encounter
Fundamental is the concept of Encounter.
An Encounter with God is always sacramental, in that it must involve some visibility or physical expression, capable of human perception; and yet that this must point to, signify, and be, a reality beyond our conception. Encounter as a human confrontation can only happen through physical expression.
Jesus, when on Earth, was a human being, outwardly and visibly, and truly. Yet He was also the Manifestation of God, His hidden Reality as the Express Image of the Father. HIs Redemptive Incarnation was a sign, and an instrument of God's love for mankind, delivering God's grace.
The very existence of Christ makes possible encounter with God. This applies to every detail of His life, but most particularly to His Passion and Death. This revealed both God's will to save, and Christ's love for His Father. The Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ both signifies and causes, is sign and effect, of the Reconciliation of Man to God.
Now that Christ is in Glory, His continuing action in the World demands a tangible prolongation of His Incarnation.  This is the Church,  and Christ acts, through the Church, in and by the Sacraments. The Sacraments signify what they effect, and effect what they signify, but more importantly they are Acts of Christ. Though done at one time and in one place, they transcend both time and place.
Christ is the greatest and original Sacrament, so primordial; and also primordial in that all other sacraments  derive from His actions and so from Him.


What is the sacramental principle at work with Anointing of the Sick?

I'll have another go since Affable Geek has redefined the question...

The noted Anglican divine Richard Hooker defined a sacrament as "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace" [sorry, don't have a reference for that]. The Roman Catholic Church teaches "the sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions." [Catechism of the Catholic Church, s.1131]

The sacraments are a means of grace. In fact sacramentum means "made holy". An oath makes a promise holy (and so may be translated as sacramentum); but a sacrament in the Christian sense, although holy, is not a promise or oath. This is why finding a promise or oath in Anointing is so difficult: it is purely a means of grace.

I'm not qualified to say whether it's right to discern an oath/promise in the other sacraments, but I suspect that what Peter discerns as a promise is in fact a manifestation of the grace of the sacrament.

Taking the seven sacraments in Peter's order,

Marriage — the grace of divine love. The sacrament of Matrimony
signifies the union of Christ and the Church. It gives spouses the
grace to love each other with the love with which Christ has loved
his Church; the grace of the sacrament thus perfects the human love
of the spouses, strengthens their indissoluble unity, and sanctifies
them on the way to eternal life (cf Council of Trent: DS 1799). [CCC
1661]
Orders — the grace of service in the Church. The ministerial priesthood differs in essence from the common priesthood of the
faithful because it confers a sacred power for the service of the
faithful. The ordained ministers exercise their service for the
People of God by teaching (munus docendi), divine worship (munus
liturgicum) and pastoral governance (munus regendi). [CCC 1592]
Reconciliation — the grace of forgiveness and reconciliation with God and the Church. The spiritual effects of the sacrament of
Penance are: reconciliation with God by which the penitent recovers
grace; reconciliation with the Church; remission of the eternal
punishment incurred by mortal sins; remission, at least in part, of
temporal punishments resulting from sin; peace and serenity of
conscience, and spiritual consolation; an increase of spiritual
strength for the Christian battle. [CCC 1496]
Communion — the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament. By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the
Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated
species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is
present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his
Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS
1640; 1651). [CCC 1413] Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ
increases the communicant's union with the Lord, forgives his venial
sins, and preserves him from grave sins. Since receiving this
sacrament strengthens the bonds of charity between the communicant
and Christ, it also reinforces the unity of the Church as the
Mystical Body of Christ. [CCC 1416] Transubstantiation is quite successfully described in the accepted answer here.
Baptism — the grace of forgiveness of sin. The fruit of Baptism, or baptismal grace, is a rich reality that includes forgiveness of
original sin and all personal sins, birth into the new life by which
man becomes an adoptive son of the Father, a member of Christ and a
temple of the Holy Spirit. By this very fact the person baptized is
incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ, and made a sharer
in the priesthood of Christ. Baptism imprints on the soul an
indelible spiritual sign, the character, which consecrates the
baptized person for Christian worship. [CCC 1279-80]
Confirmation — the grace of witnessing to the Faith. Confirmation perfects Baptismal grace; it is the sacrament which gives the Holy
Spirit in order to root us more deeply in the divine filiation,
incorporate us more firmly into Christ, strengthen our bond with the
Church, associate us more closely with her mission, and help us bear
witness to the Christian faith in words accompanied by deeds.
Confirmation, like Baptism, imprints a spiritual mark or indelible
character on the Christian's soul. [CCC 1316-17]
Unction — the grace of strengthening, peace and courage. The special grace of the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick has as
its effects: the uniting of the sick person to the passion of
Christ, for his own good and that of the whole Church; the
strengthening, peace, and courage to endure in a Christian manner
the sufferings of illness or old age; the forgiveness of sins, if
the sick person was not able to obtain it through the sacrament of
Penance; the restoration of health, if it is conducive to the
salvation of his soul; the preparation for passing over to eternal
life. [CCC 1532]


Do Mormons consider participating in game shows to be gambling?

No.

First I'll refer you to the Law SE which mentions that game shows are not gambling. Because technically game shows aren't gambling there doesn't seem to have been any doctrine from the LDS church on game shows.

In D&C 58:26 it says:

  26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Some LDS members may believe stronger beliefs on game shows, raffles, stock market, or house buying but there is no right answer for everyone. Each member and family can receive personal revelation for

  our specific personal needs, responsibilities, and questions and to help us strengthen our testimony.2

Several Mormons have participated in game shows besides Ken Jennings including

Donny Osmond, who hosted Pyramid
Ray Combs, who hosted Family Feud
Al Harrington, who appeared on To Tell the Truth
Daniel LeFevre, who won six figures on Millionaire1

1 http://www.ldsliving.com/Mormons-on-Game-Shows-5-Fun-Facts/s/79637?page=1#story-content

2 https://www.lds.org/topics/revelation?lang=eng


Has God created anything since he rested on the 7th day?

Yes, He will create a New Heaven and a New Earth. He will recreate everything!

Revelation 21:1-5 emphasis mine
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”


Who could have written the Pastoral Epistles?

Sadly, we just don't know.

While I generally affirm the broad consensus that the pastorals are pseudonymous (I usually add the caveat that I think 2 Tim could be Pauline), it is worth noting that several good (but, generally more conservative) scholars such as Luke Timothy Johnson do actually affirm Pauline authorship of the pastorals. And I suppose that's worth something.

However, it's important to remember that around the time that the canon was forming, there were many Christian texts floating about—many of them pseudonymous—which were read by Christians as scripture up to the 4th Century CE. Many scholars affirm that the Muratorian Fragment represents one of the earliest (if not the earliest) "canons" (though nowhere does it claim to be such) of the New Testament—perhaps from as early as the end of the 2nd century CE (though this is disputed). Notably, the list affirms the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, but observes that there were other writings 'forged' in Paul's name. If nothing else, this tells us that pseudonymous letters 'by Paul' were circulating among Christian communities during these early centuries. Whether the Pastorals were among them, only God knows.


Is the catechism of the Catholic Church seen as official doctrine for Catholics?

Pope John Paul II wrote, in the Apostolic Constitution promulgating the Catechism in 1992,

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith.
This catechism is given to [the Church's Pastors and the Christian faithful] that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Jn 8:32). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the Catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.

The Catechism is a sure norm for teaching the faith: it is a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine. Thus it is official doctrine, inasmuch as it records what the Church teaches. That is, the Catechism puts forth what the doctrine is; it is not actually doctrine itself.
However, because it represents the teaching of the Church's faith, it is not something to be challenged by Catholics. It is an authentic statement of the teaching of the Church.
All of this is what is meant by "preparing local catechisms": the different Bishops' Conferences [which are generally arranged on a national basis] can prepare their own translation of the Latin original; YouCat, the Youth Catechism, has also been published. There are non-English translations too. Provided that these local versions — each prepared for particular circumstances — also represent the teaching, they do not challenge the Catechism. The Catechism is an authentic statement; it's not the authentic statement. But because it is an authentic statement of Catholic doctrine, it's a useful tool for stating what that doctrine is, and for comparing other teachings to see whether they are consistent with Catholic doctrine.
I am sure there are parts which non-Catholics might take issue with; and by the same token there will be parts which they might be surprised to find it does in fact contain.


What is the name of the belief that each of us is guilty for the sins of our neighbors?

I can't name the doctrine exactly, but I can confirm that in Orthodox Christianity, there is a belief that "our own spiritual failures and lack of love are the cause of our neighbor's shortcomings."

"But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea." (Mark 9:42 NKJV)

"This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief." (I Timothy 1:15 NKJV)
During the Divine Liturgy, all the people repeat that saying, each one identifying ourselves as the chief of sinners.

During the Divine Liturgy, we also pray for the salvation of all mankind. St. Seraphim of Sarov said "Find peace in your own heart, and a thousand around you will be saved." It works both ways.


How do proponents of Sola Scriptura address the ministry of those Apostles who authored no parts of Scripture?

The problem is no one knows exactly what John ever said apart from his writings.  It's the same with Paul.  What Traditions were extant in their time?  Do we really believe they taught, for example, the Immaculate Conception?  How would we know?  It's an argument from silence and it's an argument that led to division not just between Protestant and Catholic, but centuries before between Catholic and Orthodox.

To your question, no one who believes in sola scriptura (the bible is the sole source of authority for all that's necessary for doctrine or practice as regards salvation) believes that the apostles left something salvific out of their writings that were assembled and are called the New Testament.  It is a rejection of so-called Tradition that again frankly we have no way of identifying.  We have no idea what John said to Gaius (3 John).

Irenaeus, as far as I know, was the first to address the question.  How did the apostles work who didn't write anything down?  He answers they all spoke the same message, but only some were chosen to write it down.

  We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
  AH, Book III, I, 1

So, for the early church, there's not a sense of something missing from the salvation message from apostolic writing that some group might discover centuries later from who knows where.

To be sure, Irenaeus believes that trustworthy men will proclaim the same message, but that is the extent of oral Tradition.  It's not something out there apart from the bible truth, but is a person speaking the bible truth.


Short answer:

The reason is, that Jesus' suffered and died in our place.

This is how the bible puts it in Romans 5:6-8 ESV:

  6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (emphasis added)

By way of further explanation:

The bible tells us that suffering and death entered the world (and persists in it) because of mankind's sin - that is, our deliberate rebellion against God's perfect way of doing what is right. Sin is massively problematic, not just in it's short term effects (immediate victims), but in it's long term consequences (for instance, our very identity becomes limited by our warped behaviour) and also the fact that, by it's nature, it excludes from (our) consideration the Great Source of Life, Truth and Healing who could remedy the situation - the loving Heavenly Father and Creator that we have rebelled against. Suffering (and ultimately death) is both a consequence of sin, but also a judgment against it - God uses it to discipline, restrain and ultimately stop us from multiplying sin and wickedness indefinitely.  If God were to 'just forgive us', it would not solve the underlying problem of the sin nature in us - we would continue to sin more and more and continue to suffer the consequences for doing so. The fundamental problems to solve, are our separation from God and our sinful nature.

Though we would not turn to God to solve our sin problem, God did not leave us to our devices without a remedy, but came in the person of His Son, to live amongst us - showing us what the Heavenly Father is like and also experiencing our humanity - including weakness, suffering and death.  The suffering and death that Jesus endured were not a consequence of His own sin, as He was perfect in all His ways and always did the things that please the Heavenly Father, rather, they were entered into willingly as a substitionary offering to take on the suffering and death that all mankind deserves.

As Isaiah puts it:

  4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows;
  yet we esteemed him stricken,
      smitten by God, and afflicted.
  5 But he was pierced for our transgressions;
      he was crushed for our iniquities;
  upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
      and with his wounds we are healed.
  6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
      we have turned—every one—to his own way;
  and the Lord has laid on him
      the iniquity of us all. - Isaiah 53:4-6 ESV

Since Jesus has paid this price, we now have the opportunity to renew a relationship with God and receive 'salvation' - this word contains many ideas, but it's essence is directed at the complete reversal of the problem of sin and the consequences of sin including suffering and death.  We can by faith, receive healing from God and eternal life.  Because of the long-term effects of sin on this world, we may still experience temporal suffering to a degree (though it's impact will be greatly lessened to the faith-filled salvation-receivers) and physical death, but we have a promise of resurrection to a new life completely free of suffering and death - all because of what Jesus has done.

An Illustration:

You may still be thinking, how does this 'show love'? perhaps the following will help -

Imagine being someone trying to pay a mortgage off on a house.  And through your own fault - even against the advice of those who love you, you spend way beyond your means to the point that you run up large amounts of other debts and can no longer afford to buy even food.  You will suffer in the short term as you haven't kept enough money for food.  You may experience further suffering as various items are repossessed that you cannot make payments for.  You will also suffer anxiety and apprehension that you will be evicted if you cannot make your mortgage payments.  Now imagine, that the one who loves you the most, sees your distress and pays all your debts including your mortgage - the cost (suffering) to them is large, they had no obligation to do this, they did it anyway. They further offer that if you sign over the deeds of your house, you can come and live with them permanently in a much better place that is entirely free of the consequences your mistakes.  There is a wing of their mansion already prepared for you, all you need to do is sign over the paperwork and do a bit of spring-cleaning before you move - the one who loves you will even come and help you do the cleaning! Of course, you are not forced to this, you could just re-mortgage your house to finance your previous lifestyle, and spurn their kind offer; You could conceivably even refuse their help in the first place and insist that you will (somehow!) pay your own debts. In both these latter cases, the end result will no doubt involve a great deal more suffering.

That is a very limited and inadequate picture of what Jesus has done in our place.

Disclaimer: though I am a Protestant, I seek to write not (merely) from that perspective, but from an orthodox (in the wider sense) Christian perspective that includes the Catholic view. (as well as Eastern Orthodox etc.)  If I have not faithfully done that, I welcome any correction.


Are there Catholic guidelines on naming of children?

Yes: the Catechism provides explicit guidance on this matter, and it's covered in Canon Law.

  The sacrament of Baptism is conferred "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."85 In Baptism, the Lord's name sanctifies man, and the Christian receives his name in the Church. This can be the name of a saint, that is, of a disciple who has lived a life of exemplary fidelity to the Lord. the patron saint provides a model of charity; we are assured of his intercession. the "baptismal name" can also express a Christian mystery or Christian virtue. "Parents, sponsors, and the pastor are to see that a name is not given which is foreign to Christian sentiment."86

  Mt 28:19
  CIC Canon 855

  Parents, sponsors, and the pastor are to take care that a name foreign to Christian sensibility is not given.

The Catechism makes clear that the name given at baptism is the person's Christian name. Neither the Catechism nor Canon Law provide any guidance on common names; in Christian societies (or those with a Christian heritage) the baptismal name is usually the common name. In non-Christian cultures, the common name may be something else. Even in Christian cultures, a person's common name may not be their Christian name ("Junior," for example; or a nickname like "Tiny").

The Catechism continues

  God calls each one by name. Everyone's name is sacred. the name is the icon of the person. It demands respect as a sign of the dignity of the one who bears it.

  The name one receives is a name for eternity. In the kingdom, the mysterious and unique character of each person marked with God's name will shine forth in splendour.

The Christian name is the name used by God, and it will be the name used for the rites of the Church. As the name is sacred, it should not be forgotten in this life — even though it will be used for eternity in the next.


Do Protestants believe that the Holy Spirit stopped leading the church?

Pentecost is called the "Church's birthday" for a reason, and that reason is the Holy Spirit.

As for the idea of "Was He quiet the whole time since the first century?"

Um, no.

The Protestant Reformation was just that - a re-formation of the original church. While we may disagree about what it means to be the first church, we acknowledge that we are descended from the Catholic church. While it is true that there is a definite strain of anti-catholicism for historical reasons, even at its height, nobody said the Holy Spirit was gone after the apostles.  (If there was a date the Spirit got disgusted, typically it is said to be in the 400s or 500s at the earliest).

Our theology holds to traditional norms of the first church.

At most, we find that the Holy Spirit has been less active (aka Cessationalism)

But no serious, mainstream Protestant denomination believes the Holy Spirit to have been absent.


I see many of the other answers here seem a little out of focus. The OP is asking for some Roman Catholic points of view, and while the history lessons are pretty neat, I would rather provide an answer to the OP.

Do Catholics believe that everyone should convert to Christianity for their own salvation?
Yes. Catholics believe that it is better for people to convert and, therefore, gain access to the sacraments. A Catholic believes that his salvation is assured with the sacraments, without sacraments there is no assurance of salvation.

From the point brought by Geremia. There is only one sacrament required for salvation: Baptism. Baptism is required as it is the only sacrament that removes Original Sin. Original Sin impedes communion with God, which is salvation. Note that a person without moral agency (a baby or small child) would be under Original Sin, so even that person needs to be baptized to achieve salvation upon death. So yes, Geremia is right when he says that you must be baptized, this is not an error as somebody implied. Geremia seems to ignore that the Church teaches three kinds of baptisms: sacramental, blood and desire. This last kind of baptism allows for salvation for non-Catholics; in this case, the term "implicit baptism of desire" is usually used. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  CCC 1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit
  desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and
  charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive
  through the sacrament.

  CCC 1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact
  called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that
  the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers,
  in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.”[...] Every man who is
  ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the
  truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of
  it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have
  desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

Do Christians believe that they have to work for a world where there are no more Buddhist practitioners or followers of Hinduism and Christianity is the only religion? Yes. A Catholic believes that there is only one true religion; and all other religions, although containing stints of truth, may be used by the devil to damn the souls of men. The Catholic also believes in tolerance, and that means that he will put up with other religions, despite their flaws. Something that I believe is much more important for your point of view, is that Catholics firmly believe in the separation of the Church and the State[1]. So a Catholic would never endorse that a state, say a police force, mitigate any kind of religious activity. It should be noted that some religious activity is dangerous, and may be dangerous for society, intervention, in this case, would be endorsed by a Catholic; not for the sake of religious intolerance (i.e. not for the religious activity itself), but for the protection of the weak and vulnerable.

Regarding your point on the destruction of cultural heritage, it should be noted that Catholicism doesn't replace culture. It entwines and mingles, exalting the best aspects of a people's cultural practices and elevating them to a new meaning. You might want to take as an example the work of Franciscan friars to not only preserve, but also promote the Navajo culture through the production of English-Navajo dictionaries and books.

Regarding that God does not will destruction, well you have the wrong religion. The whole point of Catholicism is the destruction of the old man, that is addicted to the world and it's temptations, and the creation of a new man, whose life is directed towards love, and only love. So yes, destruction of habits, customs, and old religions is part of Catholicism. For the Catholics, these things are at a personal level, not at a national or societal level. It is you, a single person the one that must destroy his old self.

It would be good to remember when dealing with Catholics that it began with the destruction of a single life, and through that death, we may not die.

[1] I've heard this is a recent development, and it might as well be, the oldest reference that I can remember comes from the conquest of the Americas by the Spanish Empire.


Does Catholic Church have any dogma about homosexuality?

The First Vatican Council established that the pope is infallible when,

by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals [de fide vel moribus] to be held by the universal Church

(source: "What is meant by “faith and morals” with regards to papal infallibility?")
Now, Pope Pius XI, discussing the abuse of matrimony in Casti Connubii, 31 Dec. 1930, reiterated longstanding Catholic teaching* that the primary purpose of the sexual organs is procreation of children, and anything against this (e.g., sodomy, contraception, etc.) is a sin against nature and intrinsically evil (Denzinger 2239):

But surely no reason, not even the gravest, can bring it about that what is intrinsically against nature becomes in accord with nature, and honorable. Since, moreover, the conjugal act by its very nature is destined for the generating of offspring, those who in the exercise of it deliberately deprive it of its natural force and power, act contrary to nature, and do something that is shameful and intrinsically bad.

*cf. Romans 1:26-27, that "men with men working that which is filthy" "is against nature" and "the natural use of the women"
His condemnation of contraception in that same encyclical is also infallible dogma pertaining to morals; cf. the "De moribus" section of this answer.

There is no dogma about the private property rights

It is a defined dogma that Jesus and the apostles possessed private property:Pope John XXII Cum inter nonnullos 13 Nov. 1323 on the poverty of Christ (Denzinger 494):

[…] to affirm persistently that our Redeemer and Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles did not possess anything either in particular or even in common […] we […] declare […] shall henceforth be branded as erroneous and heretical, since it expressly contradicts Sacred Scripture, which in many passages asserts that they did have some possessions […]

And they had rights to the use, selling, or donating of said property:

Moreover, […] to affirm persistently that the right to use these same possessions which Sacred Scripture testifies that they had was by no means appropriate to our aforesaid Redeemer and His apostles, and that they did not have the right to sell or to donate them or to acquire others by means of them, which, nevertheless, Sacred Scripture testifies that they did […] is wicked, contrary to Sacred Scripture, and to Catholic doctrine about the use, actions, or deeds on the part of our Redeemer, the Son of God, we declare […] worthily branded as erroneous and heretical.


The answer to your question 'Did Jesus wear tsitsiyot?' is, yes he did. We can know this by looking at a few things:

Jesus (Yeshua) was a Jew born in first-century Israel (Matthew 1 & 2):

  Matthew 1:1-17 (ESV) — 1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham ...

  Matthew 2:1 (ESV) — 2 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem,

He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, and confirmed their authority:

  Matthew 5:17-18 (ESV) — 17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

He lived a life obedience to Yahweh's law – the Torah:

  John 15:10 (ESV) — If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.

In which, one of Yahweh's commands is for tzitzit be worn:

  Numbers 15:37-40 (ESV) — 37 The Lord said to Moses, 38 "Speak to the people of Israel, and tell them to make tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and to put a cord of blue on the tassel of each corner. 39 And it shall be a tassel for you to look at and remember all the commandments of the Lord, to do them, not to follow after your own heart and your own eyes, which you are inclined to whore after. 40 So you shall remember and do all my commandments, and be holy to your God.

Scripture defines sin as lawlessness (essentially Torah-lessness):

  1 John 3:4 (ESV) — 4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.

Scripture frequently confirms after his death that he was without sin, meaning he did not break God's law:

  2 Corinthians 5:21 (ESV) — 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

  Hebrews 4:15 (ESV) — 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

  1 Peter 2:22 (ESV) — 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth.

  1 John 3:5 (ESV) — 5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.

Lastly, just as in the example @disciple noted (Matt. 23:5) – the same Greek word used to identify the edge of Jesus's garment (in which the woman touched and was healed), is the exact same Greek word (kraspedon, g2899) used to identify the Pharisees tzitzit (tassels).

Because of this, we can safely answer your question that: Yes this is a reasonable inference based on this passage.


The 1657 Westminster Confession of Faith, which the Reformed Tradition subscribes to, indeed explicitly understand some angels as elect.
Quote from Chapter III (Of God's Eternal Decree) points 3 and 4:

III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angelsf are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death.g
f I Tim. 5:21; Matt. 25:41.
g Rom. 9:22, 23; Eph. 1:5, 6; Prov. 16:4.
IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and fore-ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.h
h II Tim. 2:19; John 13:18.

There is a Reformed article on 1 Tim 5:21 which addressed these 2 questions:

Who are the “chosen angels” and what does their title imply?
Although the Westminster Confession of Faith includes a reference to “angels,” most Calvinists are unwilling to draw comparisons with men and angels in terms of Election and Reprobation. Why is that?

The article quoted John Calvin to conclude that

“because they were elect,” the angels were prevented from falling, perhaps by an Irresistible Grace, rather than being declared Elect on account of not falling.

To reconcile the difference in that "elect" humans are Totally Depraved (which cannot be for angels), the article quoted from a book Commonly Misunderstood Bible Verses: Clear Explanations for the Difficult Passages by a 4-point Calvinist Ron Rhodes (pp.255-256, emphasis mine):

“All the angels were originally created good and holy, just as God made and pronounced all His creation good (Genesis 1:31; 2:3). For God to create anything wicked would be inconsistent with His holy character. Jude 6 affirms that originally all the angels were holy creatures. God did not create Satan and the fallen angels (demons) in a state of wickedness. Though all the angels were originally created in a state of holiness, Scripture indicates that they were subjected to a period of probation. Some of the angels remained holy. Others did not--following Lucifer’s lead, they rebelled against God and fell into great sin. Once the angels were put to the test to remain loyal to God or to rebel with Lucifer, their decision seems to have been made permanent in its effect. Those angels that passed the probationary test will now always remain holy. Those who failed the probationary test are now confirmed in their evil state. This is the reason the good angels are called elect angels in 1 Timothy 5:21. They are not called elect because they sinned and then were elected unto redemption (they never sinned during the probationary period). Rather, they are called elect because God intervened to permanently confirm (elect) them in their holiness so they could not sin in the future. Good angels are now incapable of sinning. The lines have been drawn, and the lines are now absolute.”


How can John the Baptist be the greatest man born of woman, when Jesus was also born of woman?

In the introduction to his letter to the Romans, Paul says this:

  3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
  -- Romans 1:3 (KJV)

The Greek here is: τοῦ the one γενομένου upon being made ἐκ from σπέρματος of the seed Δαυὶδ of David

Also, in his letter to the church at Galatia, Paul says this:

  4But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
  -- Galatians 4:4 (KJV)

Again, the Greek here is: γενόμενον upon being made ἐκ from γυναικός of woman

The passage quoted by the OP contains this:

  11Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
  -- Matthew 11:11 (KJV)

The Greek here is: ἐν among γεννητοῖς born ones γυναικῶν of women

So, Jesus says John was γεννητοῖς born of a woman, but Paul says Jesus was γενόμενον made of a woman. What's the difference?

Clearly, being "born of a woman" relates to conception by means of human sexual union, i.e. the process that gives rise to the fertilisation of an ovum by a sperm cell. However, Jesus wasn't born in this way:

  35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
  -- Luke 1:35 (KJV)

Apart from those who believe that non-corporeal beings have reproductive bits and pieces with which they can mate with corporeal beings, then this depicts what Paul referred to as being "made of a woman", i.e. being knit together in the womb of a woman.

For those who are inclined to imagine sexual union here, Paul strongly refutes such a notion when he writes that Jesus was "made under the law" (Galatians 4:4, above), for when Joseph was contemplating "putting away" (divorcing) his betrothed, the Angel said to Him:

  20... Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
  -- Matthew 1:20 (KJV)

It would have broken the law for Mary to have been taken "sexually" and then given to another without a certificate of divorce. Countering the notion of "sexual union" was clearly what Paul had in mind when he wrote that Jesus was "made under the law", else he would not have referred to it.

John records Jesus words:

  63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
  -- John 6:63 (KJV)

The spirit is what moves a body and gives it life. Those "born of women" have a spirit that is separate from God. The Spirit of God can coexist with the spirit of man to endeavour to move him counter to his fleshly inclinations, but He will not extinguish the freedom of his spirit to do so. Luke records:

  15For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
  -- Luke 1:15 (KJV)

So, the Holy Spirit coexisted with John's spirit from the moment he entered into the world.

However, the manner of Jesus birth had to be such that the Spirit of God alone was the power that moved him. The bag of bones (which profiteth nothing) that bore the name Jesus, had a beginning, but the Spirit that moved the bag of bones was the eternal Spirit of God alone. Jesus was free to express the agony and anguish of his flesh through earthly trials, but it was God Himself who experienced the anguish and agony and rejection, not the spirit of a man with whom the Holy Spirit coexisted.

Conclusion

When Jesus said, "among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist", he was fully cognisant of the miraculous nature of His own birth. Jesus was not born of sexual union, but of "the power of the highest" that literally knit him together in the womb of his mother - a holy gamete formed from the genetic attributes of both Joseph and Mary.

It is only at our end of the timeline that we can fully comprehend what God had done.


No, certainly not. There are lots of available resources. Some denominations have guidelines and some reference materials exist for those who do not (such as the Revised Common Lectionary), but by no means do all traditions have set or repeated liturgies.

When it falls to me, I build each weeks liturgy based on passages that have some bearing on the sermon topic. Often these are passages that have a history of being used in liturgies, but that isn't a requirement. Each week takes time in research and prayer to decide what these will be. As church elders we settled on a general format of for the liturgy and the kind of readings to include, but each week varies some to accommodate the main passage. The sermon material follows an exegetical path through whatever book we happen to be working through. We do use fixed readings for confessions and Lord Supper, but improvise to work those readings into the overall flow of the service.


How does the Trinitarian defend this argument from a JW?

According to Genesis, a husband and wife become one flesh (Genesis 2:24).  Since God is spirit (2 Corinthians 3:18), it is unclear how this Scripture fits their argument.

Furthermore, Scripture witnesses to the Divine Trinity in many other places.  For example:

Matthew 28:19

  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
  the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

2 Corinthians 13:14

  The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the
  communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

John 15:26

  But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the
  Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he
  shall testify of me

1 John 5:7

  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,
  and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.


The JEPD theory was developed in three stages, which I summarized in my answer to
What was the reasons for documentary hypothesis?. It isn't complete nonsense; it's the culmination of several centuries of Bible scholarship. Whether it is a giant leap forward or a brilliant mistake, I'm not certain.

On the one hand, it's rational, and it fits different types of writing into neat categories. It has a ready answer for things that might be hard to explain otherwise.

On the other hand, it's highly speculative. I've found that it is trivially easy to look at any source text and find inconsistency. I myself have tried this method and "discovered" evidence of multiple sources in Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion.

Perhaps the most serious scholarly argument against the JEPD hypothesis is that it doesn't explain why a later editor would bring all these sources together, if the traditions had kept them separate. The more likely scenario, according to this argument, is that the doublets and stylistic differences were part of a tradition that began with Moses and accumulated over the years.


The Lds Prophet Joseph Smith wrote, "We believe in God, the eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost."

Introduction: Let’s start with a brief overview to establish who’s who from the LDS point of view:
Latter-day Saints commonly refer to God the Eternal Father as Elohim, a Hebrew plural meaning God or gods, and to his Son Jesus Christ, as Jehovah.
The first spirit son of Elohim (Heavenly Father) and his wife (Heavenly Mother) is called Jehovah.
Jehovah came to earth as Jesus to be born as a man in order to progress to godhood (exaltation).
To members of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints there is no one else higher then Heavenly Father (Elohim).
God the Father is the Supreme Being.  He is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things.
He is the God over all creation as Latter Day Saints know it. Take note of that statement.  Hebrews 1:2 is used as evidence that there are many worlds.  Elohim is God over this world.

Father in Heaven: The Father of the spirits of all mankind.  Jesus is his Only Begotten Son in the flesh.  Man has been commanded to obey and give reverence to the Father and to pray to him in Jesus’ name.

God the Son: The God known as Jehovah is the Son, Jesus Christ… he is the eldest of the spirit children of Elohim... it was actually Jesus who was the Creator under the direction of God the Father [Elohim].

Godhead: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/god-godhead?lang=eng&letter=g

Jesus Christ: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/jesus-christ?lang=eng

Jehovah: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/jehovah?lang=eng&letter=j

Brief overview of LDS theology with regard to God the Father, Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Eternal Father: About 124 B.C. the book of Mosiah (in the Book of Mormon) made these prophesies:

For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men... And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary. (Mosiah 3:5 and 8)

Note that it is “the Lord Omnipotent” who is to come down from heaven to be called Jesus Christ.  He is “the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning.”   Mosiah chapter 15 goes on to say Father and Son are one God, the Eternal Father:

God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son - the Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son - And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth (Mosiah 15:1-4).

God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar to that through which we are now passing (The Gospel Through the Ages, 1945, p 104).

I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. … It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know...that he was once a man like us.... (“King Follett Discourse,” Journal of Discourses 6:3-4, also in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345-346, and History of the Church, vol. 6, 305-307)  http://mit.irr.org/god-was-once-man-us-finessing-off-putting-mormon-doctrine

In the Bible Jesus says God is Spirit, and his worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). However, Joseph Smith saw fit to change these words to deny that God (read Elohim) is Spirit:

Is God a spirit?  John 2–4: “Ye Must Be Born Again” John 4:24: Some may be confused by Jesus’s statement that God is a spirit. The Joseph Smith Translation of this verse provides an important clarification: “For unto such hath God promised his Spirit” (in John 4:24, footnote a). Modern revelation also teaches that God has a body of flesh and bones (see D&C 130:22–23; see also Genesis 5:1–3; Hebrews 1:1–3). [1]  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/come-follow-me-for-individuals-and-families-new-testament-2019/07.scripture_title4-p11#scripture_title4

The manifestation of God's physical body came in a revelation to Joseph Smith in 1843:

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/130.22?lang=eng#21

The Bible says that God is from everlasting to everlasting (Psalm 90:2) and that He is eternal (1 Timothy 1:17).  He is the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the end (Revelation 1:8; 21:6; 22:13).  God the creator was not himself created.  But the Book of Mormon says God was once a man and has a body of flesh and bones.  Mormons worship Elohim, God the Father, through Jesus, God the Son.  They are God the Eternal Father.  What is unclear is who created the man who became God the Eternal Father.  What is also unclear is whether Joseph Smith understood the difference in meaning between eternal and immortal.  After all, how could a created being be eternal?  Here is the LDS definition of ‘eternal life’ and ‘immortality’:

Eternal life is the phrase used in scripture to define the quality of life that our Eternal Father lives. The Lord declared, “This is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39). Immortality is to live forever as a resurrected being.  Source: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/eternal-life?lang=eng

Conclusion: One possible LDS justification or explanation for their belief that Elohim, the Supreme Being, also known as God the Eternal Father, or God the Father, or Heavenly Father, and who has a body of flesh and bones, is that Joseph Smith was the recipient of modern revelation [1]
Another is that the Book of Mormon trumps The Bible. [2]

Articles of Faith – 8: We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. [2]  http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp?lang=eng

Disclaimer:  In the Bible God the Father was never created, is not a man and He is not God the Son.  And Jesus, the Son of God, is not Jehovah, nor is he God the Father.  That’s what my Bible says, and I believe the Bible.  If I have misrepresented the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints I would appreciate an explanation of where I have gone wrong.


What does it mean to comment on scripture with scripture?

This concept is actually quite simple: other Bible verses are very useful in helping us figure out what a certain passage in the Bible means.  Since the Bible is one complete, coherent, interrelated revelation from God, we can use one part of the Bible to help us understand another.  There are several ways to do this:

Context, context, context! So often the chapter or chapters surrounding a passage will give all kinds of obvious clues as to what that passage means if we just read more and think about it.
Use clear passages to show us the meaning of obscure passages
When trying to understand the meaning of a certain (Greek or Hebrew) word, use other usages that use the very same word (or root word) in an obvious way
Use detailed passages to help explain vague passages
Use actual commentary found in the Bible to explain the original meaning.

(Perhaps there is more that I can't recall right now.  Can anyone think of ways I have missed?)

The last item actually can happen more than you think.  For example, Hebrews 11:17-19 is Paul's commentary; we should rely on it in order to properly understand Genesis 22.

We also have to be careful not to take this too far; for example, a certain word could have had a range of meaning even when used by the same author.  Thus we should not always assume that just because two passages use the same word, that word must necessarily mean the same in both.  The same word used elsewhere is a good clue, not proof-positive of meaning.  (Note that the "center column" bible references in nearly all study Bibles are almost always made of key passages that use the identical words).

Two good books that elaborate on this are Sproul's Knowing Scripture and Fee's How To Read the Bible For All It's Worth.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses think there is an important difference between saying 'Jehovah' and 'Yahweh'?

Jehovah's Witnesses use whatever form of God's name that is common to Bibles in each language. In modern Hebrew, Jehovah's Witnesses use the "Yahweh" pronunciation. In English, the most common pronunciation is Jehovah. This pronunciation has been used for centuries in English and can be traced back to the Tyndale Bible, the first Bible in English to use Jehovah ("Iehouah") as God's name. "Jehovah" was also popularized by the King James Version, where it uses the name at Psalm 83:18, as well as in a few other scriptures. (But in many modern versions of the KJV, it is now removed there also.)
If someone uses the pronunciation of God's name from another language, we will not think that it's necessarily wrong, but it will sound weird. It's important to be consistent so that we can form a personal connection with that name and the Person that it represents.


Why does God forbid Aaron's descendants with "defects" from offering food?

From context, we get this command was given to Aaron and his descendants, those ordained for Priesthood. It mentions there these are considered "defects"; an imperfection. It's a symbol of sanctification; God setting apart, and also what is acceptable to God (perfection, purity, holiness). Similar to why sacrificial lambs are to be without blemish. Also why Jesus had to be without sin to be an acceptable atonement for our sins.


Take your cross, how do evangelicals do this in practice - Matthew 10:38

The Lord Jesus Christ's teaching about taking up our cross is found in Matt 10:38; 16:24; Mark 8:34 and Luke 9:23. It is my belief that our Lord was addressing the subject of conversion, not discipleship. Meaning, that Jesus was teaching what was necessary to be saved, not what was required of us after conversion.

Jesus was not saying that we had to be merely willing to make the ultimate sacrifice or even to be a literal martyr upon a literal cross. He was teaching that in order to be saved we must be crucified with Him. Hence, Gal 5:24 does answer how to apply the truth of our conversion to our daily lives.

Paul the apostle does provide us with the understanding. He said in Gal 2:20 'I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.' Paul lived in the powerful truth of having been crucified with Christ and his answer for not fulfilling the desires of the flesh [Gal 5:16] was to 'hear with faith' [Gal. 3:1-5] what had happened to him in his conversion.

Notice Gal 6:14, where Paul says, 'But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.' Paul does not have his own cross that he can boast in, but rather, he only has the cross of Christ. Only the cross of Christ was Paul's answer for how to be an overcomer in this world.

Understanding Jesus' teaching as the application by faith in the all sufficient work of Christ, so that we can say that we have taken up our cross, by being crucified with Him is the only thing that will enable us to follow Him. We need a cross in which we die to sin [Rom 6] and to the Law [Rom 7], by which we are circumcised with a circumcision made without hands [Col. 2:11-15]. No cross of our own will accomplish this. What Jesus taught, Paul the apostle opened up for us.

In like manner, when Jesus says in Matt 10:37, "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me" - it is about our conversion. Certainly, we are not to literally hate our parents, just as we are not to literally take up a cross, in order to be saved. It is an expression by our Lord that speaks of our need to undergo a fundamental change in our very person. Only our conversion in Christ accomplishes this.

Read my book:'Take Up Your Cross: Our Only Power to Live and Walk by the Spirit'. Visit my site Take Up Your Cross for information.


Why do Evangelical Protestants reject the Catholic approach to venerating Mary?

Born-again protestant Christians are not "against" Mary of Nazareth. Every one of them accepts Mary as the Mother of Jesus, and while few would use the phrase, they have no issue with the concept of Mary as the Mother of God.

That said, all but a few protestants, including nearly all who would self-identify as "born-again" reject most of the teachings about Mary that have been defined over the years, mostly by the Roman Catholic Church, as being at best, unnecessary for salvation, since for the most part, most Protestants agree that (as Article VI of the Articles of Religion of the Church of England states):

  Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not  read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of Faith, or be though requisite or necessary to salvation.

For protestants, principle rules out such teachings of the Roman Catholic church as the immaculate conception, the assumption, the notion of Mary as the mediatrix of all graces, and most Marian apparitions. Further, some of the teachings about Mary that are firmly grounded in Holy Scripture, like the annunciation, are not widely observed by many protestants, because they are not perceived to be of as much value in protestant theology.


Why would an Archbishop give such long notice of retirement?

Archbishops in the Church of England, as a rule, must retire on or before their seventieth birthdays. However, in special circumstances, the Queen can  grant an extension of up to one year.

Archbishop Sentamu will be 70 on June 10th 2019. In the ordinary course of events therefore he was scheduled to retire on June 10th, 2019, unless he announced he wished to go earlier.

However, the Queen has granted an extension of almost one year, allowing the Archbishop to defer his retirement until the Sunday before his 71st birthday, Trinity Sunday, 7th June, 2020.

The "news" here is not so much that he is retiring in 2020, as that he is not, as originally expected, retiring in 2019. The real news is the extension, but obviously the date that someone is retiring is considered  more interesting, and newsworthy, than the date that he is not.

As a rule 20 months notice (October 2018 to June 2020) would not be usual.


How do Catholics interpret Romans 10:9-13?

It would be hard, coming from outside the RCC to understand how the Church sees this passage.  The Church being universal and spanning the globe and all cultures empties itself from the subjective interpretations of specific cultures and the emphasis those cultures put on passages.  Emphasis, not necessarily intended by the inspired author.  This is especially noticeable in American Culture (outside and inside the Church), who seemingly but unknowingly, includes in their subjective interpretations those values that are important to them.  So, what am I suggesting here.  Primarily, as assumed in the question, that there is no “simplicity” of Romans 10:9-13.

The scriptures to Roman Catholics are not broken down into individual versus; they are looked at as a whole, with all of the Word taken into consideration.  So when it comes to Romans 10:9-13, a Catholic can say with full confidence that what is being stated is true within the context of the complete Word.

“There is no difference between Jew and Gentile” When the Lord Ascended into heaven leaving the Apostles to grow the kingdom, the remnants of the old Guard, the Jewish leaders through the Greco Roman world, were slowly brought into and evangelized into the Faith.  There was resistance, issues of genealogy and OT priesthood, food laws, 613 works of the Law that had to be addressed which was not addressed by Christ but left to his Church.  There was much Confusion.   Pharisaic Christians, Pagan Christians of many cultures were asked to come together to a banquet where previously no contact was allowed.  Customs and traditions, Valid ones especially like circumcision had to be addressed as you can imagine if you were older and had not been cut, the prospects of becoming a Christian with such requirements might seem gloomy.

Much of Paul’s writing echoes the Old Testament, Duet 30:14 for example comes to mind here.

As a Catholic, I simply have faith in God’s Word.  Guarded and Protected by the ministry instituted by Christ from inception, not influenced by my subjective understanding or the culture in which I live, but by the Church that spans the globe who has preserved and defined to the modern world those teachings based on Faith and Reason.


How do sola fide adherents explain The Parable of the Ten Virgins?

The short answer, is that works are not a requirement of salvation, but are an indication of salvation through faith, and the Holy Spirit working within the heart of the saved person.  As such, the virgins in the parable that were not prepared were not of faith, as indicated by their surprise at the arrival of the bridegroom. Keep in mind that this parable is in reference to the second coming of Christ.

This interpretation is largely supported by the idea that the virgins were "foolish", as opposed to forgetful in failing to bring enough oil to wait until night, which demonstrates a lack of faith on their part that the bridegroom would arrive at all.

Also important is verse 25:11 of Matthew (ESV):
 "Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, 'Lord, lord, open to us.'
But he answered, 'Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.'"

Note that he does not say that they were not prepared or had not done enough to merit entry, but that he did not know them at all, a phrase used by Jesus to indicate non-believers, such as the Pharisees in John 8:19 (ESV):
"They said to him therefore, "Where is your Father?" Jesus answered, "You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also."  The Pharisees knew Jesus' identity, of course.  He was speaking to knowledge of him as the Son of God.

The comments above are my interpretations.  The following additional response is taken largely from the interpretations presented in the HCSB Study Bible, specifically Charles Quarrels of Louisiana College, who authored the commentary on Matthew.

In the HCSB commentary, the virgins represent those who fail to persevere by waiting for Jesus' return with constant vigilance. The cry of "Master, master" (Gk kurie, kurie ) is identical to that of the false disciples in Matthew 7:21 . "I do not know you" echoes Matthew 7:23 and expresses exclusion from Messiah's kingdom.

The parable does not describe a true disciple who loses his salvation, but a false one whose commitment to Jesus was deficient from the start.


5 meaningful contacts with Christians before considering the claims of the gospel

In marketing, this is referred to as the number of "touches" required to make a sale or convince someone. It is not unique to religion, nor does it guarantee success. In marketing, this is called "funneling":

In fact, this approach only works on a small subset (typically a one-digit percentage) of the number of contacts.
The number of touches documented in market research is usually 6 to 8, which corresponds to  "more than five meaningful contacts" in the question posted.


Why are a Catholic bishop's Coat of Arms green and not purple?

The reason why a Catholic bishop's Coat of Arms are green dwells in the fact that green was the original color worn by bishops and archbishops was green, not purple.

  The shield is the green ecclesiastical hat called a “gallero” with twenty tassels pendant on both sides. This broad brimmed hat, once worn in cavalcades, is no longer used but remains as a heraldic emblem. The original color worn by bishops and archbishops was green, not purple. This “episcopal color” is retained in heraldry. These external ornaments are those used for a prelate with the rank of Archbishop according to the Instruction of the Holy See, Ut Sive, of March, 1969. - Armorial Bearings of the Most Reverend Thomas Rodi, DD
  Ninth Bishop and Second Metropolitan Archbishop of Mobile, Alabama

The original color for the cassocks of bishop and archbishops was green. In the 16th century it was changed to purple.

  For most of Church history green was the color for bishops. This color is still seen on the traditional coat of arms that each bishop chooses when elected. However, in the 16th century the color was switched to “amaranth red,” which is named so in reference to the color of the amaranth flower. In practicality it more resembles the color fuschia.

  Since it is a color similar to purple, it holds a symbolic value that points to the task of the bishop to govern his local diocese. - How to tell the difference between a monsignor, a bishop and a cardinal


What explanations have scholars proposed for the rejection of the Didache from the Canon?

Lee McDonald says in The Biblical Canon that the most common criteria in identifying what was and wasn't canonical for the early church was apostolicity, orthodoxy, antiquity, and use, and adaptability and inspiration were also used to a lesser extent.

David King, a UMC pastor, utilized McDonald's categories in a 2012 paper on the pericanonicity of the Didache written for a Master's-level course at Iliff School of Theology. King says that the early church would have identified shortcomings in the Didache's apostolicity, antiquity, and inspiration, and that these shortcomings were enough to exclude it from the canon:

  We can relate all of these to Didache's dependence on Matthew and Luke. If Didache is dependent on the synoptics, then it is later than they are. If it comments upon them, then it is derivative. Being also anonymous, Didache fails the test of apostolicity. It represents the work of someone just outside the apostolic age. It thus also fails the test of antiquity, though just barely. No doubt, Didache is old, probably older than some texts in the canon. Still, it represents an adaptation of and commentary on the gospels. For this very reason, one might question its inspiration. All these factors may have led to Didache being placed outside, but just outside, the canon.


Hebrews 11 explains that this was a test of faith: (KJV)

  17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that
  had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

  18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

  19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead;
  from whence also he received him in a figure.

and given that this passage in Hebrews is specifically showing good examples of faith, to illustrate the importance of faith, it's fairly safe to say that, according to the author of Hebrews, Abraham passed the test.


What does it mean to say "Jesus died for our sins"?

Jesus died for our sins

What we (and the Bible) mean by the phrase "Jesus died for our sins" is that all sins have a penalty.  We see the same thing in the justice systems of nations--for every crime, there is a penalty.  When the penalty is paid, we say that justice has been served, and that's a good thing.

Our sins are really rebellion against God, and they carry a weighty penalty.  The penalty is death--not just physical, but spiritual as well.  In physical death, our bodies are separated from our souls and spirits.  In spiritual death, we are separated from God.

Jesus died for our sins in that He paid the penalty for our sins.  As you point out, this does not mean we stop sinning.  What it does mean is that the penalty incurred by our sins is satisfied by the payment made by Jesus Himself.

By way of illustration, if you committed a crime and the penalty for that crime was $1,000,000, you could not pay it.  However, if you happen to be the son of Warren Buffet, he could pay the penalty on your behalf.  The penalty is still paid.  The victim is still restored.  The cost is still real.  Yet because of the generosity and sacrifice of your father, you are not bound to pay the penalty.

So, Jesus died for our sins and paid the penalty for them out of His love and generosity, allowing us to avoid paying the penalty ourselves if we accept that.

Jesus, the Messiah

Jesus is not merely a Messiah--He is the Messiah.  He is not merely one of many good people who made sacrifices for others.  That is not what the word "Messiah" means.  Indeed, many people have done good things and made sacrifices for others, from Mother Theresa to many others.  Yet, while people may make notable sacrifices, no one but Jesus could die for the sins of another.

All other people are only human and have their own sins to deal with.  Only Jesus, the eternal Son of God who existed before the world and time began, has the authority to die to pay the penalty for the sins of anyone else.

So, Jesus is the Messiah--the only one who could pay the penalty for the sins of the world.


Why did Stephen have authority to ask God to forgive the sins of his nonbelieving executioners?

If someone trespasses against me, personally, I can dismiss that trespass and require no remuneration, no restitution, no resolution. I can simply dismiss the event and give it no consideration whatsoever.

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. [Matthew 6:12 KJV]

For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: [Matthew 6:14 KJV]

I require nothing. I dismiss the debt. I am owed nothing at all.
Thus Stephen prays, that what had been done to him, in his humanity, by other humans, should not be given any consideration by God. He asks that God should take no notice of what had been done to him.
What had transpired between those persons and God, himself, of course, is another matter. That is between themselves and their Maker. But as to Stephen, Stephen has requested that, on his behalf, and for his sake, God should not lay it to their account.
No 'authority' is required for this. It is a request, a prayer.
It is not an authoritative demand.
It is a humble request from Stephen to the Lord his God.

I have responded to this question as a lifelong Protestant Evangelical, baptised at the age of sixteen, over fifty years ago, into a professing congregation.


How do proponents of Apokatastasis deal with the "Everlasting punishment" texts in scripture?

Those who believe in Apokatastasis believe Revelation 20:10 is grossly misunderstood. The Greek says:

καὶ ὁ διάβολος ὁ πλανῶν αὐτοὺς ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν λίμνην τοῦ πυρὸς καὶ θείου, ὅπου καὶ τὸ θηρίον καὶ ὁ ψευδοπροφήτης, καὶ βασανισθήσονται ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων.
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever- KJV

The Lake of Fire
The first thing that's significant is the Lake of Fire. A lake is a body of water. Water extinguishes fire, so this doesn't make sense. Therefore, we would interpret this metaphorically. Water cleanses and fire purifies. Yeshua says:

"For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt." Mark 9:49

Other examples include:

"That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ" 1 Peter 1:7
"Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction." Isaiah 48:10
"But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap: And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto YHVH an offering in righteousness." Malachi 3:2
"And the sight of the glory of YHVH was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel." Exodus 24:17
"For our God is a consuming fire." Hebrews 12:49

θείου
θείου means "brimstone". According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon:

θεῖον, θείου, τό (apparently the neuter of the adjective θεῖος equivalent to divine incense, because burning brimstone was regarded as having power to purify, and to ward off contagion (but Curtius, § 320 allies it with θύω; cf. Latinfumus, English dust)), brimstone: Luke 17:29; Revelation 9:17; Revelation 14:10; Revelation 19:20; (); . (Genesis 19:24; Psalm 10:6 (); Ezekiel 38:22; Homer, Iliad 16, 228; Odyssey 22, 481, 493; (Plato) Tim. Locr., p. 99 c.; Aelian v. h. 13, 15 (16); Herodian, 8, 4, 26 (9 edition, Bekker).)

So brimstone was believed to have the power to purify.
βασανίζω
The next word is βασανίζω. Thayer's Greek Lexicon says the very first definition is:

properly, to test (metals) by the touchstone.

βασανίζω means to test, examine, or to cause distress. The only sort of "torment" associated with this word in the NT is mental torment, and it definitely does not mean "torture". Here are some more examples of this word, and hopefully this will paint a clearer picture of what it means:

But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed (βασανιζόμενον) with waves: for the wind was contrary. Matthew 14:24

How is it that a ship was "tortured"? However, if the waves were testing the strength and endurance of the ship, causing it distress, it is understandable why Matthew would use βασανιζόμενον here. Robert Young (Young's Literal Transaltion) understood this, and translates:

and the boat was now in the midst of the sea, distressed by the waves, for the wind was contrary.

Mark uses this same word to describe this same event, but uses it a bit differently:

"And he saw them toiling (βασανιζομένους) in rowing; for the wind was contrary unto them: and about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea, and would have passed by them." Mark 6:48

Instead of the boat, it is the disciples who are having βασανίζω acted upon then. The American Standard Version says:

And seeing them distressed in rowing, for the wind was contrary unto them, about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking on the sea; and he would have passed by them

αἰών
The last word is αἰών and it is probably the most debated word in the bible. This word means "age". It always means age, and there is no reason to translate it any other way. For example:

"And the cares of this world (αἰών), and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful." Mark 4:19

The KJV chose the word "world", which is a bit deceitful because Greek already has a word for world...κόσμος. If we say "the cares of this forever choke the word", that doesn't make a lot of sense. Here is every instance of αἰών in the NT. Replace each word with "age" and it makes perfect sense everytime. Actually, the interlinear does it for you, because it's a literal translation and they know αἰών means age.
Conclusion
Those who believe in Apokatastasis would interpret Revelation 20:10 to be:

"and the devil, the [one] deceiving them, was cast into the lake of the fire and of brimstone (to be purified), where also the beast and the false prophet [are], and they will be examined/tested night and day for the ages of the ages"- very literal translation


Why is the Son of God called the Eternal Father in the book of Alma?

He was using the words of the prophet Abinadi from years earlier in Mosiah 15:

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

Jesus Christ is "the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth" because He created them (Hebrews 1:1-2). He is the Father of physical creation. (Incidentally, but out of the scope of this answer, there is great and interesting symbolism in Abinadi using the term "one God" to describe them.)
Though Book of Mormon prophets sometimes call Christ the Eternal Father, it's less commonly done today, perhaps because the distinction between Father and Son is important in LDS theology, so as to stand out from the diverse ways the Godhead/Trinity is interpreted across so many Christian denominations.


In Eastern Orthodoxy, how is an icon recognized as inspired?

This seems to suggest that some images, fulfilling certain criteria,
  are "recognized" to be accurate representations of Jesus thanks to
  special information given directly by God to the artist.

There are no specific criteria that I am aware of.  Furthermore, I think it is correct to say that we Orthodox do not necessarily believe that the images presented in icons are physically accurate, nor do we believe that the iconographer receives some special revelation ("information").

I think the right way to understand icons is that they are a visual expression of theology, using the medium of an image rather than the printed word.  This expression may be quite simple. An icon of a particular martyr may do no more than remind us of the existence of that martyr and perhaps cause us to recall what he or she did in their life.  In the tradition of the Church, the Samaritan woman at the well was called Photina and she was martyred by the Emperor Nero in Rome.  Her icon is clearly unrealistic (e.g. the well probably wasn't in the shape of a cross), but her image with the well and Christ reminds us who she was and perhaps causes us to recall something of the Gospel account.

On the other hand, the icon of Christ's Descent into Hades is quite complex.  To his left and right are Adam and Eve, who have been awaiting him since Creation.  Below His feet is a skeletal figure, representing Death or Satan, reminding us of what is written in Hebrews:  Through death He might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil.  The presence of David and Solomon on His left remind us of His genealogy.  Other versions of this icon have other details.  It is literally a visual sermon.

  In Eastern Orthodoxy, are some artists understood to have received
  special revelation from God that allows them to create accurate images
  of Jesus?

No, I would say that no artists are understood to have received special revelation.  We do not believe that certain persons receive new revelations (a belief, for example, of Ted Cruz' particular Christian confession).  As I state above, icons do not purport to present necessarily accurate images.

  In Eastern Orthodoxy, how is an icon "recognized" as inspired? Is it
  the action of some ecclesiastical body, and what criteria are applied
  in making the decision? Can new images be "recognized" today?

The Eastern Orthodox Church has no central authority.  There are Church canons that date back to the 8th century, but they deal with refutations of heresies and with maintaining the good order of the Church.  There are no criteria and no decisions.  Any recognition is spontaneous, by the Orthodox faithful (saints are recognized in the same way, not through any central committee decision, as in Roman Catholicism).  To my knowledge, however, no iconographer undertakes painting an icon without a blessing from his "spiritual father" (usually a priest or a Church hierarch) and no iconographer undertakes painting an icon without first undergoing a very intense period of prayer and fasting.  This has been the tradition of the Orthodox Church since the earliest icons were painted, probably in the late 1st or early 2nd century.