When and how did Martin Luther arrive at the justification by faith?

First to understand the background to the story that Luther recalls,  Luther used to hate Romans 1:17. He struggled with this verse in particular, and the phrase 'God's righteousness' in particular, because he always read it in the sense which it was preached by the Catholic theologians at the time. At that time this verse was understood as the "formal or active righteousness" with which "God is righteous and punishes the unrighteous sinner." In other words, Luther while believing in God and having some faith in Christ struggled with Romans 1:17 before his 'confidence burst' and his faith began to posses him more violently. This is why Romans 1:17 is brought up in his recollections but actually plays little part in his explaining his actual beliefs later on. This he did, regarding justification by faith, most fully in his lectures on Galatians, although Romans as a whole still held an important place as well.
His experience or turning point in breaking through on his understanding of Romans 1:17 is referred to as his 'Tower Experience' because  it occurred in the tower of the Black Cloister in Wittenberg (later Luther’s home) at an undetermined date between 1508 and 1518.
Luther, before overcoming his doubts about Romans 1:17, used to think 'God's  righteousness' in the gospel 'was revealed', not in giving perfect righteousness freely to sinners forever apart from the fact they were sinners, but in punishing sinners and rewarding the righteous.  Luther, originally as a monk, viewed the gospel as an extension of the law, not a way to find freedom from its curse. Only later did he discover that a person is saved by faith, without works of the law entering into the equation.  He always saw that faith produced many works, but not allowing those works to take part in the subject of justification, where we 'passively receive' righteousness as a gift, apart from our own merit, was something he learned later on. I think the Romans 1:17 'tower experience' that he had was probably during his lectures on Romans which began in the year 1516.
Before this experience He says he had faith but it was not clear yet:

For a long time I went astray [in the monastery] and didn’t know what I was about. To be sure, I knew something, but I didn’t know what it was until I came to the text in Romans 1 [:17], ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’ That text helped me. There I saw what righteousness Paul was talking about.82 Earlier in the text I read ‘righteousness.’ I related the abstract [‘righteousness’] with the concrete [‘the righteous One’] and became sure of my cause. I learned to distinguish between the righteousness of the law and the righteousness of the gospel. I lacked nothing before this except that I made no distinction between the law and the gospel. I regarded both as the same thing and held that there was no difference between Christ and Moses except the times in which they lived and their degrees of perfection. But when I discovered the proper distinction—namely, that the law is one thing and the gospel is another—I made myself free.” (Luther's Works, Volume 54, P442).

 In 1545, he describes his own experience at greater length. He seems to take a longer view if it, like a growing faith and struggle that begins by referring to his days as a monk, his weak faith in his earlier days as a Biblical Professor and finally his overwhelming sense of what Romans 1:17 really meant. He recalled these experiences  when describing the events that occurred in the year 1519 when he got into trouble with the Pope. To understand at what point in his thinking 1519 occurs it is helpful to know that Luther first lectured on Romans at around the year 1516, he also lectured a preliminary version of Galatians and Hebrews shortly after this time. However, he did not lecture on Galatians, formally, in the format in which they were published, until around 1531. It took around 16 years for his faith to really explode in the form of Galatians, long after he had kicked the hornets nest in Rome.
In fact, this gripping realization of justification by faith made him revisit his old lectures and begin to rewrite them as early as 1519. It is just before this time that he made his breakthrough in the 'tower experience'. Removing his misunderstanding of that verse, his faith seems to have broke into a full confidence and the verse that used to trouble him became an anchor that symbolized his overwhelming conviction that began slowly years before and grew more and more years later. Here we find he began to revise his work on the Psalms in 1519 and his breakthrough over his doubts about Romans Chapter 1:17 that had 'stood in his way' until this point.

Meanwhile, I had already during that year returned to interpret the Psalter anew. I had confidence in the fact that I was more skilful, after I had lectured in the university on St. Paul’s epistles to the Romans, to the Galatians, and the one to the Hebrews. I had indeed been captivated with an extraordinary ardor for understanding Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. But up till then it was not the cold blood about the heart,but a single word in Chapter 1[:17], “In it the righteousness of God is revealed,” that had stood in my way. For I hated that word “righteousness of God,” which, according to the use and custom of all the teachers, I had been taught to understand philosophically regarding the formal or active righteousness, as they called it, with which God is righteous and punishes the unrighteous sinner.
Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction. I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God, and said, “As if, indeed, it is not enough, that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the decalogue, without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel threatening us with his righteousness and wrath!” Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience. Nevertheless, I beat importunately upon Paul at that place, most ardently desiring to know what St. Paul wanted.  (Luther's Works, Volume 34, P336-337).
At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, “In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’ ” There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.” Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me. Thereupon I ran through the Scriptures from memory. I also found in other terms an analogy, as, the work of God, that is, what God does in us, the power of God, with which he makes us strong, the wisdom of God, with which he makes us wise, the strength of God, the salvation of God, the glory of God.  (Luther's Works, Volume 34, P336-337).

He continues to explain the effects of his experience about Romans 1:17 and how he later found additional support through Augustine. He  already had his doctorate in theology in October 19, 1512 and may seem strange that he did not encounter Augustine's work on the subject until years later, but it is a very specific one which Luther mentions, called 'The Spirit and the Letter.'

And I extolled my sweetest word with a love as great as the hatred with which I had before hated the word “righteousness of God.” Thus that place in Paul was for me truly the gate to paradise. Later I read Augustine’s The Spirit and the Letter, where contrary to hope I found that he, too, interpreted God’s righteousness in a similar way, as the righteousness with which God clothes us when he justifies us. Although this was heretofore said imperfectly and he did not explain all things concerning imputation clearly, it nevertheless was pleasing that God’s righteousness with which we are justified was taught. Armed more fully with these thoughts, I began a second time to interpret the Psalter. And the work would have grown into a large commentary, if I had not again been compelled to leave the work begun, because Emperor Charles V in the following year convened the diet at Worms.49. (Luther's Works, Volume 34, P336-337).

The truth is although Romans was the place where he made his initial breakthrough it was not the place where his faith finally rested on. For this we must turn to Galatians.  In fact Luther hardly has any comments at all under Chapter 1:7 in his works on Romans, but in every verse of Galatians, Luther uses as one more opportunity to pound and pound away at the doctrine that changed his life forever. No bible commentary on any book in the Bible since can pretend in any way to have had the same impact on the world.
As a result of the revolutionary changes in Luther and his dramatic growing faith is there is a problem with Luther's Works in that he had to re-write many things and where the need was not urgent he seems to have left them as they were.  Romans is a little thin on doctrine compared to Galatians, as he wrote it years before, it is also was not needing much revision, so Luther probably found most of it still acceptable to him even under his enlarged views years later.
His commentary on Galatians was when he was crystal clear in 1531 and he does not seem to have had enough time to fully rewrite everything before to measure up to his final stage of assurance and knowledge.  Therefore regarding the timing of his understanding of the doctrine that in many ways resulted in the Protestant church, I would say that his faith was crystallized around 1517 with Romans and from there it grew until it exploded with Galatians in 1531.  He seems to have hung his faith not on Romans at all by this point. Galatians was his eventual favorite work and the essential Luther.
For anyone interested in reading Luther, He wrote his works on Genesis after Galatians so they are not in any need up of updating at all and are a good place to start after Galatians. Some of his earlier works however must be viewed and even possibly corrected by comparing them to Galatians.
After all his years Luther clearly favored his writing on Galatians above all else. I am sure he would have instantly agreed to the burning of all his books if he might keep his work on Galatians. It is here where you find Luther's views in the doctrine of salvation by faith, apart from works. One can't understand Luther at all without reading it. Anyone who has read it will understand why. I challenge anyone interested in Luther to read his work on Galatians in order to begin to understand him.

Luther described his relation to the epistle in more vivid terms. “The Epistle to the Galatians,” he once said at table, “is my epistle, to which I am betrothed. It is my Katie von Bora.”  (Luther's Works, Volume 26, Introduction)


I do not believe so. In fact, the NKJV version tells it a little differently and doing so it lines up with more scripture.

  32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have
  mercy on all. -Romans 11:32 NKJV

God doesn't "make" us be disobedient but rather he brings to light our disobedience so we can repent.

  4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is
  the Lord who judges me. 5Therefore judge nothing before the appointed
  time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden
  in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time
  each will receive their praise from God. -1 Corinthians 4:4-5

  There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that
  will not be made known. 3What you have said in the dark will be heard
  in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner
  rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs.
  "4'I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body
  and after that can do no more. 5But I will show you whom you should
  fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to
  throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. 6Are not five sparrows
  sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God.
  7Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don’t be
  afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.'"- Luke 12:2-7

The point it is making is that according to God we are all disobedient and therefore we all need mercy and grace. He provided that grace through the finished work of Jesus on the cross.


How to compare Christian pastor credentials?

The kind of comparison you are suggesting is not going to work for a number of reasons. The most prominent one is a huge difference in job description between those that different denominations consider church leaders.
The Catholic church, for example, ordains priests based on several years of college-level education, as well as other requirements, academic and spiritual. However they often select leaders who do not have any formal education and give them the education required to do the job. Moreover a Catholic church will typically have one priest overseeing a church with many hundreds of members. Various other paid and volunteer workers take on other roles within the church.
A Baptist or other Protestant church of similar size may have several people with the title 'Pastor' on their paid staff. Those people may have different responsibilities. There may be a children's pastor, a music pastor, or even an administrative pastor. There may be an outreach pastor whose job is to work with the homeless and street people. Many of those people are qualified very differently from the Catholic priest, and any attempt to draw conclusions by comparing their qualifications is not going to yield useful results.
Even if you were to compare just 'lead pastors' (those in charge of an entire congregation), just because a denomination has no minimum standard of academic qualification doesn't mean they habitually appoint those with no academic qualifications. Most of the churches I know that have no minimum standards routinely appoint people with masters degrees.
Another significant issue is the one of who appoints church leaders. Catholic, Anglican and many more 'high church' denominations have their leaders appointed (ordained) by the denomination. This means a certain amount of uniformity of their leaders. However in congregationalist denomination each church appoints its own leaders. This means leadership qualifications are decided by every single church. There might be different standards for every single Baptist church in a denomination, as well as between denominations. Not to mention that each church is free to revise its own standards or ignore them if it feels like it.
As another aside, I don't know of any denomination that requires a masters degree - or any degree - before they are accepted for ordination training.


It must be noted that the Bible never explicitly answers this question, so our answer has to come from related observations we make from the text.  However, we must admit that these observations are not explicitly taught from the Scriptures, so we must not be emphatic where the Scriptures are not.  It is important, then, to identify what it is that we do know and what it is that we do not know.

We do know that the prohibition from eating the fruit of the tree was directly given to Adam by God prior to the creation of Eve.

  15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work
  it and keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You
  may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of
  the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day
  that you eat of it you shall surely die.” 18 Then the LORD God
  said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a
  helper fit for[e] him.”  Genesis 2:15-18 ESV

The Bible never indicates how Eve learned about the command.  We do not know whether God repeated the command to her after He created her or whether Adam passed it on to her.  We do know that she seems to be aware of the command during the temptation, although her statement of it differs from that which was given to Adam--Eve adds the part about not touching it.  She also fails to call the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil by its name, referring to it simply as the tree in the middle of the garden.

So, perhaps Eve received the command secondhand and wasn't as certain about it as Adam was.  Again, we don't know for sure, but this is at least a possibility.  If so, then it is reasonable to assume that Satan saw Eve as the one more susceptible to deception.

We do know that by deceiving Eve, though, that Satan got two for one.  He had to deceive Eve, but Adam willingly followed her into sin, despite not being deceived.  Eve seems to not have understood what she was doing, but it seems that Adam actually did--and did it anyway.

  "and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a
  transgressor."  1 Timothy 2:14 ESV

If Adam had been the first to sin, we do not know if Eve would have followed.  Perhaps so.  We do know, however, that Adam did follow Eve into sin.

It could be suggested that Eve's weakness was uncertainty, while Adam's weakness was Eve.

So, again, we don't know for sure, but we can make some observations about the text and draw some possible explanations to answer this question.


Why is Jesus' genealogy traced through Joseph?

First of all, Joseph was not Jesus biological father in any understanding since Mary conceived by a miraculous intervention of the Holy Spirit before she was joined to Joseph and the text tells us they refrained from intercourse until after Jesus birth.

However in the eyes of the law of the time, Joseph was the father. More than just a legal guardian, by later taking Mary as his wife, he also claimed Jesus as his son. This gave him a standing in relation to the child that -in the eyes of the Jews at least- must be accounted for. The fact that he was himself of the line of David would put many doubts about the validity of Jesus' claims to rest. The excuse that there was no blood relation would have been overshadowed by the fact that he was the lawful father and not himself of the prophesied linage.

Knowing that Joseph was himself of the line of David makes Jesus the rightful legal heir to the throne of David even though he wasn't biologically related to his earthly father.

Secondly, there is actually a huge difference between the genealogies found in Matthew and Luke. If you read them, there are only a couple names in common from David to Jesus. One possibility for this is that Joseph had two fathers: one legal and one biological through a Levirate marriage (where the brother of a man with no offspring would step in to provide one).

However the other idea that many scholars agree on is that the record found in Luke is actually a trace of Mary's family tree. It wasn't common to trace the maternal side, but then again the virgin birth was hardly a normal occurrence! This would mean we have both the paternal and maternal genealogies and all the bases are covered.


Why do people say that God denounces the handicapped in the Bible?

That will depend on who you ask. Probably the most commonly cited passage in scripture is in Leviticus 21:

  16
  The LORD said to Moses:
  17
  Say to Aaron: None of your descendants, throughout their generations, who has any blemish shall come forward to offer the food of his God.
  18
  Anyone who has any of the following blemishes may not come forward: he who is blind, or lame, or who has a split lip, or a limb too long,
  19
  or a broken leg or arm,
  20
  or who is a hunchback or dwarf or has a growth in the eye, or who is afflicted with sores, scabs, or crushed testicles.
  21
  No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any such blemish may draw near to offer the oblations of the LORD; on account of his blemish he may not draw near to offer the food of his God.
  22
  He may, however, eat the food of his God: of the most sacred as well as sacred offerings.
  23
  Only, he may not enter through the veil nor draw near to the altar on account of his blemish; he shall not profane my sacred precincts, for it is I, the LORD, who make them holy.
  24
  Moses, therefore, told this to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites.
  (Leviticus 21, NAB)

This passage forbids Aaron and his descendants (who were given priestly responsibilities) from approaching God if their bodies were blemished in certain ways. Some of these blemishes would permanently deny this aspect of the priesthood to those people who had them:

permanent blindness
permanent lameness
dwarfism
uneven limbs
crushed testicles

The passage does not specifically identify the reason that God considers these blemishes to profane the altar of the temple. As far as this passage goes, “God doesn’t like the handicapped” is only an interpretation.


Why was Jesus baptised by John the Baptist?

The Baptism of John was calling sinners to repentance. It was unusual in that it was treating the Jews as Gentiles. Everyone was considered impure and needing washing at the door-step of the New Covenant:

From wiki we get a clear definition of the Jewish Mikveh. It is correctly stated here that:

  Several biblical regulations specify that full immersion in water is required to regain ritual purity after ritually impure incidents have occurred.

It signified washing impurity away.

More applicable to our text Mikveh was used, and is still used today to convert Gentiles to Judaism. Here is a quote from the Jewish historian Alfred Edersheim on the subject:

  ‘the proselytes of righteousness,’ who became ‘children of the covenant,’ ‘perfect Israelites,’ Israelites in every respect, both as regarded duties and privileges. All writers are agreed that three things were required for the admission of such proselytes: Circumcision (Milah), Baptism (Tebhilah),and a Sacrifice (Qorban, in the case of women: baptism and sacrifice) - the latter consisting of a burnt-offering of a heifer, or of a pair of turtle doves or of young doves (Maimonides, Hilkh. Iss. Biah xiii. 5).

So the question remains why did Jesus submit to a baptism calling everyone to repentance for their sins, in preparation of Christ’s appearing?

There are many views why Jesus was Baptized, some of the better views are; His coming as the Representative of a guilty race, or as the bearer of the sins of others, or of His surrendering Himself symbolically to death for man. However as Jesus came to ‘fulfill all righteousness’ it seems to best to say that He came to perform perfect obedience to Gods Law.  This obedience not only included all the ceremonial, civil and moral laws given to Moses, but as Christ was not only God but man, He must also submit to the ministries of Prophets sent by God. Furthermore the level of consciousness that Jesus, as a man, had of His purpose and ministry seems to have taken a sudden increase after His submission. For it is hear that God declares from a voice from heaven and a visible token of His Spirit anointing Him for His ministry that he has the One whom God loved, that is the King Messiah, and also the suffering servant who He was well pleased with.

So His baptism was to fully comply with all Laws in order to have a righteousness that He could provide to sinners while the sins of the world were placed upon Him in return.  This is why John says:

  The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! (NIV John 1:29)

Jesus was presenting Himself as the Lamb in Baptism, to suffer all the sins of men punishable under the Laws of Moses. John was including the righteous Pharisees and sinful tax collectors as equally needing this baptism of repentance for sin. Jesus was the center upon which this baptism had meaning, for water does not cleanse.


Does the Bible explain why God chose Israel?

"Why did God choose Israel?" appears as a common question among some Christians. For example, we had entire sermons for weeks based on this one question. Enough of that now; to the answer!

God chose Israel because of His promise to Abraham.

As a reward for Abraham's faith in the Lord, God said to him in Genesis 12:2-3:

  I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.

The Lord Himself expands on this in an address to the Israelites delivered by Moses in Deuteronomy 7:6-8:

  For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth. The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples; but because the LORD loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers, the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

God chose Israel because He had promised Abraham that his descendants would become a great nation (see Genesis 12:3, 7; 17:4, 7-8; 22:17). Abraham and his descendants were blessed because of Abraham's faith which resulted in obedience to God’s law (see Genesis 26:3-5). This same promise was repeated to Abraham's descendants (see Genesis 17:21; 26:24; 28:1-4, 13).


What were the three miracles that St. Stephen performed to be canonized?

Veneration of martyrs (such as Saint Stephen) as Saints among the Christian faithful long predated the formal process (to include miracles) which later became a standard and evolved into canonization.  Martyrs were prominent among the early saints venerated by Christians.

  Among other things, persecution sparked the devotion of the saints,
  facilitated the rapid growth and spread of Christianity, prompted
  defenses and explanations of Christianity (the "apologies") and, in
  its aftermath, raised fundamental questions about the nature of the
  church.

Put a different way, you have asked an anachronistic question.  There was no formal requirement for having performed three miracles when Stephen was recognized as a saint. (credit to @bruisedreed, for how to say that concisely).

You will find related questions here and also here.


Do any authorities have anything to say about "criminality" as grounds for divorce in addition to "adultery," alluded to in the New Testament?

We spend a lot of time searching for holes in the fencing of our playground.  Under what circumstances am I allowed to approach this or that forbidden thing.  Divorce is certainly one of those things and, although in today's world it is comfortably assimilated into most cultures, it always has been.

The religious leaders tried to entrap Jesus on this very question.  The oft quoted 'adultery exemption' is weightier in the whole context.

  And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?”  He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,  and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?  So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”  They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”  He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.  And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” - Matthew 19:3-9

What Jesus outlines here is the difference between what God intends and what God allows because we are hard-hearted.  Obstinate, unrepentant pursuit of sexual sin within a marriage is allowed by God as grounds for divorce but let's not deceive ourselves into thinking it pleases Him.  Divorce is an act which tries to unmake a creation of God:  "So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

We err greatly in the matter when we hold that a secular court or an ecclesiastic body either enacts or dissolves a marriage.  "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate".  This is a divine, creative covenant established directly by God before the intrusion of sin into creation.

The book of Job weighs in here without direct reference.  When Satan is given permission by God to oppress Job,

  “Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand.” - Job 1:12

Satan is forbidden to touch Job himself.  Satan destroys Job's propsperity and his posterity but, although Job's wife is never mentioned in the prohibition, Satan leaves her alone.

Again, when Satan is allowed a second time to afflict Job,

  And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your hand; only spare his life. - Job 2:6

he obeys God's prohibition and does not take Job's life.  Once again there is no mention of Job's wife in the prohibition but Satan leaves her alone.

It seems that in the heavenly realms it is understood as a matter of course needing no mention (not even to the devil himself) that a man and his wife are one and the same entity.

  And this second thing you do. You cover the LORD's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. “For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.” - Malachi 2:13-16

Is marriage extremely difficult and painful at times?  What part of a life of faith is not?


The Church doesn't anywhere define just exactly what drugs in the phrase "the use of drugs" means. That shouldn't prevent us from drawing reasonable conclusions about what it might mean, or whether it means something in particular at all.
The first edition of the current Catechism of the Catholic Church was published in French in 1992. In French, the text of interest is "L’usage de la drogue", which seems to mean "the usage of drugs"; but no specific definition of "la drogue" in this context is given.
Finally, the Latin text, which is normative, reads:

Stupefactivorum medicamentorum usus gravissimas infligit valetudini et vitae humanae destructiones.
[The use of narcotic medications inflicts grave destruction on health and human life.–my translation]

It seems unlikely, given (for example) this table of contents for a pastoral document dealing with drugs and addiction, that the Church is concerned solely or even primarily with narcotic drugs in the technical sense; but we're given no further guidance in the Catechism.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, the first universal catechism in over 400 years, is what is technically known as a major catechism—a catechism primarily intended for use as a reference by pastors and catechists, rather than for use directly by learners of the faith. It is addressed to the bishops and other teachers; when there is a question of what something means, one ought surely to ask, "What would it mean to them?" Given that this is not a technical (theological/religious) word, it appears most reasonable to believe that it is intended to be interpreted (as are most words in the catechism) in the "everyday English" sense; that is, it's intended to mean what "most people" mean by the word.
Taking that approach, it's clear that tobacco is not in everyday usage in most English-speaking countries treated as a drug—that is, treated the same way that for example heroin, methamphetamine, or cocaine are. It's certainly not produced or trafficked clandestinely (for the most part). Thus, it appears that the Catechism is not intending to mark out tobacco as "a drug" except to the extent that this is a typical understanding in society. And given that most Western societies don't view tobacco usage the same way they view the usage of some of these more serious drugs, it appears that the use, without abuse, of tobacco is not prescriptively considered gravely contrary to the moral law and thus not automatically "grave matter", the potential subject of mortal sin.
I've answered your question about masturbation in the linked question.


The nature of Jesus's 40 days post-resurrection but pre-ascension

1. Is there a name for this period in the various traditions?
I am not aware of any for protestant Christianity, but Catholicism refers to this period as Eastertide or the Season of Easter.
2. When he wasn't appearing to people, where and on what was Jesus spending his time?
Jesus told the thief on the cross that "today, you will be with me in paradise", so it's reasonable to assume that he was moving between this creation and the next eternal creation being prepared for the redeemed of the Lamb (that place commonly known as "heaven").
That said, neither scripture nor tradition has anything definitive to say about where he was when he was not revealing himself here on earth.  Do note, though, that the concept of time is very different outside of this creation (if it has any meaning at all).
3. Was his being the same as pre-resurrection, or was he somehow fundamentally different?
Jesus' body, post-resurrection, was indeed fundamentally different - it was his glorified eternal body, not limited by created time and space. This body is the incorruptible, immortal and eternal state that is the future for all those who are saved, as described in 1 Cor 15:

35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” 36 You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
1 Cor 15:35-49

And this is part of the stunning wonder of the incarnation; that eternal God could have put off his glory to become, for a time, limited, finite man constrained by our dimensions of time and space, to effect the salvation of those who "confess with [their] mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in [their] heart that God raised him from the dead." (Rom 10:9).
4. Was there a purpose to this "stopover" back on Earth? (I assume to indicate the resurrection).
It was, in part, to bear witness to his bodily resurrection.  For as Paul says:

12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
1 Cor 15:12-14

And also that he could give final teaching and instruction to his disciples now that his purpose and mission had been fully revealed to them.


Baptism of the Holy Spirit refers to receiving the Holy Spirit into your life.

In John 14:16-17 (NIV), Jesus says:

  16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to
  help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world
  cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you
  know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

Later, after Jesus had ascended into heaven, the Holy Spirit came to the apostles at the feast of Pentecost.  The entire story is Acts 2, but specifically

Acts 2:2-3

  2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven
  and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what
  seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each
  of them.

That is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

It's the Holy Spirit coming and filling us.  Once he enters our lives, we are forever changed. We have access to the Holy of Holies and have direct communion with God.


Because it's obvious to most people that Jeremiah 7 is referring to a false pagan deity, and not the blessed virgin Mary. To associate the two is to give credence to the idea that they are somehow related, which they obviously aren't. Highly venerating a female whom you believe God has made Queen of His Kingdom (something theoretically very possible, and easy for God; and queens and kings are venerated) is not 'cancelled' or 'forbidden' by the fact that pagans previously, or before that point,  gave the same title or honorific or role to a false deity. E.g. if pagans viewed a particular god (like Baal, which means Lord) as Lord, it doesn't mean there is not a true lord (God or man), just that pagans used the same title or honorific for their false deity—stole it, or used it wrongly. Pagans getting to 'copyright' certain dates or names for things and people or whatever else is just a ridiculous concept.

If Jeremiah wasn't speaking of the blessed virgin Mary, then it's just not relevant to discuss. And we know he wasn't because the virgin Mary didn't exist yet for another 640 years or so, but Jeremiah was speaking of something current in his day, and also of something concerning worship of a false deity, not the blessed woman Christians have always considered the greatest of the saints by virtue of being the mother of not only the Messiah, but the Messiah who was and is God, and of whom she was and is the mother to this day.

Consider an analogy. Imagine there was a pagan deity pagans called "the King of Heaven." It's almost impossible none such false deity was worshiped under this title. Does God approve of that false deity? I'd like to think so. And yet how is God still the King of Heaven? He is because He actually is, and this false deity is not.

It's very simple, really.


Which kind of relations are considered incestous in Christianity?

First, a timeline.

The prohibition on incest was not given until well after creation. At least as far as traditions that believe Genesis to be a historical account are concerned, Adam and Eve were the first two humans on earth, they procreated, had a whole bunch of  sons and daughters, some of which paired. For more on this see:

Did Adam and Eve's Progeny Commit Incest?

There was actually another bottleneck in the human family tree much later at the time of Noah. While Noah's direct offspring brought their spouses along for the ride, his grandchildren would have been limited to marrying each other, so cousins if not siblings.

The commands about not marrying family relations that were too close didn't come for another couple thousand years, about the time of the Mosaic law that was to govern Israel after they were taken out of Egypt.

The prohibition is later affirmed and renewed in various places and still in effect today and won't be changed again.

So who's included?

There is a run down of relationships that are considered too close or otherwise off limits here:

  Leviticus 18:6-18 (ESV)
  6  “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. 7  You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. 8  You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness. 9  You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. 10  You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son's daughter or of your daughter's daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness. 11  You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife's daughter, brought up in your father's family, since she is your sister. 12  You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister; she is your father's relative. 13  You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister, for she is your mother's relative. 14  You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt. 15  You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son's wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. 16  You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife; it is your brother's nakedness. 17  You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, and you shall not take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are relatives; it is depravity. 18  And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.

There are also related reiterations of this in Leviticus 20:11-21, Deuteronomy 22:30, and Deuteronomy 27:20-23.

Basically we have:

No parents (including inlaws or anyone intimate with parents)
No children (or anyone intimiate with them, son inlaw, dauther inlaw, etc)
No siblings (including half siblings)
No grandchildren (or any other level of offspring)
No aunts, uncles (or their intimates)
No inlaws (brother inlaw, sister inlaw)

Also included here is having relationships with someone who is any of these connections to somebody you've been intimate with - with a notable exception for siblings if the original parter is diceased. In other words if your wife dies, marrying her mother (or daughter even if the child isn't yours) is not an option, but if she had a sister you could marry her. Another case worth mentioning is Levirite marriage where marrying your siblings spouse is allowed in the vent your sibling has died.

Notably absent from the list of specifically prohibited relationships is first-cousins. Some people make the case that these would be covered in the more umbrella statement of Lev 18:1 where "any close" (litterally blood) relatives are off limits. Another factor to consider here is that it is illegial in some states and countries, a factor Christians usually consider binding (although they may not consider all things allowed by the state as permissable, they usually consider those prohibited by the state as off limits). The same social taboos about first-cousins that exist in the West are not nearly as strong in the Middle East. How Christians view that case in practice, at least to some extent, mirrors the cultural understanding.

That this assortment of off-limit relationships was still expected of Christians in the New Testament can be seen here:

  1 Corinthians 5:1 (ESV)
  5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife.

Are these views consistent across sects?

Almost, but not quite.

As I mentioned above, there is some variation in understanding when it comes to doubtful cases not specifically listed above such as first-cousins or step siblings:

Does the Old Testament law prohibit marriage among step siblings?

However the differences in understanding tend to be isolated more to regions than to sects.

There are of course a number of small sects with very different views on family relationships in general. (See LDS, it's sects and polygamy). However as a broad generalization incest is widely defined in roughly the same way as above, partly because the Scriptural prohibition is so specific.

Summary

Christians generally consider incest to cover a wide variety of family relationships.


Baking and cutting eucharistic bread in the Eastern Orthodox Churches

Prolegomenon

There is an assumption that needs to be addressed before an answer can be given, namely that 'scripture' is the basis for practices and beliefs in the Eastern Orthodox Church. It is not. Scripture is a part of Holy Tradition (the preeminent portion indeed), but not everything comes from this. Most important is maintaining and passing on the Apostolic Tradition unaltered. So asking for a 'scriptural basis' for an Eastern Orthodox practice doesn't really make sense. It's sort of like asking for a Protestant justification of a Roman Catholic practice—you're using the wrong measuring stick for this context. With that said, I will proceed explaining the historical emergence of this practice.

The (Leavened) Bread

History shows that using leavened bread is the earliest practice of the Christian Church. The use of unleavened bread is a later development (8th or 9th century, depending on which scholar you cite):

  In the West, various ordinances appeared from the ninth century on,
  all demanding the exclusive use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist.
  A growing solicitude for the Blessed Sacrament and a desire to employ
  only the best and whitest bread, along with various scriptural
  considerations—all favored this development. Still, the new
  custom did not come into exclusive vogue until the middle of the
  eleventh century. Particularly in Rome it was not universally accepted
  till after the general infiltration of various usages from the North.
  In the Orient there were few objections to this usage during olden
  times. Not till the discussions that led to the schism of 1054 did it
  become one of the chief objections against the Latins. At the Council
  of Florence (1439), however, it was definitely established that the
  Sacrament could be confected in azymo sive fermentato pane.
  Therefore, as we well know, the various groups of Orientals who are
  united with Rome continue to use the type of bread traditional among
  them.1

The use of unleavened bread is partly due to the assumption that the Last Supper occurred during the Passover Seder (and numerous anachronistic assumptions about how this meal was practiced in first century Judaism). This assumption is problematic from a historical perspective, however, because John's Gospel presents a different timeline than the Synoptic Gospels for this meal.2

  The same baking method and ovens were used by the Christians for both
  their daily bread and that which was to be used in worship. It must be
  made clear that (contrary to practices today in the West) in the Early
  Christian centuries and in all eastern rites through the ages, except
  in the Armenian church, the bread used for the Church did not differ
  from ordinary bread in substance. From the beginning leavened bread
  was used. Even the Armenians before the seventh century and the
  Maronites before their union with Rome in the twelfth century used
  leavened bread. The practice of using unleavened bread for the
  Eucharist was introduced to the West much later. Among the earliest
  written accounts is that given by Alcuin (A.D. 798) and his disciple
  Rabanus Maurus. After this the altar bread took the light, wafer like
  form, achieved with pressing irons, so common today.3

Officially, according to the OCA,

  In the Christian East there is no concern for using the exact type of
  bread used at the Last Supper....

Even so, you will hear some Orthodox Christians refer to unleavened bread as 'dead bread' in a derogatory fashion, and some elaborate allegorical theologies were developed by the eleventh century in the East that commingled the theology of the bread used in the Mystical Supper with that of Christology (e.g. as the body without breath and soul is dead, so also is unleavened bread; Christ gave us a whole loaf, not just his body without a soul as Apollinaris claims, etc.).

The Eastern Orthodox Church continues to follow the earliest Christian practice which we believe was handed down from the apostles: the use of leavened bread.

Breaking vs. Cutting the Bread

This distinction is somewhat semantic and anachronistic (they probably didn't cut bread with knives in first century Judea). The phrase 'break(ing) the bread' (τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου, κλῶντές/κλάσαι/κλάσας τὸν ἄρτον, etc.) appears numerous times in the New Testament,4 and simply refers to 'breaking' or 'fracturing'.5 Due to the anachronistic nature of this question I will comment no further.

Who Gets to Bake It?

The idea of it being baked by someone 'in good standing' is because it is viewed as an honor to serve in this way, and the bread is an offering (πρόσφορον, prosphoron) at the altar (cf. Matthew 5:23-24 and note that the Orthodox refer to the bread with the same Greek term used in this passage).

In What Jurisdictions Does This Practice Occur?

This practice is used virtually unanimously in all Eastern Orthodox churches, with the notable exception of the Oriental Orthodox Armenian Apostolic Church. As I've pointed out elsewhere,

  Concerning Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christians, the
  difference is that the latter accept only the first three ecumenical
  councils (Nicaea I, Ephesus I & Chalcedon), while the former accept
  seven ecumenical councils. There are some Eastern Orthodox Christians
  who consider the controversy between Oriental Orthodox and themselves
  to be primarily semantic (and some dialogue has been made in the 20th
  century to reunite the churches, but full communion has not yet been
  restored), but officially they are not considered to be 'Orthodox'
  (despite their use of the title) as they were condemned as heretical
  for rejecting the fourth ecumenical council (Chalcedon).

Conclusion

I've explained the historical emergence of the Eastern Orthodox practices mentioned in the question (they are the earliest known practice in the Christian Church), and I've addressed some of the faulty underlying assumptions in the question as well.

1  Joseph A. Jungmann, The Mass Of The Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development, vol. 2. (Dublin, Ireland: Four Courts Press, 1986), 34.

2 cf. Jonathan Klawans, "Was Jesus’ Last Supper a Seder?" In Biblical Archaeology Review, Oct 2001, 24-33, 47.

3George Galavaris, "Bread and the Liturgy: The Symbolism of Early Christian and Byzantine Bread Stamps". In Speculum Vol. 46, No. 1 (Jan, 1971), 154. DOI link.

4 cf. Luke 24:35; Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7, 11; 27:35.

5 William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 546-7. It is also noted that the use of this verb with the referent ἄρτος (bread) does not refer to cultic practices with any certainty (i.e. Eucharist/Communion/Mystical Supper or other cultic meals).


According to the Catholic Church, in Luke 10:19 what kind of authority & power Jesus had given the Apostles & Disciples?

The Catholic Haydock Commentary says on Lk. 10:19:

  Ver. 19. Given you power, &c. By these words our Saviour seems to insinuate, that the venom of serpents, and the other noxious qualities of some animals, proceed from the malice of the devil. These are the arms and the instruments he makes use of to kill us, being the prince of death and a murderer from the beginning, as the Scripture styles him. The Jews attributed sickness, poisons, and every thing of the same kind to evil spirits.

cf. also what St. Thomas Aquinas collected, in his Catena Aurea, from the Fathers on this verse


What does the LDS Church teach about Jesus being married, having children, and His position on polygamy?

Both @MaskedPlant and @Matt spelled out how the Journal of Discourses is viewed.

I will add this; the only thing I have ever heard was during the whole "The Da Vinci Code" hoopla. And that was that the LDS church had no official opinion and that it neither endorsed or found fault with the ideas presented in that book. (Namely of course that Christ was married and had children).

So the LDS church has no official teachings on the topic, but if it were to come to light that Christ was in fact married (or even had kids!), the LDS church would have no issue with that information.

Edit:
I found the official statement made by the church on this subject from 2006:

  "The belief that Christ was married has never been official Church doctrine. It is neither sanctioned nor taught by the Church. While it is true that a few Church leaders in the mid-1800s expressed their opinions on the matter, it was not then, and is not now, Church doctrine."

Link to the news article right here.

I believe that definitively answers your question and the issue of the Journal of Discourses.


Are there any scholars or doctrinal schools that address the conspicuous dearth of needy people in Jesus' sayings and stories?

The question as posed contains an implicit assumption that needs to be challenged -- or at least teased out into the open. It is this: that numerical represention of character types in Jesus' parables ought to reflect the proportion of attention Jesus gave to them outside the parables.

This is important for the the particular case of "wealthy vs. poor" characters in the parables, since parables "about" the wealthy typically warn against wealth, and so fall into line with what one sees elsewhere in the gospels concerning Jesus and poverty. In other words, it is not sufficient to do the counts/tabulations: one must take into account the intention of the parable itself. This point grows out of a relevant study by Stephen Wright, "Parables on Poverty and Riches", in The Challenge of Jesus' Parables, ed. by R.N. Longenecker (Eerdmans, 2000), pp. 217-239.

It should further be noted that with one solitary exception (as far as I know), the characters in Jesus parables do not appear as "individuals", but as representative types: this kind of farmer, that kind of despot, Joe Samaritan, etc. Again, this has signficance for OP's interests. W.R. Herzog makes this observation and draws out some of its significance in his Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed (Westminster/John Knox, 1994):

  To make sense of the parts, one must have some conception of the systematic whole. It does little good to recreate life in a peasant village unless one understands how the peasant village fit [sic] into the larger social, political, and economic scheme of things. ... These encounters [between peasants in the parables] are interpreted through "typificatory schemes"... Because the parables are full of typifications, their seemingly unique scenes and individual characters actually imply a social construction of reality in which people interact in typical ways. Even the characters found in the parables are not individuals but socially recognizable types who stand for larger social groups. (pp. 53-54)

The chapter that follows in Herzog's book explores and develops that wider social network.

In addition, assessing the balance of wealthy/poor characters in Jesus' parables should also take into account these two factors:

Of the thirty-seven parables in the gospels, I reckon about a third, maybe more, involve characters that are poor, maybe a slightly higher proportion if those "parables" that involve no human protagonists are excluded. So at least they're not absent. Here, too, as Herzog's observation suggests, recognition of characters embedded within the whole social scale is to be expected, not the isolation of any particular group. Thus we have both employers (wealthy) and day workers (poor) (Matthew 20:1-16), a rich man and a beggar (Luke 16:19-31 -- which is the case of the one "named" character in the parables), etc.
In many rural parts of the majority world today, subsistence farming is a way of life, much as it would have been for many of Jesus' listeners. What we sometimes fail to appreciate is that there are degrees of destitution. Some of the figures in the parables are hard to classify in these gradations of poverty. Given this social setting, Jesus' hearers from a broad range along the poverty/wealth scale of the time would have been able to recognize themselves in his stories -- even though they themselves might not have been "wealthy" by any measure we would recognize.

This all fits into the wider biblical witness. A certain distrust of wealth on the one hand, and God's "option for the poor"1 on the other, runs through the Christian Bible -- Old and New Testaments alike. The challenging presence of the theme inspired the early monastic movement, with its embrace of "poverty, chastity, obedience", so it is no new idea for the Christian church.

For that broader context, an Old Testament perspective is provided by a recent book by David Baker, Tight Fists Or Open Hands?: Wealth and Poverty in Old Testament Law (Eerdmans, 2009). The study by Ronald J. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger (IVP, 1977; later edition Nelson, 2005) has had prolonged influence, and brings the story into the New Testament.2

But the literature on this is, in fact, vast, and runs pretty much throughout the two millennia of the church's existence.3

Notes

As it has come to be known in some circles, associated especially with liberation theology and Gustavo Gutiérrez, although used much more widely now.
Original sub-title: "A Biblical Study", but in the latest edition: "Moving from Affluence to Generosity".
See also the literature cited in the Q&A on poverty in Luke's gospel.


Can knowledge obtained in a seminarian's confession be used to determine if he should be ordained?

No.
Can. 984 §2 answers your question:

Can.  983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner [e.g., by signs] and for any reason.
Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.§2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.
Can.  985 The director of novices and his associate and the rector of a seminary or other institute of education are not to hear the sacramental confessions of their students residing in the same house unless the students freely request it in particular cases.

(Also, Can.  983 §1 and Can. 984 §1 forbids using knowledge to betray or defame the penitent. Confessors actually can reveal good things about the penitent obtained in confession; cf. the example of St. Catherine of Siena's confessor, Bl. Raymond of Capua, O.P..)
Canonist Dom Augustine explains:

It is the use of sacramental knowledge that is forbidden. Thus a superior, whose knowledge is based solely on confession, cannot make use of it for purposes of external government; for instance, he cannot remove a minor official from office; he cannot remove a pastor who accused himself of a sin which would render him unfit for continuing as pastor; he cannot forbid him the sacraments, if publicly approached, even at the risk of sacrilege; he is not allowed to treat him unkindly or to withdraw from him his confidence or a post of trust; he may not change a previous arrangement after hearing confession, even though this arrangement had not yet been made public.
If a superior has reliable knowledge obtained outside the confessional, he may, of course, make use of it, provided that this extra-sacramental knowledge is the motive of his action. If this were not the case, the superior could not, for instance, remove a priest from the office of confessor for occult crimes known to him outside of confession.

Seminaries and religious institutes often have unwritten rules that if a seminarian or novice cannot break the habit of mortal sin (e.g., against the 6th commandment) for a period of more than, say, one year, then the seminarian or novice should not continue and is most likely not called to the priesthood or religious life. Such a rule really cannot be enforced unless the sin is public, so the rule exists more for the sake of the seminarians and novices.
For example, Benedict Ashley, O.P., writes in his autobiography ch. 13:

In my years as a confessor of seminarians our practice was to tell a brother who confessed masturbation that if he had not been free from this sin for a year before taking final vows, he should leave the Order. In general I know that during their eight student years, when hormones must have been at their most raging, almost all seminarians achieved this absolute chastity and indeed the great majority practiced it from the time of their simple vows.

A traditional seminary expelled a seminarian for being "offensively effeminate". Clearly, that knowledge was public and not obtained in confession.


David and Milkom wore a 75 lb crown, wouldn't that have snapped their necks?

First, lets tone down the rhetoric. 75 pounds won't snap anybody's neck — unless of course it is in motion, in which case 75 grams would work too. I've personally had occasion to lift a lot more than that with my head and the neck (even un-excersised) is a pretty strong bit of muscle. In fact in much of the world carrying heavy loads is something you do with your head.

In other words no, managing a crown that heavy would not even have been particularly difficult, much less dangerous. I probably wouldn't have wanted to wear one all day, but for special occasions it is quite a reasonable possibility. Body mechanics allow for it being quite possible.

Second, the weight of a talant was different at different times in history and in different countries. This suggests in this time and place it was probably a bit lighter than your estimate:

  More recent research suggests the “light” standard talent was 67.3 lbs. (30.6 kg). (NET Bible notes)

Admittedly this is more substantial than the 4.9lbs of St Edward’s Crown used in modern English crownings, but kings of old were more known for their strength in battle than modern queens are for their choice in fashion.

Searching for weights of historic crows is proving a bit harder. Their value is always calculated but not always their weight. Jewels are often more the point than the raw metal involved. 60 some pounds of metal does seem a bit unwieldy, but if you're using it only for very special occasions and sitting straight as a ramrod in your throne for show anyway, then I could see it giving the right ambiance.


What was it like in the Temple at the time of Jesus?

From a web page titled "The Synagogue":

Generally, any Jewish male could lead a prayer or read and translate Scripture. Every service began with specific readings that had been prescribed by the scribes and rabbis. Most commonly read was the shema (“hear”) passage (Deut. 6:4-9). Nearly every service gave much attention to reading sections from the Law, the Prophets, and especially the Psalms. The congregation would stand as Scripture was read (cf. Neh. 8:1-8), and the reader was forbidden to take his eyes off the scroll in order to ensure that the word of God was communicated accurately (cf. Luke 4:16-20). Following a reading, a male in the synagogue (usually prepared in advance) would seek to apply the Scripture to life in the form of a brief sermon. Visiting rabbis were frequently asked to bring sermons to local synagogues (see Acts 13:15ff.).
In addition to a worship location, the synagogue also served other functions in a community. It was a school for training Jewish children in the Laws and ways of the Lord. It was not uncommon in the first century to find young children hard at work in synagogues memorizing the Torah, or Law of Moses. The synagogue also served as something of a community center for festivals, times of mourning and fasting, and as a center for feeding strangers and the poor. Sometimes the synagogue functioned as a court of law in which important questions regarding God’s law were decided. People could be banned from the synagogue (Jn. 9:22; 12:42), and sometimes corporal punishment (administered by the hazzan) could be applied for rebellion against the authorities — usually 39 lashes to honor God’s commandment (cf. Deut. 25:3).

I don't know, but Jesus and his Jewish apostles could have preached during the sermon time.  Or, they could have spoken while people were gathered for school or community activities.


How do those who believe that Jesus is a created being understand the verses which say everything that was created was created by him?

Warning: These are not my own beliefs, but I also don’t believe in straw-manning so this is only my best attempt to describe in their strongest form, what I might believe if were an Arian.

I think the argument could be made that Arianism and semi-Arianism try to grapple with just these texts. Taking their cue from Colossians 1:15, Arians and semi-Arians both deny Christ is homoousios with the Father - they reject the idea that he is the exact same, un-created substance and instead argue he is the uniquely first among created things. In the Profession of Faith of Arius Arians confess this about Jesus:

  He who has begotten the only-begotten Son before aeonian times (χρόνων αἰωνίων), through whom also he made the aeons and everything, who produced him not in appearance but in truth, giving him existence (ὑποστήσαντα) by his own will, unchangeable and unalterable (ἄτρεπτόν τε καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον), a perfect creature (κτίσμα) of God, but not like one of the creatures, a product (γέννημα), but not like one of the things produced (γεγεννημένων)...

Four relevant observations can be made from this: (1) Jesus is begotten before the creation of everything else, (2) in fact before time itself, (3) it is through him that God made time and everything, and (4) although a creature Jesus' creation is not like one of the other creatures, and although a product he is not like any other thing produced.

According to Arius then, Jesus is a sort of 'third thing' unlike the un-created Father, but unlike anything else created in time including time itself. Here is how they might interpret the verses you cite:

John 1:3 Your translation uses the word "become" which makes this verse a slam dunk for an Arian. Becoming involves change or creation in time. While Jesus was created, he was done so in a uniquely nontemporal way. Therefore, Jesus is not something which became, but existing prior to what has become, he can - without difficulty - be involved in the creation of all of it. Even with a different English translation, the greek word ginomai can by an Arian always be translated to involve the creation of things in time.

Romans 11:36 This verse doesn't, on first observation seem to refer to Jesus specifically, the him being a reference to verse 33's use of theos. So I don't think an Arian would be easily forced to thing of this as a reference to Jesus. Although perhaps it is a cross-reference to point out Jesus is referred to in other passages in the exact same way God is being referred to here. Still, an Arian can say this is about God and that similar passages can also be about Jesus since according the the Arian profession of faith:

  ...the Father gave him the inheritance of everything...

Colossians 1:15-16 It has already been pointed out that this passages seems to support the unique creation of the Son. It is then a matter of reading from the text to feel inclined to interpret verse 16 as including the (uniquely created) Son in the creation of all other things. The exception seems to be demanded by verse 15.

An even stronger explanation for these passages can be fielded by the semi-Arians such as are represented by the 359 Creed of Nike - many believe Sir Isaac Newton was a semi-Arian. They were homoiousians meaning they rejected both the Arian claim that Jesus was unlike the essence of the Father and the Orthodox (homoousios) view that Jesus and the Father are of the exact same essence. The Creed of Nike can affirm belief

  ...in one only-begotten Son of God who before all ages and before all beginning and before all conceivable time and before all comprehensible substance (οὐσίας) was begotten impassibly from God through whom the ages were set up and all things came into existence, begotten as only-begotten, sole from the sole Father, like to the Father who begot him, according to the Scriptures, whose generation nobody understands except the Father who begot him.

Semi-Arians believe Jesus was of 'like' not the 'same' substance as the Father. Here Christ is described as being created impassibly. Impassibility is a term used only of God an comes from negative theology which tends to emphasize God's inability to change or be change, be created or 'caused' in any sense to become. This tells us something about the way Jesus was made uniquely different from the creation of anything else, and at the same time tells us "nobody understands except the Father". This clarifying that Jesus' creation was 'creation' in a sense we are not capable of understanding means that it is only natural to include exceptions for Jesus when dealing with the creation of things we refer to as being 'created'.

In the end, Jesus' being created before time, in a way different from all the rest of created things, allows an Arian to involve him in the creation of "all things" because "all things" shouldn't include Jesus.


Was the book of Enoch once part of the holy scriptures?

Its very likely that it was. Our modern version is questionable though.

The modern version of Enoch that we have came from Ethiopia. In translation it may be a copy of a copy, although the Ethiopian church says the whole thing actually originated in the Ethiopian language:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch

  The traditional belief of the Ethiopic Orthodox Church, which sees 1
  Enoch as an inspired document, is that the Ethiopic text is the
  original one, written by Enoch himself. They believe that the
  following opening sentence of Enoch is the first and oldest sentence
  written in any human language, since Enoch was the first to write
  letters:

  "ቃለ፡ በረከት፡ ዘሄኖክ፡ ዘከመ፡ ባረከ፡ ኅሩያነ፡ ወጻድቃነ፡ እለ፡ ሀለዉ፡ ይኩኑ"
  "በዕለተ፡ ምንዳቤ፡ ለአሰስሎ፡ ኵሉ፡ እኩያን፡ ወረሲዓን።"
  "Qāla barakat za-Hēnōk za-kama bāraka ḫərūyāna wa-ṣādəqāna 'əlla hallawu yəkūnū ba-ʿəlata məndābē la-'asassəlō kʷəllū 'əkūyān
  wa-rasīʿān"

  "Word of blessing of Henok, wherewith he blessed the chosen and righteous  who would be alive in the day of tribulation for the removal
  of all wrongdoers and backsliders."

Doctrinally its hard to match to the scriptures, but again this could be the result of translating a work from one language that was translated from yet another language.

There is also the question of insertions. For instance the book flows fairly well, but then a deviation is made to a strange story about Noah which differs in both delivery and believability. There are a few like this.

Enoch is a very advanced book, far beyond Revelation, layers deep in prophesy. Its quite hard to approach without questioning modern understanding of scripture, so it must be approached carefully.


Do Mormons believe that black skin originated as a curse by God?

To answer question 1, "Is it a belief of the Mormon church that a curse from God is the initial origin of all dark skin among humankind today?", we have, from lds.org:

  Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

Or, more concisely, no, that is not an accepted belief of the LDS Church.

Question 2 seems to be based on a "yes" to question 1, so I don't have a good answer; it does appear that a "skin of blackness" was placed on the cursed Lamanites to make them less appealing, as you quote from the Book of Mormon, but that was a localized instance, rather than something generalizable to all people with darker skin.


When did the Early Church begin and end their twice weekly fasts?

The Wikipedia article on the Didache states (under the heading 'Fasting'), the following :

  Chapter 8 suggests that fasts are not to be on Monday and Thursday "with the hypocrites" — presumably non-Christian Jews, such as the Pharisees — but on Wednesday and Friday. Fasting Wednesday and Friday plus worshiping on Sunday constituted the Christian week. Nor must Christians pray with their Judaic brethren, instead they shall say the Lord's Prayer three times a day.


Why is Jesus Christ only one person despite having two minds?

There is a complex Christological history behind this question. The common ground is that Jesus Christ is of two natures, divine and human. Christ's divine nature is uncreated and pre-existent, while his human nature is given through the Blessed Virgin Mary. This was then taken in two ways:

The theologians of Antioch in Syria emphasized the completeness of the two natures of Christ and his being fully divine and fully human, and that meant that in Christ incarnate there are two wills (or minds). This is dyophysitism. In order to be fully human, Christ needs to have a fallible human will, by which he can be tempted, otherwise tempted, fallible human beings cannot be saved through him. This is alongside Christ's perfect divine will. Nestorius, who became Patriarch of Constantinople in 428, was trained in Antiochene theology and was appalled by the popular devotion to the Virgin Mary in Constantinople by which she was addressed as Theotokos (or 'God-bearer'), believing that she should only be credited with the producing of Christ's human nature. This made Nestorius unpopular and led to accusations that he was advocating that Christ was two persons.
The other view came from the theologians of Alexandria in Egypt and was particularly expounded by Cyril of Alexandria, who became Patriarch of the city in 412. The Alexandrian view is that a person can only exist with a unified nature, and so Christ is of two natures, but, at his incarnation, these became one nature. This is monophysitism (but modern-day supporters of a moderate version of this view prefer to be called miaphysites). Thus, Christ has one will, even though that will has a fallible human part as well as a perfect divine. Cyril affirmed that the two natures were in united in Christ (a 'hypostatic union'), but others went for more extreme views. Apollinaris of Laodicea (died 390) advocated a view in which Christ's human nature is 'hollowed out', leaving a shell that is filled with his divine nature at the incarnation. And Eutyches of Constantinople (died around 456) taught the one-nature Christology so strongly that Christ's human nature was completely subsumed by his divine nature. The extreme versions of monophysitism tend towards an understanding of Christ as a kind of superman, a tertium quid who is not really wholly human anymore.

For a time, Cyril of Alexandria had the upper hand and Nestorius was exiled, but extremist one-nature Christologies needed to be rectified. The pendulum swung back, and the Council of Chalcedon (451) promulgated an essentially moderate two-nature Christology with Cyril's hypostatic union. This is the orthodox Christology of Catholics, most Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox churches.

There was, however, a strong monophysite dissent to Chalcedon, leading to centuries of attempts to find a different definition, which essentially came to nothing. One attempt at reconciliation was the seventh-century doctrine of monothelitism that taught that, whereas Christ is two natures, he has but one will. This doctrine secured official support in the East for a time, but, in the end, was condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople (680/1) for diminishing the fullness of Christ's human nature in order to reach a political compromise.

While the Christological debates do not say much about 'minds', the sense of 'will' comes closest. Christology is traditionally done working from the point of Jesus Christ being both fully human and fully divine and then navigate between the extremes of the two schools of thought. We might like to start from our experience of being human, which leads to the prevalence of new ways of expressing what are basically either adoptionist or Eutychian views, or even whatever Neo-Apollinarianism really is. An approach from human experience will also prefer an essentially monothelite response because, otherwise, we are looking at schizophrenia. The patristic approach, however, has been to ensure the fullness of the two natures, while disagreeing whether the hypostatic union makes them into one or holds them as two still. Perhaps the two approaches find common ground in some kind of Cyrillian miaphysitism that ensures the fullness of natures in perfect unity.


What's the Biblical basis for calling God by the name of Jesus in prayers?

<<>>

One specific Biblical reference comes to mind in the martyrdom of Stephen.

When Stephen lifts up his eyes to Heaven, just before he dies he prays (cries out) Acts 7:59 "While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.

But agreed, it is more the common practice of the Church through the ages (and the Biblical norm) to pray to the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit.

(I come from a Presbyterian background (Westminster Confession of Faith)


What is the basis for translating the serpent in Gen. 3 as a being of light?

The Hebrew word שְׂרָפִים śərāfîm / Latin seraphim means "burning ones", it is used to sometimes imply fiery serpents (likely because of the burning sensation their bite cause) (Num.21:4-9; Deut.8:15) and also to describe the angelic creations around God's throne (Isaiah 6:1-8).

However, the Hebrew word  נחש, nakhásh is used in Genesis 3 for serpent, so it is more literal in meaning. I'm not aware of any passage in Genesis that refers to a "shining one".

I can see how the connection/ confusion to a "shining one" is made. But I do not think it is mainstream or well justified from the Bible to question that Eve talked to a literal serpent.

Regardless, we know that the creature behind the mask is Satan.

  Revelation 12:9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.


Do you have to have a certain amount of intelligence to get into heaven?

No intelligence is required.

The Bible assures us that even a fool won't go astray on the Way.

  Isaiah 35:8 (ESV)
  And a highway shall be there,
      and it shall be called the Way of Holiness;
  the unclean shall not pass over it.
      It shall belong to those who walk on the way;
      even if they are fools, they shall not go astray.

What is this Way, then?

  John 14:6 (ESV)
  Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

So even a fool following Jesus will be saved.

Jesus also states that the kingdom of God belongs to those such as children. Now, children can be intelligent at times, but certainly this doesn't sound like there's an intelligence requirement.

  Mark 10:14 (ESV)
  But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, "Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.


What does Colossians 2:11 mean in light of Evangelical Protestant Soteriology?

Colossians 2:11 (and following) does not teach that the Christian's salvation results automatically in the inability to sin. The old nature, as Paul defines it, was dealt a death blow at the cross of Christ, but we as Christ followers need to put it to death regularly. That is why Jesus told his followers to take up their cross daily and follow him.

In Colossians, as elsewhere in Paul's writings, Paul distinguishes between our standing in Christ, on the one hand, which is once and for all, and our state in Christ, on the other hand, which varies from day to day and sometimes even from minute to minute! Sinless perfection is not possible, and Paul does not suggest it is.

A proper understanding of the phrase "the circumcision of Christ" is crucial in this regard. Verse 12 tells us clearly that Christ's circumcision is a kind of death. At conversion, when Christians embrace Christ's death on their behalf for the forgiveness of sins, metaphorically they too die. Paul calls it being "buried with Him in baptism."

Burial, of course, signifies separation of the spirit from the body through death. That separation for Christ happened literally at the cross. When he had made full atonement for the sins of the world and said "It is finished," he then committed his spirit into the hands of his Father and died (Luke 23:46).

For his followers, however, that separation--though not the separation of spirit from body--happens figuratively. The figure Paul uses here is that of circumcision. It is, as Paul puts it,

  ". . . a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ" (v.11).
  We Christians.

As for our spiritual standing before a holy God, we in Christ have been made complete (v.10). In 2 Corinthians chapter 5, Paul expresses this thought differently by saying that we in Christ "have become the righteousness of God" (v.21). We cannot get any better than that, positionally.

As for our spiritual state before a holy God, our challenge as Christians is to "reckon" ourselves to be dead unto sin.

  . . . reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 6:11).

This reckoning ourselves (or considering ourselves) dead to sin is perhaps the most challenging aspect of discipleship. Had God, upon our conversion, made sinning impossible, then how could our obedience to Christ ever be a conscious act of love? It would not.

After conversion, as before conversion, God gives us the ability to make decisions and to choose good or evil. The battle of "the body of flesh" versus the regenerated spirit is a life-long struggle, as Paul found out the hard way (see Romans 7:14 ff.). Without this lifelong struggle, we could not possibly grow in Christ Jesus, nor would our sanctified lives bring glory to God if there was not even the potential to sin.

Sinless perfection, therefore, is but a pipe dream and is unachievable this side of heaven. Progressive and lifelong sanctification, that gradual process of growing in Christ and bearing fruit which remains (see John 15) is made possible through a daily, intimate relationship with God whereby we decide to "let go and let God" (as those who are struggling to recover from addiction like to say). This letting-go process is the only way God is then free to do in our lives what he needs to do.

Yes, we are to "work out our own salvation," but always in concert and in cooperation with
God, realizing that

  . . . God is at work in us to will and to do his good pleasure (Philippians 2:13).

In conclusion, the separation of our souls from sin involves a figurative circumcision. Just as a literal circumcision removes a part of a man's anatomy from him while the rest of the body lives, so also does the figurative circumcision made "without hands" underscore the importance of living separated lives, separated from the body of flesh (or simply "the flesh"--in Greek, sarx), but alive unto God through daily crucifixion and resurrection to newness of life.


Was there a sacrifice in the Old Testament for intentional sins?

The Old Testament is clear that only unintentional sins can be atoned for:

  One and the same law applies to everyone who sins unintentionally, whether a native- born Israelite or a foreigner residing among you.
   “‘But anyone who sins defiantly, whether native- born or foreigner, blasphemes the Lord and must be cut off from the people of Israel. (Numbers 15:29-30, NIV)

The idea of 'intentional' is better understood as 'defiant' or 'high handed'. Unintentional therefore includes many sins committed due to want of knowledge, through weakness, or where the offender did not really understand his guilt. Intentional sin, is not that you were consciously aware of sinning, like when King David committed adultery, rather it is more of a public defiance against the covenant, like the man stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Num 15:32), just after God had declared that the whole camp should not work on the Sabbath.  This open rebellion during the establishment of the ceremony was like a spirit of mutiny on a ship at sea. This is what 'intentional' means in this context.

The punishment of 'cut off' is understood differently by various ancient and modern commentators. However as many 'high handed' sins were punishable by death, the term should not be confused with excommunication as some sins incurred but as in literally being put to death. Naturally their is no atonement for that.

In the New Testament this 'cutting off'' is referred to in three ways.

First as 'intentional sin' is actually open unrepentant rebellion to God. This has a corresponding reality in blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Heb 6:4).

  And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matthew 12:31-32, NIV)

Second in showing when people commit great sins that seem like blasphemy but are not due to 'ignorance', such as Peter's sermon in Acts which implied many Jews killed Christ 'in ignorance' (Acts 3:17). Peter is saying, 'Even though it seems that you have 'intentionally' sinned when killing Christ, many of you did not actually blaspheme the Holy Spirit because you did it in 'ignorance', so I offer you today atonement even for that sin through Christ.'

Third, for sins where capital punishment was the penalty but not necessarily implying a 'high handed' full rebellion from the covenant, the New Testament provides an atoning sacrifice in Christ, including murder, adultery, etc.   Therefore being put to death for sin in the Old Testament is not to imply that each offender could not be forgiven by faith, just not forgiven by Mosaic Law.

  Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses. (Acts 13:39, NIV)


How much are psalms and other prayers from Bible understood as actual prayer in Protestantism?

This may not be completely answerable in a way that applies to all Protestants, but I'm going to put forth an answer that I believe will apply to a large swath of protestant belief.

The generally accepted Protestant understanding of what prayer is can be found at http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/10-prayer-tips-how-to-talk-to-god/

  Prayer is simply having a conversation with God. There are many
  different thoughts on what you should and shouldn’t say when you pray.
  There is merit to many of these ideas. But try to make your prayer
  life a simple conversation with your Heavenly Father.

In that sense, prayer is not simply reciting words by memory.  That's not a conversation.  Prayer is not repeating words that others have said.  There are many types of prayer recognized by Protestants:

Prayers of thanks
Prayers of repentance
Prayers of confession and asking for forgiveness
Petitions (asking God for something)
Prayers of praise.

In this sense, we recognize that the Psalms and other recorded prayers in the Bible were prayers of the psalmists, or of those that are recorded as speaking them.  They are to us a pattern to emulate rather than something to simply be memorized and repeated.

Normally I wouldn't use personal items as part of an answer, but this does illustrate the point, so please forgive me if this strays into the "not a well supported answer territory"...

That said, when talking to people about the definition of repentance, and praying for salvation, in many protestant Churches, we condone a form of recited prayer - we call it the sinner's prayer, and scores of well-meaning Christians when witnessing simply ask the potential convert to repeat a prayer after them, something like "Oh, Lord, I'm a sinner.  I realize I'm lost and can't save myself.  Please forgive me, come into my heart, and save me", and we call that a prayer.

In a sense, that sinner's prayer is no more a prayer than simply repeating a psalm, and I, personally, like to point instead to psalm 51, and say something like, "Look a this.  this is the prayer of someone who knows they're lost, and is truly repentant. Look at how David is begging to be cleansed..." and use it as a pattern for true prayer of repentance.

end of delving into the personal belief portion of the answer

The point of the above journey into not constructive territory is that Protestants, to answer your question, view such prayers as examples - as patterns, but would not see simply rote repetition of the prayers as prayer in and of itself.  We would see mere repetition of established prayers as meaningless. To us, it misses the point of a personal relationship with God, because repeating words written by others isn't having a conversation with Him.

Perhaps this article sums it up better, but still says basically the same thing:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_protestants_pray

  How do protestants pray?

  Answer:

  Protestants may pray in silence , in groups or outloud. However , they
  do not like using formula prayers , and they do not pray to Mary or to
  saints.


According to this article the discrepancy is most likely a simple copyist error of a single letter causing confusion.  David killed Goliath, and Elhannan killed Goliath's brother. 1 Chronicles 20:5 (which repeats this verse) says:

  5 And there was again war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

There are no serious biblical inerrantists (and I do not consider myself an inerrantist at all) that say that there are no copy errors in the bible. Inerrancy is only ascribed to the original manuscripts. A quick reading of a good apparatus will reveal this to be a common (and minor) copy error, as understood even by an inerrantist.


The Biblical God and the Kalam Cosmological Argument

That version of the Cosmological Argument simply points to the universe having a cause.  The Christian response would be that the cause is God.  Science confirms that the universe must have had a beginning.  The Christian view is that something that does not need to be given existence must exist to give everything else existence.  That something is God.  God does not need to be given existence because God is the cause who exists to give everything else existence.

I found this version of the Cosmological Argument (36 Arguments for the Existence of God by Rebecca Goldstein, published in 2010 by Pantheon Books, a division of Random House Inc.) which defines it this way:

1 – Everything that exists must have a cause

2 – The universe must have a cause (from 1)

3 – Nothing can be the cause of itself

4 – The universe cannot be the cause of itself (from 3)

5 – Something outside the universe must have caused the universe (from 2 and 4)

6 – God is the only thing that is outside of the universe

7 – God caused the universe (from 5 and 6)

8 – God exists

Not only did the universe have to have a first cause to get started, it needs something to give it existence right now. The only thing that would not have to be given existence is a thing that exists as its very nature. It is existence. This something would always exist, have no cause, have no beginning, have no limit, be outside of time, and be infinite. That something is God!

This article explains it far better than I ever could: What is the Cosmological argument for the existence of God?


From a Catholic perspective, why does Wisdom merely "infer" the things to come?

Undoubtedly we can say that Jesus' divine nature is omniscient, but your confusion could result from identifying Wisdom too closely with Jesus. In Luke 11:31-35, Jesus speaks of John the Baptist, himself and then Wisdom, but only in the third person and such terms that it would be difficult for us to think of her as his divine nature:

  Luke 11:31-35: "Then to what shall I compare the people of this generation? What are they like? They are like children who sit in the marketplace and call to one another, 'We played the flute for you, but you did not dance. We sang a dirge, but you did not weep.' For John the Baptist came neither eating food nor drinking wine, and you said, 'He is possessed by a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking and you said, 'Look, he is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.' But wisdom is vindicated by all her children."

Jesus again refers to Wisdom in Luke 11:49, and again as if she is a distinct entity:

  Luke 11:49: Therefore, the wisdom of God said, 'I will send to them prophets and apostles; some of them they will kill and persecute'

We know that Jesus is equated with the Logos (Word) in John's Gospel. Burton L. Mack says in Who Wrote the New Testament, page 264, that according to Philo, a Jew of the Alexandrian diaspora, Logos was God's son, through whom the world was created as a rational and ordered universe.  Philo taught that the Logos was born of mother Wisdom and, appearing in the world,  was the agent through whom the great leaders of Israel learned what God expected of them.

Based on the evidence of Philo and Luke, among others, it is not inconceivable that Jesus is omniscient whereas Wisdom was not, and only judges or infers things to come (Wisdom 8:8).

A further discussion on Wisdom is also provided by the Catholic Encyclopedia, which says (among other things) of Wisdom:

  In direct relation to God, Wisdom is personified, and her nature, attributes, and operation are no less than Divine. She is with God from eternity, the partner of His throne, and the sharer of His thoughts.