How is 1 Corinthians 9:27 reconciled with the teaching that losing salvation is impossible?

It's clear from your question that you are assuming "the prize" to be salvation, and that you believe that this verse speaks of our works earning our salvation, or at least our bad works possibly leading to the loss of our salvation.

However, to most reformed theologians, this is not the case. A deeper study of the original Greek, as well as application of sound principles of interpretation clears this up.

First, the principles of Biblical interpretation include the fact that Scripture cannot contradict itself. Paul is on record all throughout the New Testament as stating that salvation is by faith through grace, apart from any works or worthiness of man. It would make no sense for him to be saying so here, so we need to dig deeper.

Taking a look at the various commentaries on this verse, most are in agreement that the prize is not salvation.   For example:

From Scofield Reference Notes

  1 castaway

  Gr. adokimos, "disapproved." Dokimos, without the private a, is
  translated "approved" in Rom 14:18 16:10 1Cor 11:19 2Cor 10:18 2Tim
  2:15 Jas 1:12, by the word "tried." The prefix simply changes the word
  to a negative, i.e. not approved, or, disapproved. The apostle is
  writing of service, not of salvation. He is not expressing fear that
  he may fail of salvation but of his crown. See "Rewards" Dan 12:3 1Cor
  3:14.

Another view from Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible hints that the prize is simply faithfulness and remaining a faithful servant so that he can achieve the ultimate prize of expanding Christ's kingdom - avoiding becoming a "useless preacher".

  I myself should be a castaway, or rejected, or disapproved of; that is,
  by men: the apostle's concern is, lest he should do anything that
  might bring a reproach on the Gospel; lest some corruption of his
  nature or other should break out, and thereby his ministry be justly
  blamed, and be brought under contempt; and so he be rejected and
  disapproved of by men, and become useless as a preacher: not that he
  feared he should become a reprobate, as the word is opposed to an
  elect person; or that he should be a castaway eternally, or be
  everlastingly damned; for he knew in whom he had believed, and was
  persuaded of his interest in the love of God, and that he was a chosen
  vessel of salvation, that could not be eternally lost: though
  supposing that this is his sense, and these his fears and concern, it
  follows not as neither that he was, so neither that he could be a lost
  and damned person: the fears of the saints, their godly jealousies of
  themselves, and pious care that they be not lost, are not at all
  inconsistent with the firmness of their election, their security in
  Christ, and the impossibility of their final and total falling away;
  but on the contrary are overruled, and made use of by the Spirit of
  God, for their final perseverance in grace and holiness.

Calvin put the same thought this way:

  Accordingly, I strive to conduct myself in such a manner, that my
  character and conduct may not be inconsistent with my doctrine, and
  that thus I may not, with great disgrace to myself, and a grievous
  occasion of offense to my brethren, neglect those things which I
  require from others.

Finally, if you're interested, there's no shortage of commentaries from the great thinkers here: http://www.preceptaustin.org/1_corinthians_927_commentary.htm


Is there any historical evidence for the practice of "foot washing" during the first centuries of Christianity?

From the Anabaptist network comes the following:

Tertullian (145-220) of North Africa in his De Corona is the first Church Father to indicate that footwashing was practiced in his time, but he gives no clue as to by whom or how. Ambrose of Milan (340-97) states that it was not the practice of the Roman Church, but endorses it as a symbol of sanctification. Augustine mentions it as being rejected by some. Knight (p. 816) says flatly that footwashing always remained ‘a purely local peculiarity, introduced at an early date into some parts of the Catholic Church, but never universal’. Among the monks in particular, the hospitality custom of footwashing was widely practiced, and often in the name of Christ, but not as a universal ordinance of the church. For the monks the observance was often intended to express humility. St. Benedict’s Rule (529) for the Benedictine Order prescribed hospitality footwashing in addition to a communal footwashing for humility.

R.L. Vaughn's monograph on the history of the practice of footwashing among Baptists credits John Christopher Thomas's work Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine Community for adding substantially to the body of knowledge regarding the practice of footwashing in the church. Vaughn says,

Thomas finds few very early references, though he makes a good argument on pp. 146-47 that the absence of such references is not proof that it was not practiced. He finds a possible allusion to feet washing in the Martyrdom of Polycarp , written in 156. He cites it according to the translation of C. C. Richardson in Early  Christian  Fathers  (p. 154 New York: MacMillan Press, 1970).

Thomas includes an excerpt from Richardson's translation of Martyrdom:

“And  when  the  funeral  pile  was  ready,  Polycarp,  laying  aside  all  his  garments,  and loosing his girdle, sought also to take off his sandals,--a thing he was not accustomed to do, inasmuch as every one of the faithful was always eager who should first touch his skin.” – 13:2 (Roberts-Donaldson Translation) http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/martyrdo
mpolycarp-roberts.html.

Thomas continues,

This  above  is  definitely  not  a  clear  reference.  Thomas  points  to  the  possibility  of  an allusion  to  feetwashing  based  on  the description  of laying  aside  of  garments,  the mention  of  not  removing  the  shoes  in  relation  to  touching  his  skin,  that apsetai
(translated  touch)  in  some  contexts  means  to  wash, and  tradition  of  Polycarp's connection with the Apostle John.

Thomas (passim) then quotes extensively from The  Mennonite  Encyclopedia,  Vol.  2,  Bender,  Gingerich,  Krahn, Smith, editors, Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing
House, 1956, p. 348, and in short, cites the following church fathers and Post-Nicene writers who in their various writings at least mention the practice of footwashing in the Christian church:

Turtullian (155-230)

Origen (203-250)

Ambrose (340-397)

St. John Chyrsostom (347-407)

Augustine (354-430)

John Cassian (360-435)

Pachomias (writing in ca. 404)

Casesarius of Arles (ca. 470-542)

In conclusion, while footwashing is mentioned as being in existence from the time of the apostles, on, including Paul's reference to widows who washed the saints' feet (1 Timothy 5:10), the exact nature and practice of footwashing in both social and eccelsiastical settings is imprecise at best.
Nevertheless, footwashing in an ecclesiastical setting was practiced (and still is) by such Christian groups as the Anabaptists and later the Menonnites. Other Christian denominations to this very day may engage in footwashing from time to time, not as an ordinance but as a demonstration of humility and servant-leadership.
My own local congregation within the C & M A denomination enacts the footwashing paradigm periodically, especially when new elders are installed as church leaders and under-shepherds. This meaningful ritual signifies that true elders have the privilege of serving their fellow parishioners humbly, much as the Lord himself who "came not to be served, but to serve." The primary difference in their humility: only the Lord Jesus was worthy to give "his life as a ransom for [the sins of] many."


Did Tertullian forbid Christians from being school teachers?

Prohibition on teaching
Tertullian does indeed forbid Christians from pursuing the profession of a school teacher, in De Idololatria, Chapter 10:

Undoubtedly Christians are not allowed to be schoolmasters or teachers since such men are involved in a variety of idolatrous practices.

He saw the profession of his time and culture to be intimately connected with idolatry, in two main ways, the first being that the pagan gods were an essential subject:

they have to make known the gods, their names, genealogies, etc. which, of course, contributes to idolatry

He goes so far as to call the teacher "a catechist of the idols," as in his teaching "he confirms the preaching of the heathen gods contained in literature; he calls them 'gods', which the Bible forbids."
The second objection Tertullian has to Christians working as teachers is that they are forced to participate in pagan festivals

they have to observe the heathen festivals for the sake of their incomes

Apparently it was financially necessary for teachers to participate in the Quinquatria, a festival to Minerva, because there not only did they supplement their regular incomes with tips, they also attracted new pupils.  And in order to participate in it, they needed to carry a "tablet with the names of the seven idols" (that is, the seven planets).
Not only this, says Tertullian, but some income had to be dedicated to pagan gods, and in honor of another, the school had to be decorated: "the whole pomp of the devil has to be assisted by [the teacher]."
So we see that, to Tertullian, the profession of teaching was so intimately connected with idolatry that he saw no way for a teacher to avoid sinning.  But, as we'll see shortly, he saw great value in education generally, so this prohibition ultimately rests in the sinful activities associated with the profession, not the profession itself.
Studying under a teacher
Tertullian summarizes the natural objection to his view on the teaching profession as follows:

One may object: 'If teaching is not allowed to a Christian, then learning is not so either. This means denying him admittance not only to human education but also to the studia divina'

Tertullian's appreciation for education is evident in his response, in which he argues that "a Christian may go to school":

We must, indeed, admit that a Christian cannot do without literary instruction

So what's the difference, then between being a teacher and being a pupil?  Tertullian explains:

If a Christian teaches, he confirms the preaching of the heathen [...] As a pupil, however, a Christian will behave like the man who receives a cup with poisoned contents from somebody not aware of this fact; he will accept it, but not drink from it.

Summary
Tertullian clearly saw the importance of literary instruction, and affirmed the importance of Christians studying, even under those who teach false things.  However, the close association between the teaching of his day and the honoring and promotion of false gods led him to regard the teaching profession as unsuitable for Christians.

Quotes come from Waszink and Winden's critical edition of De Idololatria, 179ff., which also includes helpful context for Tertullian's argument.  An older translation is also available in Schaff's Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 3.
The original Latin text, with critical apparatus, is available on tertullian.org.


What is the earliest mention of the Three Pillars of Catholicism?

November 18, 1965 by Pope Paul VI in Dei Verbum section 10

Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.
It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

This is later referenced with more exact wording in 1992 when Pope John Paul II released the Catholic catechism

95 "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

Partial/Incomplete references
I have found a reference to sacred scripture and divine tradition in A synopsis of the moral theology of Peter Dens: as prepared for the use of Romish Seminaries and Students of Theology published 1855

it may rightly be said that our faith rests alone on Sacred Scripture and divine tradition

In Against Heresies by Irenaeus, he says:

that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition

Irenaeus was born 130 and died 202.

All emphasis was added by me, and is not in bold on the original source


In the Catholic Church's calender, what are Solemnities, Feasts, and Memorials?

Christʼs saving work is celebrated in sacred memory by the Catholic Church on fixed
days throughout the course of the year. Through the yearly cycle the Church unfolds the entire mystery of Christ and keeps the anniversaries of the saints. Each day is made holy through the liturgical celebrations of the people of God.

As the events which are celebrated are multiple, with different degrees of importance, a ranking of celebrations has been developed:

Sunday: it's the most important because on Sunday, the Lord's Day, the Church celebrates the paschal mystery, having its origin from the day of Christʼs resurrection. Because of its special importance, the Sunday celebration gives way only to solemnities or feasts of the Lord.
Solemnities: these are the principal celebration days after Sundays. Easter and Christmas are the most known.
Feasts: a third degree. For example, saint John on the 27th of December.
Memorials: they can be either obligatory or optional. On Saturdays in Ordinary Time when there is no obligatory memorial, an optional memorial of the Blessed Virgin Mary is allowed.

Excerpt from the General Norms for the Liturgical Year and the Calendar, set by Pope Paul VI.
Note: in its article no. 59 you may find a most useful table of liturgical days.


What is home and visiting teaching in LDS tradition?

Home and visiting teaching are assignments given to church members to visit with one another, in order to uplift and strengthen each other, and to identify needs which each members may have.

The basis for this can be found in LDS scripture, Doctrine & Covenants 20:46-47:

  The priest’s duty is to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize, and administer the sacrament, and visit the house of each member, and exhort them to pray vocally and in secret and attend to all family duties.

Generally, during a home teaching visit, the home teacher will talk with the family, find out what's going in their lives, and usually share some spiritual message.

Most men in the church are given this responsibility.

The difference between home and visiting teaching is that home teaching is done by the men, and they visit with the whole family, while visiting teaching is done by the women, and they only visit with other women.


Why did the medieval church become involved with marriage?

Before the Middle Ages, the Western Christian church did not really care about marriage?

For most of Church history, matrimony had been celebrated without clergy and was done according to local customs. The first available written detailed account of a Christian wedding in the West dates only from the 9th century and appears to be identical to the old nuptial service of Ancient Rome. However, early witnesses to the practice of intervention by the clergy in the marriage of early Christians include Tertullian, who speaks of Christians "requesting marriage" from them, and Ignatius of Antioch, who said Christians should form their union with the approval of the bishop - although the absence of clergy placed no bar, and there is no suggestion that Ignatius' recommendation was widely adopted.

Over a period of centuries, the Catholic Church began to take control of the wedding and began to provide the sacrament of marriage. Taking the lead of Augustine (354-430), the Church developed the sacramental understanding of matrimony. James A. Brundage says, in Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe page 236, Gratian [the 12th-century "Father of canon law"] held that it was consummation that turned marriage into a sacrament, thereby making it indissoluble.

In time, the Church regarded a  clandestine marriage as being subject to annulment.  The  Catholic Church forbade clandestine marriage at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), which required all marriages to be announced in a church by a priest. Prior to that time, an unwitnessed exchange of marriage vows was deplored but still valid. The decree was enforced only in those regions where it could be proclaimed in the vernacular.

The Council of Trent (1545–1563) introduced more specific requirements, ruling that in the future a marriage would be valid only if witnessed by the pastor of the parish or the local ordinary (i.e., the bishop of the diocese), or by the delegate of one of said witnesses, the marriage being invalid otherwise, even if witnessed by a Catholic priest.


When did the early church begin reciting the Lord's Prayer in corporate worship?

The difficulty in answering this question is that the liturgy of the early Church was largely oral in nature, and so we contain virtually no records from the early Church itself regarding what it exactly did in its own liturgy. Contrary to the author who posted the quote you use, if we have evidence of the Lord's Prayer in use even several centuries later this is a very good sign to the tradition's ancient history (and an even better sign if the Lord's Prayer is spoken about with great reverence ). It is from the late third century (more so the early fourth century) and onward that we gather most of our knowledge about the Church in the first two centuries or so. I would also add that when first and second century Church Fathers were speaking about theological matters, it is widely assumed that the common division we now have between 'liturgy' and 'personal practice' was quite less potent. For these people church wasn't a specific place they went to to partake in a fully organized procedure; it was a way of life itself. When people met, it was an embodiment of individual holy life in communion (particularly through the partaking of the Eucharist). I think it is safe to say that for these people, their faith and theological understandings were meant to be carried out in the personal life, and thus logically and presumably in the preceding liturgical life. That being said, we can now analyze the evidence for the age of the Lord's Prayer.

Didache

Perhaps the earliest mention of the Lord's prayer outside of the Gospels is found in the Didache. The didache is an early Church order, thought to be perhaps the first 'catechism' of the Church. It states the following:

  But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites (Matthew 6:16) for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week; but fast on the fourth day and the Preparation (Friday). Neither pray as the hypocrites; but as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, thus pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. Give us today our daily (needful) bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (or, evil); for Yours is the power and the glory for ever. Thrice in the day thus pray.

The Didache is thought to have been written anywhere between the mid to late first century. So we have not only references to the Lord's Prayer in Church Father teachings (which shall be revealed later) but in what Eusebius considers to be a canonical catechism of the early Church. In any case, it illustrates that the Lord's Prayer is an instituted tradition already existing within the Church. This is said because it is rather clear that the writer(s) of the Didache were referring to the idea that Christ commanded that the Church pray the Lord's prayer. This is thus not some tradition that is being instituted in light of a new principle, but rather confirmed in light of what was believed to be a preexisting commandment from the Lord himself.

Tertullian

Tertullian's apostolic work was around the time the Didache came into being, and so it is likely that his thoughts on certain matters were influenced by this writing. Tertullian shares thoughts on the Lord's Prayer, which only further confirms the Didache's stance and suggests the Prayer's grounded place in the Christian culture at the time.

  Since, however, the Lord, the Foreseer of human necessities, said separately, after delivering His Rule of Prayer, Ask, and you shall receive; and since there are petitions which are made according to the circumstances of each individual; our additional wants have the right— after beginning with the legitimate and customary prayers as a foundation, as it were— of rearing an outer superstructure of petitions, yet with remembrance of the Master's precepts.

Although here Tertullian is arguing that personal prayers can be 'superadded' to what he calls 'customary prayers,' it is the fact of the 'customary prayers' that is of interest. Tertullian acknowledges some existing custom of the Lord's Prayer (as stated in the title of the segment itself) within the liturgy or nature of how Christians at the time prayed (again, keep in mind there was little difference between the two during this time). Besides this, in the previous segments, Tertullian spends an ample amount of space going through several specific lines of the Lord's Prayer. So we see Tertullian both acknowledging the Lord's Prayer as an existing custom in the Church, and expounding on its meaning in his own terms. This suggests that the Prayer was a very meaningful tradition, and as a 'custom' likely something that was precisely liturgical.

Cyprian

Cyprian was born around 200 A.D and became the Bishop of Carthage. Cyprian, following Tertullian, supported the Lord's Prayer as well in his writings. This is particularly important for it reveals how the Church, in regards to the catechism of the didache, did not face divide in itself over a linear sequence over the doctrine of the Lord's Prayer, as so many doctrines cause.

  Let us therefore, brethren beloved, pray as God our Teacher has taught us. It is a loving and friendly prayer to beseech God with His own word, to come up to His ears in the prayer of Christ.

Here again we find the same support of what appears to be a tradition within the Church.

The Liturgy Within

I would hold that on top of the evidence we have supporting an early presence and practice of the Lord's Prayer in the body of the Church, the texts themselves suggest specifically liturgical practice of the Lord's Prayer.

Firstly, in considering the Didache, we must recognize the purpose for which it was written. The Didache was written, as stated above, as a catechism. It should be made known that the orders regarding the Lord's Prayer are directly in between and associated with baptism and the Eucharist. These two practices are undeniably liturgical in nature, so the fact that the Lord's Prayer and an explanation of it is so associated with the two Sacraments suggests that it is in fact a liturgical tradition. Beyond this, it should be stated that the purpose of the Didache is not a spiritual guide for the individual but rather a general order for the community (aka the communion of Christians, or the liturgy).

Secondly, in considering Tertullian's writings on the Lord's Prayer, we find that he considers it to be a 'customary' prayer, or a foundation on which he states all 'personal' prayers rest. This suggests that the Lord's Prayer is precisely not entirely personal by nature, but rather grounded in the general order of Christ that his Church pray like he, and through his words. The contrast Tertullian purposely makes between the Lord's Prayer and 'subadded' prayer from the individual is indicative that the Lord's Prayer is more central not only as a 'personal' prayer but as a prayer that is shared and held by all members of the Church, and thus undoubtedly expressed whenever there is communion between the said members.

Final Thoughts

If we take into account how early the Didache came into being (between the mid to late first century), how firmly this catechism was affirmed by following bishops and Church Fathers, I think we are left with a good reason to believe the Lord's Prayer was instituted in the very early Church, likely by the disciples themselves. Recall that the accounts of the Gospels tells us that Christ stated 'pray like this' to his disciples before starting the Lord's Prayer. This commandment language is similar to His institution of other sacraments, such as baptism and the Eucharist. I think it is unlikely that there existed a gap in which the Church didn't think the Lord's Prayer should be recited, not only personally but publicly. While we don't have many examples of liturgical practice including the Lord's Prayer during the very early Church, such is only because we don't have many written examples of liturgical practices period. Looking at surrounding texts however brings more information for the historian, and what this information tells us is that the Lord's Prayer is almost as sure in presence of the early Church as the Lord is himself. Based on the facts that we have elsewhere about the nature of liturgy, I think it is safe to say that these texts were calling for the Lord's Prayer not only in 'personal' communion but in 'public' communion. The main reason I say this is based on the details that suggest this in the texts themselves and the valid reason we have to not assume otherwise (this was stated in the introduction but not formally expounded upon). There is little reason to believe the liturgies at the time would not include (for the majority of the time at least) something so obviously paramount as the Lord's Prayer.


Prominent Theologians' answer to: What is "The Parable of the Shrewd Manager" about?

From Mathew Henry's Concise Commentary:

Whatever we have, the property of it is God's; we have only the use of it, according to the direction of our great Lord, and for his honour. This steward wasted his lord's goods. And we are all liable to the same charge; we have not made due improvement of what God has trusted us with. The steward cannot deny it; he must make up his accounts, and be gone.
This may teach us that death will come, and deprive us of the opportunities we now have. The steward will make friends of his lord's debtors or tenants, by striking off a considerable part of their debt to his lord. The lord referred to in this parable commended not the fraud, but the policy of the steward. In that respect alone is it so noticed. Worldly men, in the choice of their object, are foolish; but in their activity, and perseverance, they are often wiser than believers.
The unjust steward is not set before us as an example in cheating his master, or to justify any dishonesty, but to point out the careful ways of worldly men. It would be well if the children of light would learn wisdom from the men of the world, and would as earnestly pursue their better object.
The true riches signify spiritual blessings; and if a man spends upon himself, or hoards up what God has trusted to him, as to outward things, what evidence can he have, that he is an heir of God through Christ? The riches of this world are deceitful and uncertain. Let us be convinced that those are truly rich, and very rich, who are rich in faith, and rich toward God, rich in Christ, in the promises; let us then lay up our treasure in heaven, and expect our portion from thence.

My understanding from this commentary is that the manager's goal didn't change - he wanted a comfortable lifestyle without working too hard - and used his Master's resources for his own purposes. Even when he was caught - and was about to lose the position that enabled him to achieve his nefarious goal easily, he made another plan, a very clever plan, and tried to win the affections of his master's debtors by slashing their debts - probably guaranteeing that someone would give him free board and lodging for a while.
Jesus is certainly not holding this man up as a shining example of morality, but of using his brains to try every possible method of achieving his aim. The aim was not noble, but his persistence and shrewdness in pursuing the aim was. What should we take from this then? We should learn from anyone - even those we want to label as "worldly" or "sinful" - to work hard and be shrewd in how we pursue God's aims.
The other aspect of this parable is using the stuff of this world for eternal purposes - In the first fraudulent scheme the manager was simply skimming the master's funds and putting them in his own pocket. His thinking was entirely in the pleasures of the here and now. Once he saw his cushy position coming to an end he started using the money to make friends to provide for him at the end of his present "life" when he no longer had any control.


The Prohet and the Messiah in John 1:20-21

It’s worth noting that the Jewish religious leaders did not ask John the Baptist outright if he was the Messiah.  They simply asked “Who are you?”  It was John the Baptist who immediately came to the point and said “I am not the Messiah.”  Messiah comes from the Hebrew word ‘mashiach’ and means “anointed one” or “chosen one.”  The Greek equivalent is the word ‘Christos’ or, in English, Christ. The name “Jesus Christ” is the same as “Jesus the Messiah.”

Scripture foretells of TWO prophets to come.  The first would be like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18).  The Jews expected the Messiah (Christ) to bring spiritual leadership and political redemption to Israel – a prophet like Moses.  But there was another prophecy to do with the coming Messiah, the prophecy about Elijah.  Elijah did not die but was taken up into heaven:

  “And as they still went on and talked, behold, chariots of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven” (2 Kings 2:11).

Why did the delegation from the Sanhedrin ask if John the Baptist was Elijah?

  “Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 3:1).

  “See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes” (Malachi 4:5).

The Jews believed that Elijah would return and come back to earth to announce the end time.  They also expected that the prophet like Moses would be associated with the coming of the Messiah.  That is why John was asked if he was Elijah or if he was the Prophet like Moses.  Both prophets would precede the coming of the long-awaited Messiah.

John the Baptist identified himself as the messenger of Isaiah 40:3: “A voice cries: “In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.”  John the Baptist specifically denied that he was Elijah or that he was the Prophet like Moses or that he was the Messiah (John 1:19-21).  To this day, Jewish Seders include an empty chair at the table in anticipation that Elijah will return to herald the Messiah in fulfillment of Malachi’s word.

The Pharisees who had been sent to question John the Baptist were then forced to acknowledge that John was not the Messiah, he was not Elijah and he was not the Prophet (John 1:25).  The Messiah was identified in Scripture as “the anointed one” – not just a priest, or a prophet, or a king.

  A Samaritan woman said to Jesus, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he” (John 4:25-26).  She also acknowledged that Jesus was a prophet (John 4:19).

  Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” And they told him, “John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.” And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.” And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him” (Mark 8:27-30). As we know, the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word Messiah is, in English, Christ.

In conclusion, the Jews understood that the prophet like Moses and the prophet Elijah were to be the forerunners of the Messiah, God’s Anointed One.

Sources: New Living Translation and New International Version Study Bible notes.  Additional material: https://www.gotquestions.org/promised-messenger-Malachi.html


What does Leviticus 25:10 mean in context?

The Year of Jubilee

Every 50 years, the Jews were required to return any land they had bought back to its original owners, as well as set all their slaves (who wanted to be freed) free. This is what Levicitus 25:10 is talking about. Hebrew slaves were already ordered to be freed every seventh year (Ex 21:2), for slavery among Hebrew brethren was always meant to be temporary (as a means of settling debts). It was more like indentured servitude. The Jubilee emancipation is not described as being limited to just Israelites, but any and all slaves.

There are Christian groups who read the commands in the Old Testament and deduce which ones apply to us today. They might say (not being one of them, I don't know how they judge in this particular case) that we should observe the same rule if we lived in a society where slavery was permitted. Paul as much as said that slavery is to be avoided (1 Co 7:21), so it's not as though this provision in the OT is prevailing justification for allowing slavery.

I certainly don't read it as demanding action on our part to free other people's slaves. It's about setting your own slaves free.


On what basis does the Catholic Church teach that women cannot be ordained?

When Pope John Paul II definitively reaffirmed the teaching in 1994 he referred back to the doctrinal document Inter Insigniores of 1976, which, he says, "recalls and explains the fundamental reasons for this teaching". Without attempting to go through Inter Insigniores in depth here (it's not really that long to begin with), here are some quick excerpts that summarize the main points it covers:

Constant and universal tradition: "up to our own time ... the practice has enjoyed peaceful and universal acceptance. ... The Church's tradition in the matter has thus been so firm in the course of the centuries that the Magisterium has not felt the need to intervene in order to formulate a principle which was not attacked, or to defend a law which was not challenged. ... The same tradition has been faithfully safeguarded by the Churches of the East"
Practice of Christ himself: "Jesus Christ did not call any woman to become part of the Twelve"
Practice of the Apostles: "The apostolic community remained faithful to the attitude of Jesus towards women"
These practices not a sign of conformity to the social mores of antiquity: "an examination of the Gospels shows ... that Jesus broke with the prejudices of his time, by widely contravening the discriminations practised with regard to women. ... [S]ocial and cultural conditioning did not hold back the Apostles working in the Greek milieu, where the same forms of discrimination did not exist. ... there is no reason for accusing [St. Paul] of prejudices against women, when we note the trust that he shows towards them and the collaboration that he asks of them in his apostolate"
Clarity of the sacramental sign: "when Christ's role in the Eucharist is to be expressed sacramentally, there would not be this 'natural resemblance' which must exist between Christ and his minister if the role of Christ were not taken by a man"
Ministry in the Church a vocation, not a right: "to consider the ministerial priesthood as a human right would be to misjudge its nature completely: baptism does not confer any personal title to public ministry in the Church. The priesthood is not conferred for the honour or advantage of the recipient, but for the service of God and the Church; it is the object of a specific and totally gratuitous vocation: 'You did not choose me, no, I chose you, and I commissioned you' (Jn 15:16; cf. Heb 5:4)"
Vocation to public ministry not purely subjective: "Since the priesthood is a particular ministry of which the Church has received the charge and the control, authentication by the Church is indispensable here and is a constitutive part of the vocation: Christ chose 'those he wanted' (Mk:13)"

Finally, John Paul II seemed keen to put the notion to rest that there was some sort of unjust discrimination happening here:

  Furthermore, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them. Rather, it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the universe. (Ordination Sacerdotalis 3)


Is it true the term 'pontifex maximus' was the name of the high priest of the Roman Cult of Emperor Worship, before being adopted by the Pope?

So, "pontifex maximus" means "highest pontifex." The Pontifex were, at one time, the priests of the Imperial cult, but over time the meaning of the word broadened and it was used as a word for, "Bishop." The Pope's (unofficial) title is used in that context.

Refusal to use the term (where it clearly applies) would be akin to refusing to use the word, "Tuesday" because it is etymologically linked to the Norse god Týr.


According to Wikipedia article on the American Catholic Church of the United States (ACCUS), if that is what you mean, it notes that there are quite a few differences between the ACCUS and the Roman Catholic Church.

ACCUS is post-Vatican II
ACCUS does not require clerical celibacy.
ACCUS clergy members may be married, be in a domestic partnership, divorced, or widowed.
ACCUS clergy members have ordained women among their ranks.
ACCUS does not bar people based on gender, sexual orientation, race, age, marital status, or previous religious affiliations.
ACCUS clergy members are required to support themselves through outside employment; clergy members are prohibited from receiving money for the sacramental services they perform. They are allowed to receive gifts and monetary donations, as long as they are not the ones soliciting them.
ACCUS disagrees with papal infallibility, which was the main reason why they split.

I have a feeling that ACCUS is Catholic in a sense that it observes the seven sacraments, but it disagrees with the Roman Catholic Church on certain sexual-related issues, or at least the article appears to be focused that way. Call it a "liberal" version of the Roman Catholic Church, though any split-off group of the Roman Catholic Church would probably be recognized as Protestant despite the similarity of the theological traditions.


To a YEC, how does a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis 1-3 distort the gospel?

An extremely simple argument for this sense is to consider the following two questions:

Q1. Does the epistle of Romans assume and rely on an essentially literal* interpretation of the fall of man (cf. Genesis 1-3)?

Q2. How foundational is the epistle of Romans to a Christian understanding of the gospel?

It may be possible to argue these points to a certain degree from a non-evangelical perspective, but for the vast majority of YEC's the answers are evidently (and respectively):

A1. Unambiguously yes.

A2. It is critically important - our understanding of the gospel would be seriously undermined without it.

Conclusion: An essentially literal* interpreation of the fall of man (as seen in Genesis 1-3) is critically important to our understanding of the Gospel.

edit: Another issue that occurred to me regarding this: if you do not link (the initiaing of) physical death with the (inital) instance of sin, it significantly undermines what sense came be made of the Atonement in particular** - how can Christ's physical death have any impact on sin and it's consequences if the consequences of sin do not produce physical death (but are just the result of natural processes)?

*by this I mean that the 'essentials' of the story (no death before the fall, death comes as a consequence of the sin of the progenitors of the entire human race) are literal, overly literalistic obsession on minor details is not necessary.

**also (OT) atonement more generally - why should we have "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins"?


Why is Jesus portrayed and remembered in a state of suffering?

Catholics portray, worship, and promote Jesus in all of His states of being, actions, words, etc.

A strong emphasis is placed on his suffering and death on a cross because it was in this act that He atoned for the sins of all humanity.  This is the single most important thing He did because without it, we have no hope.

Paragraph 623 of the Catholic Catechism states:

  By his loving obedience to the Father, "unto death, even death on a cross" (Phil 2:8), Jesus fulfills the atoning mission (cf. Is 53:10) of the suffering Servant, who will "make many righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities" (Is 53:11; cf. Rom 5:19)

It would be highly mistaken to think that Catholics only focus on the suffering of Christ. The Catholic Church teaches that in rising from the dead He confirms who he is and the work that He accomplished by His death.

Paragraph 651 of the Catechism states:

  "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain."521 The Resurrection above all constitutes the confirmation of all Christ's works and teachings. All truths, even those most inaccessible to human reason, find their justification if Christ by his Resurrection has given the definitive proof of his divine authority, which he had promised.

I'm sure with a little investigation, many examples can be found of Catholic images, prayers, etc. the are devoted to the healthy, happy, resurrected, glorious, etc. natures of Jesus Christ.


According to Catholicism, is marrying a divorced woman a sin of continual adultery?

Yes it is a sin, provided the divorced person was truly married.

What is meant by “truly married”, you say?

In short it is when two people get married AND the outward appearances
of marriage do indeed reflect the inner convictions of both.  If this is not the case, it is possible to get what is called an annulment, which can be considered a divorce but properly speaking if the marriage was truly a marriage then it would be impossible to separate the two persons. Rather an annulment is about recognizing that the marriage wasn't really a marriage in the first place.

The long version is presented here in the Code of Canon Law:

  CHAPTER IV.

  MATRIMONIAL CONSENT

  Can.  1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:

  1/ those who lack the sufficient use of reason;

  2/ those who suVer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment
  concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be
  handed over and accepted;

  3/ those who are not able to assume the essential obligations of
  marriage for causes of a psychic nature.

  Can.  1096 §1. For matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting
  parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent
  partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of
  offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.

  §2. This ignorance is not presumed after puberty.

  Can.  1097 §1. Error concerning the person renders a marriage invalid.

  §2. Error concerning a quality of the person does not render a
  marriage invalid even if it is the cause for the contract, unless this
  quality is directly and principally intended.

  Can.  1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage
  deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some
  quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely
  disturb the partnership of conjugal life.

  Can.  1099 Error concerning the unity or indissolubility or
  sacramental dignity of marriage does not vitiate matrimonial consent
  provided that it does not determine the will.

  Can.  1100 The knowledge or opinion of the nullity of a marriage does
  not necessarily exclude matrimonial consent.

  Can.  1101 §1. The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform
  to the words and signs used in celebrating the marriage.

  §2. If, however, either or both of the parties by a positive act of
  the will exclude marriage itself, some essential element of marriage,
  or some essential property of marriage, the party contracts invalidly.

  Can.  1102 §1. A marriage subject to a condition about the future
  cannot be contracted validly.

  §2. A marriage entered into subject to a condition about the past or
  the present is valid or not insofar as that which is subject to the
  condition exists or not.

  §3. The condition mentioned in §2, however, cannot be placed licitly
  without the written permission of the local ordinary.

  Can.  1103 A marriage is invalid if entered into because of force or
  grave fear from without, even if unintentionally inflicted, so that a
  person is compelled to choose marriage in order to be free from it.

  Can.  1104 §1. To contract a marriage validly the contracting parties
  must be present together, either in person or by proxy.

  §2. Those being married are to express matrimonial consent in words
  or, if they cannot speak, through equivalent signs.


What is the difference between the Trinitarian concept of God and the Mormon concept of God?

In Wikipedia page, Christian Denomination, we see Mormonism as a Nontrinitarian Denomination. Explaining that:

  Mormons see themselves as believing in a Godhead comprising the
  Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as separate personages united in purpose.

On a separate page, God in Mormonism, explains that The Father in the Godhead is the same Jewish God, Elohim that we know.

Basically, unlike the trinity, most Mormons believe that:

  the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are not said to be one in
  substance or essence; instead, they remain three separate beings, or
  personages, completely united in will and purpose as one God


How are emendations to the Masoretic Text viewed within the doctrine of inerrancy?

Inerrantists do not view the Masoretic text as inerrant in itself, but they consider it highly reliable.  John Wenham, in Christ and the Bible (170ff.), outlines a variety of evidence for its faithful transmission of the original, all the while implying its imperfection:

It was well known that the copying of the Scriptures had been carried out with almost unimaginable care and reverence, with the result that the differences between existing Hebrew manuscripts were small. [...] Vowel pointing was not in use during the early centuries of our era, and these sources do not always corroborate the vowels that were later adopted and standardized by the Massoretes, but all the sources show a remarkable constancy in the transmission of the consonantal text.
But this dependence on indirect evidence to establish the fidelity of the transmission of the text gave place to direct proof with the amazing discoveries at Qumran [...] showing only very small differences from the Massoretic text.  Indeed, they appeared if anything to be slightly inferior in text to the Massoretic manuscripts that were written a thousand years later.

So how then do inerrantists view emendations to this Masoretic text?  Extremely cautiously, but not because of Masoretic inerrancy.  John MacArthur writes in The Inerrant Word, quoting Douglas Petrovich:

Is there really a high likelihood that a modern scholar (without any textual evidence for his emendation) might correctly impeach all extant ancient witnesses to the biblical text?  If "a reading found in only one single translation, without any corroborating witnesses or original-language manuscripts, has an extremely small chance of possessing the correct reading found in the autographa," what are the odds of a reading without support in any ancient translation?
Three observations concerning conjectural emendation help to identify their nature: (1) a conjectural emendation exhibits a high degree of subjectivity; (2) with increased knowledge and evidence, most such emendations later prove to be unnecessary; and (3) scholars should consider conjectural emendation only as a last resort.  In other words, as long as there is any moderately reasonable explanation for the text as it stands, that option ought always to be preferred.

MacArthur describes the mindset he sees as necessary to the inerrantist:

Adhering consistently to biblical inerrancy requires an admission of one's own ignorance and inability to resolve every problem. [...] Our first assumption should be that we are in error rather than applying the hermeneutic of doubt to the text.


Is there Biblical support for Christians basing their beliefs on extra biblical texts?

When you think about it, this question is based on circular reasoning.
Is there Biblical support for basing your beliefs on those who've come before?
The Bible authors "came before." So lets imagine that there's an imaginary Bible verse that says:

Thou shalt base thine opinions on those whom came before.
2 Chemicals 8:15

Who wrote 2 Chemicals? Saint Heisenberg.  Why should we trust Saint Heisenberg?
"But the Bible is canon!" you might say.  Yes, that's true... Christians, by and large, agree that the Bible is "special." But why?  Because other Christians decided they were, and we agree with them.
So even believing the Bible is inherently basing our beliefs on those who came before.


What did C. S. Lewis base his idea of sehnsucht/joy on?

At least a couple pericopae come to my mind, if not to Clive Staples Lewis.

In the context of Paul's contrast between the finite and prideful wisdom of man versus the infinite and hidden-from-the-wise wisdom of God, Paul said,

". . . but we speak . . . the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; but just as it is written,
 'THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT

 SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT

 HEARD,

 AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED

 THE HEART OF MAN,

 ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED

 FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM'" (1 Corinthians 2:6-9, excerpts, NASB Updated)

Most Christians, I suspect, realize that life is a mixed bag. It has its highs and lows and lots of in-betweens. The joys of earth are mingled with sadness, trials, suffering, temptation, persecution and more. As Christians get closer to the end of their lives here on earth, they are perhaps more likely to admit that the things of earth, including happiness and pleasure, begin to pale in comparison to godly joy and true pleasure, which as the psalmist reminds us, begin now and continue forever.

"Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fullness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore" (16:11 NKJV).

Also consider the refrain from Helen H. Lemmel's hymn "Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus":

"Turn your eyes upon Jesus,
Look full in His wonderful face,
And the things of earth will grow strangely dim,
In the light of His glory and grace" (refrain from "Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus," by Helen H. Lemmel)

The pleasures of sin are but for a season, the writer to the Hebrews reminds us (11:25), and those pleasures, though genuinely pleasurable, eventually become alloyed with unexpected consequences, in part because of the spiritual law of reaping and sowing (Galatians 6:7 ff.)

One of the descriptions of heaven in the Revelation of Jesus Christ:

"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth. . . . and [God] will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away" 21:1-4, excerpts, NASB Updated).

Knowing that some radical changes are coming, all of which are both good and unalloyed, causes some Christians' hearts to rejoice in hope (see Romans 5:2 KJV).

Even what I call spiritual "mountain-top experiences" fade, sometimes quickly and sometimes more slowly, but they do fade when we leave the mountaintop (as Peter, James, and John did after Jesus' transfiguration--see John 17:1 ff.) and once again face the challenges which come our way, sometimes successfully and sometimes no so successfully (see John 17:9, 17-23).

And last,

The Christian's hope-filled expectation of being rewarded by our Lord God for his or her God-glorifying good deeds. Jesus promised that the treasures we lay up in heaven are subject neither to devaluation and depreciation, nor can they be stolen. As the saying goes, "God is no man's debtor." One day, faithful Christians will be rewarded handsomely for their obedience to God and for their God-glorifying labors:

"[B]ut let us not lose heart in doing good; for in due time, if we do not faint, we shall reap" (Galatians 6:9 DBY).


Has 'Affirmation 2010' been adopted, generally, by those called 'Reformed'?

No, it has not been widely adopted by Reformed churches, mostly because in many ways it requires beliefs that are seen as matters of liberty of conscience in the older confessions.  Ironically, it is also more "ecumenical" than the Reformed confessions in a few areas.

After a cursory review, here are a few significant points of difference with older Reformed standards:

Article 1 speaks to the superiority of the KJV over other English translations of the Bible
Article 4 requires belief in literal six-day creation, whereas views like Old Earth Creationism and Framework Theory are often accepted in conservative Reformed circles
Article 9, on the Sabbath, describes requirements similar to those in the Westminster Standards – more strict than those found in the Three Forms of Unity
Article 11 eliminates the use of contemporary music in worship services, as well as the recitation of creeds, which are both common (though not ubiquitous) in Reformed circles
Article 11 does not require infant baptism, as the Westminster Standards do, and does not forbid it, like the London Baptist Confession does.
Article 12 implies a superiority of pastors over ruling elders, which would break with the "one office" principle.
Article 13 requires separation from those who don't also separate from the world.  So it implies breaking off fellowship with Calvinists who "fraternize" with those who "question" the Bible.
Article 15 can be read as rejecting partial preterism.

There are relatively few people in conservative Reformed circles who could subscribe to all these statements.  And even among those that could, many would see them as matters of liberty of conscience, and thus would not prioritize finding fellowships where these points were affirmed.

Another indicator of the lack of widespread acceptance is the small number of signatories, and perhaps the relatively high percentage of independents and baptists listed also indicates that this document is tailored for a specific subset of Reformed believers.  It is certainly not broadly representative of the views of those holding to Reformed theology.


CS Lewis said time continues in Heaven...Peter Kreeft says that is exists more as a 'point'...which is right?

Whenever I have asked God about this question, a very simple analogy comes to mind of geometry. To begin, I was in a fellowship meeting once, and the question was asked of how God can be three in one. A word of wisdom was then shared where the woman who responded said, "He is not 1 + 1 + 1, but 1 x 1 x 1". God has three dimensions (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), which are 1 squared, or a cube, if you'd like to visualize it.

It is God who defines and limits time. Think for example, of God's conversation with Job where he states that he is the one who puts limits on the sea and waves and has set the boundaries of where they begin and end on the shore (the sea representing the terrestrial world of experience, and the land representing the spiritual realm which emerges higher than the terrestrial). We are in this cube of time - the universe as we know it.

God, however, is also eternal, which means he is both inside and outside of time simultaneously. To that end, He is a sphere, an unending existence without time. Inside that sphere, is the cube that we call time. (For example, the figure of speech a "chunk of time" would nicely fit to explain my context). All light sources on earth emit light energy in a spherical dimension, reflecting on how God as light is spherical, if you'd like to visualize things. So in many ways, time is a point, per se. In other ways, as nothing within God can truly perish, neither can time. We, in uniting with God when all things are renewed, will experience both as He does. So in essence, both authors are correct.

To cap off this idea, the outer darkness Christ speaks of so many times, is the void outside of the sphere of God in which there is no light (understanding) to be found, the weeping and gnashing of teeth being men who weep in remorse for their new abode, the gnashing of teeth them futilely attempting chew on and understand how they got to where they are in the first place. Unfortunately, their hell is eternity never understanding why.


Where did the trinity concept come from?

Wikipedia cites many sources that might be of interest. Ignatius of Antioch ca A.D. 110 in "Ignatius's Letter to the Magnesians", Ch. XIII, wrote "Do we not have one God, and one Christ, and one gracious Spirit that has been poured out upon us, and one calling in Christ?"

This shows that some understanding of God as three-fold, though less developed, was present very early in the Church.

This site quotes many Bible verses that are often used to substantiate the idea of the Trinity:

https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-the-trinity/

One verse is 2 Corinthians 13-14:

  14 May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and
  the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

And another Matthew 28:19:

  19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in
  the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...

The general approach that is followed is to use the "one God" verses that are prevalent throughout the Bible to stress the unity and other verses to show the distinctness of the persons of the Trinity. Each is shown to be worthy of worship, whereas humans and angels are not.

The Book of Job is the oldest book in the Bible and is structured carefully along Trinitarian lines. Thus Job represents the suffering servant, and the prophecies and insights of Wisdom he receives are primarily about the ministry and events in the life of Jesus and enlighten the mind to truth, as Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Light.

Job 9 - Savior is divine (can walk on water) but also a man (the Daysman)
Job 13:15-16 - A savior who delivers us from evil
Job 14:13-17 - A healer who renews our health & obtains safety from God's wrath
Job 17:3; 33:22-26 - A liberator who pays the ransom to set us free
Job 17:13-16; 33:27-30; 38:17 - A guide who knows the road to Sheol and can free us from the grave
Job 19:23-27 - A redeemer who raises the dead to life
Job 21:31 - A judge who "denounces their conduct to their face" and "repays them for what they have done"
Job 23:10,13 - A refining fire who purifies us and makes us "pure gold"

The speaker who followed Job and his friends is Elihu, and he speaks for the Holy Spirit:

I thought, ‘Age should speak;
    advanced years should teach wisdom.’
8 But it is the spirit in a person,
    the breath of the Almighty, that gives them understanding. (Job 32:7-8)

Elihu even speaks about being new wine in a wineskin about to burst, an analogy that Jesus later used to refer to the effect of the Holy Spirit entering a person.

For I am full of words,
    and the spirit within me compels me;
19 inside I am like bottled-up wine,
    like new wineskins ready to burst.
20 I must speak and find relief;
    I must open my lips and reply. (Job 32:18-20)

Elihu spoke to Job's heart and soul, to comfort, lovingly correct, and encourage with the truth that God loves him.

He loads the clouds with moisture;
    he scatters his lightning through them.
12 At his direction they swirl around
    over the face of the whole earth
    to do whatever he commands them.
13 He brings the clouds to punish people,
    or to water his earth and show his love. (Job 37:11-13)

Then at the end, God speaks from the Whirlwind and speaks about the creation, His fatherly provision to all His creatures of their physical needs and the final judgment.

Mind, heart, physical needs - each person of ther Trinity plays a distinct role, but all cooperate to accomplish this.

To doubly emphasize the Trinity, each of Job's three friends is antagonistic, but their opposition is varied, and each aims his barbs at ideas of Job's related to a different member of the Trinity. For example, Job cries out for a savior who has the power of God (able to help) but also the compassion and tenderness to not terrify him (a "son of man"). In his final speech, Bildad explicitly mocks the idea that one can trust for help in a "son of man":

How then can man be in the right before God?
    How can he who is born of woman be pure?
5 Behold, even the moon is not bright,
    and the stars are not pure in his eyes;
6 how much less man, who is a maggot,
    and the son of man, who is a worm!” (Job 25:4-6)

I could go on and show the connection to the other two friends, but this should be enough. The distinctions between the members of the Trinity run all the way back to the first book in the Bible to be written, and pop up from then on to the end.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe only they will be saved after their organization came into existence?

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society was founded in 1886 by Charles Russell.  He and his followers were known as Bible Students and “Russellites” until 1931 when the second President, Joseph Rutherford, renamed the organisation as “Jehovah’s Witnesses.”  Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that true religion became corrupted after the first century, and especially when the Catholic Church came to power.  Between then and 1886 they claim there have only been a very small number of true Christians.  Then Jesus chose them as his earthly organisation in 1919:

  1 April 2007 Watchtower, p.22: “‘On arriving’ to inspect the ‘slave’ in 1918, Christ found a spirit-anointed remnant of faithful disciples who since 1879 had been using this journal [the Watchtower] and other Bible-based publications to provide spiritual ‘food at the proper time.’ He acknowledged them as his collective instrument, or ‘slave,’ and in 1919 entrusted them with the management of all his earthly belongings.”

  February 2017 Study Watchtower article: Who Is Leading God’s People Today? “8. In the late 19th century, Charles Taze Russell and some of his associates endeavored to re-establish true Christian worship...   10. In 1919, three years after Brother Russell’s death, Jesus appointed “the faithful and discreet slave.” For what purpose? To give his domestics “food at the proper time.” (Matt. 24:45)”

Below are quotations from their own publications on who will survive Armageddon:

  15 February 1983 Watchtower, pp 12-13, article Four Requirements for Salvation:  “Jehovah is using only one organization today to accomplish his will. To receive everlasting life in the earthly Paradise we must identify that organization and serve God as part of it.”

  Watchtower March 1, 1985 p 14: “Only Christian witnesses of Jehovah who successfully pass this test will survive and come forth like fire-refined gold for God’s use in his precious new order.”

  Watchtower September 1, 1989 p 19: "Only Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the "great crowd," as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil."
  Watchtower September 15, 1993 p 22: “But if we were to draw away from Jehovah’s organization, there would be no place else to go for salvation and true joy.”

  Watchtower May 15, 2006: "During the final period of the ancient world that perished in the Flood, Noah was a faithful preacher of righteousness. (2 Peter 2:5) In these last days of the present system of things, Jehovah's people are making known God's righteous standards and are declaring good news about the possibility of surviving into the new world. (2 Peter 3:9-13) Just as Noah and his God-fearing family were preserved in the ark, survival of individuals today depends on their faith and their loyal association with the earthly part of Jehovah's universal organization."

  Watchtower December 15, 2007: "But Jehovah's servants already belong to the only organization that will survive the end of this wicked system of things."

  March 2016 Watchtower article Jehovah Guides His People in the Way of Life:
  “Indeed, to keep receiving God’s blessing, we need to pay attention to all the directions provided through the Christian congregation. Having an obedient spirit now will help us to follow directions during the “great tribulation,” which will eliminate Satan’s entire evil system.  Thereafter, we will need new directions for new world living on an earth totally free of any satanic influence.”

  November 2016 Study Watchtower article They Broke Free From False Religion: “In 1919, a “faithful and discreet slave” was appointed to provide spiritual food to the household of faith. (Matt. 24:45) God’s people were now free of the influence of Babylon the Great.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses also believe the Antichrist is made up of Trinitarian churches "promoting the use of Bible translations that omit God's personal name, Jehovah, from the text."  June 2015 Watchtower article Who is the Antichrist?   http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/wp20150601/who-is-the-antichrist/

Today, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe only they will survive Armageddon.   They view every Christian denomination (whether Catholic or Protestant) as part of Babylon the Great, the harlot of Revelation, soon to be destroyed.  However, they never say that to non-Witnesses when they go from house to house.  They are careful to promote the idea of living forever on a paradise earth after Armageddon.  I am unaware of any official statements that indicate they do not dogmatically believe that they are the only channel of God's truth and direction today, or that today, one does not have to be a Jehovah’s Witness to be saved.  Of course, such statements may exist andif they do, I would be pleased to read them.


Why are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary such a big deal that all Catholics must believe in them?

Catholics believe that Mary was chosen, not so that she could be the Mother of God, but so that she could choose whether or not to be the Mother of God—and that in order to make this choice in complete and perfect freedom, she was redeemed from original sin from the moment of her conception:

In order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.
Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception confesses ...
At the announcement that she would give birth to "the Son of the Most High" without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith ..., Thus, giving her consent to God's word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 490–491, 494; emphases added

The Church teaches that this belief, though not always formally articulated, dates back to the beginning of the Church. As the Word of God, it has come down to us in Sacred Tradition. To deny it would be to deny that Sacred Tradition is the Word of God, or even to deny that the Word of God is Truth.
To be clear, this was part of the depositum fidei, the treasury of the faith, even before it was labeled an ex cathedra truth. But it was something that was simply assumed to be obviously true: of course Catholics would, and would have to, believe it. Pope Pius IX declared it as dogma in 1854 in the bull Ineffabilis Deus (which, mysteriously, seems to be missing from the Vatican website).
In the bull, Pope Pius stated that among his reasons for declaring this belief as dogma were to show that the Catholic Church was the one true Church, regardless of the beliefs of other churches; and to put into a formal statement something which had been believed and declared by the Church since ancient times. He asked for comment from the bishops about whether he should make such a statement of dogma, and they concurred. Therefore Pope Pius wrote:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.
Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid—to think otherwise ... let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment ...

In other words, the pope simply said that because of the antiquity and universality of the belief, it was a matter of Sacred Tradition, revealed by God. Such a belief cannot be denied without denying that God's revealed Word is Truth.
Something similar happened with the declaration of the Assumption of Mary, proclaimed nearly a century later. Again the pope (Pius XII, in his apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus reviewed a long history of belief that Mary was assumed into heaven, and interpretations of Scripture supporting the fact. He revealed that, just as his predecessor, he had asked the bishops of the world whether he should declare this belief a dogma, and they had responded overwhelmingly "yes". He therefore stated:

We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic faith.

All this is perhaps just a long way of saying the following:
Why are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary such a big deal that the popes, by speaking ex cathedra, require all Catholics to believe in them? Because the Church believes, and has believed from as far back as we can find, that these things have been revealed to us by the Word of God; and we cannot deny the Word without falling away from God.

Addendum: Based on a comment, it appears that the question is attempting to understand why Mary's assumption, as opposed to (for example) Elijah's1, is picked out as being so important for the Church to emphasize. The reason is simply that Mary is so much more important to the Church than Elijah is. Elijah was, certainly, a holy man, among the closest to God of all major characters in the Old Testament. But he was not so pure and holy as Mary was. There was no particular reason for him to need to be sinless; there's not the compelling "appropriateness" for sinlessness that there is with Mary. Similarly, though he was also "caught up to heaven", it's not for the extreme intimacy of his relationship with God—a relationship that couldn't get much more intimate than that of Mother with Son. So it's much more important for the Church to emphasize the holiness of Mary than that of Elijah.
1The original poster chose Moses as an illustration; but Moses died and was buried, whereas Elijah was taken up to heaven.


Do Catholics believe that God is actively "fighting" Satan?

God through Jesus Christ or God-made-man Jesus Christ is the devil's conqueror

  CCC 539 The evangelists indicate the salvific meaning of this
  mysterious event: Jesus is the new Adam who remained faithful just
  where the first Adam had given in to temptation. Jesus fulfills
  Israel's vocation perfectly: in contrast to those who had once
  provoked God during forty years in the desert, Christ reveals himself
  as God's Servant, totally obedient to the divine will. In this, Jesus
  is the devil's conqueror: he "binds the strong man" to take back his
  plunder.1 Jesus' victory over the tempter in the desert
  anticipates victory at the Passion, the supreme act of obedience of
  his filial love for the Father.

  1. Cf. Ps 95:10; Mk 3:27

The LORD achieves his definitive victory when he come again. Until then, the war and its battles continue

  CCC 2853 Victory over the "prince of this world"2 was won
  once for all at the Hour when Jesus freely gave himself up to death to
  give us his life. This is the judgment of this world, and the prince
  of this world is "cast out."3 "He pursued the
  woman"4 but had no hold on her: the new Eve, "full of
  grace" of the Holy Spirit, is preserved from sin and the corruption of
  death (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Most Holy
  Mother of God, Mary, ever virgin). "Then the dragon was angry with the
  woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her
  offspring."5 Therefore the Spirit and the Church pray:
  "Come, Lord Jesus,"6 since his coming will deliver us from
  the Evil One.

  2. Jn 14:30.
  3. Jn 12:31; Rev 12:10.
  4. Rev 12:13-16.
  5. Rev 12:17.
  6. Rev 22:17,20.

Please see also CCC 677.


Can I project more than 500 verses of Scripture over the course of a year? Or, an entire book of the Bible?

The length is the length of what you quote in a single document. So yes, a new sermon resets the counter. However, if you then publish all your sermons together in a single book, that single book becomes the reference document and can only contain 500 verses in toto (and of course, the rules on selling the text then come into play).

The terms are quite explicit about not amounting to an entire book of the Bible. So yes, you can't do all 25 verses of Philemon in one go. But then you could simply omit v1, which probably leaves enough to be useful.


Can priests (or popes) administer sacraments in a liturgy other than their own?

There are a number of related questions here.

The Bishop of Rome

The Bishop of Rome (i.e., the Pope), being the universal pastor of the Catholic Church, may celebrate in any rite he wishes at any moment.

There is not a specific norm in the Canon Law (abbreviated CIC)—the law for the Western church—or the Code of Canons of Oriental churches (abbreviated CCEO)—the law for the Eastern churches), however Canon Law says,

  The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power [potestate] in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely (CIC Can. 331; see also CCEO Can. 43).

The power (potestas) would include the license (permission) to celebrate the Sacraments in any rite.

There is also no restriction according to membership in a particular church as to who can be elected Pope: any bishop (indeed, in theory, any baptized, unmarried Catholic male) may be elected Pope. (If he is not a bishop, he would need to be ordained a bishop before he could become Pope.) CIC 332 says,

  The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately (CIC 332§1).

Note that the CCEO uses precisely the same language in Can. 44, and that neither one makes a distinction among members of a particular church.

(As a historical note, Cardinal Grégoire-Pierre XV Agagianian, the Patriarch of the Armenian Catholic Church, was a serious contender for the papacy in 1958. See the corresponding Wikipedia article.)

Bishops and priests

The situation for bishops (other than the Pope) and priests is a somewhat more restricted.

Priests and bishops (those who do not otherwise have restrictions placed on them) are, of course, always able to celebrate the Sacraments according to the rites of their own Church: the Roman Rite (and some of the smaller rites in a few places, such as the Ambrosian Rite in Milan, Italy) for Western priests, and the rite of whichever church they belong to, for Eastern priests.

In general concelebrating in the Mass or Divine Liturgy of a rite that is not one’s own is allowed, provided the liturgical norms of the given rite are being followed and there is no syncretism (CCEO 701). (Priests and bishops, however, are never to concelebrate with priests or bishops not in communion with the Catholic Church, even if they are validly ordained—e.g., the Eastern Orthodox. See CCEO 702.)

For other cases, the bishop in charge of a diocese can give permission for priests (or bishops) of a different rite to celebrate the Sacraments in the bishop’s own rite, within his own diocese. (Actually, the bishop could grant permission to celebrate in any rite, but there is seldom any need to grant it outside his own rite.)

Evidently, the Pope himself, or else the patriarch or major archbishop of an Eastern church, could also grant that permission.

It should be noted that, because the Latin Rite is so ubiquitous, and often less difficult to learn, it is generally easier for Eastern priests and bishops to be given permission to celebrate in the Latin Rite than vice versa.

See “Celebrating in an Eastern Rite” by Fr. Edward McNamara, L.C., and the followup article.

The faithful

Note that, although bishops and priests should in general follow the rites of their own particular church in all the Sacraments, the faithful may freely receive the sacraments from any Catholic priest or bishop.

Of course, the Sacraments of Initiation—especially Baptism and Confirmation/Chrismation—should generally be done in one’s own church, but one may receive them in a different rite if a pastoral necessity arises. (For example, it is common for Eastern-rite Catholics to live in an area with no Eastern parishes nearby. In such a case, they could request to have their children baptized and confirmed at the local Western-rite parish. They would, however, still belong to their respective church.)

(As a side note, the Eastern churches technically do not celebrate Masses. They call their celebrations of the Eucharist Divine Liturgies. The term “Mass” comes from the Latin words of dismissal Ita, missa est, that are said by the deacon or priest at the end of every Mass—save the Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Holy Thursday—that is attended by faithful.)


Is there a Christian equivalent of the Muslim hadith, but for narrations relating to Jesus?

The Gospels might be considered akin to the hadith in how they are used. The Catholic and Orthodox sects of Christianity read the Gospels in a similar way to the hadith, as the start of a divinely inspired oral and written tradition which involved building a centuries-long consensus over interpretation and practice. The Protestant sects read the Gospels in a very different way. Each person reads the Gospels alone (sola scriptura) and forms his own judgments about them, sometimes with the assistance of a church community.

There are also a few orthodox "hadith" which are not in the Gospels but are found in early Christian writings and other documents. These are called "agrapha". However, agrapha are treated as akin to the more dubious hadith. They were first assembled in a single book by the German Alfred Resch in 1889. Since then they have been followed by some other textual discoveries, but none of these really contribute to the tradition of the Church in any of its mainstream forms.


1 John 5:3 — What are "his commandments?" and how are they "not heavy?" (Protestantism)

"Protestantism" is rather broad, but generally "his commandments" would be all of God's commandments for Man that weren't given as part of a specific covenent.

For instance, prohibitions against drinking wine or cutting hair were binding only on Nazarites.

Similarly, circumcision was commanded of the Israelites as part of the Old Covenant, as a physical symbol of the special relationship between Israel and God.

That God had extended his relationship to all of mankind under the New Covenant, and that Gentiles were not expected to receive circumcision was a concept that took the new Christians a while to understand.  Acts 15 describes some of this process.

On the other hand, many of God's commandments apply to all mankind, and for all time.  They are often presented as being related to God in some manner (e.g. sacred to God, or and abomination to God), and not a specific directive to a specific group of people.  E.g. the Sabbath was declared a holy day during the first week of the Creation.

Deciding which commandments are for everyone, and which were for specific times and people, is one of the reasons there are so many denominations.  The Adventist Churches say that Christians much obey the seventh day sabbath and clean meat laws, while on the other extreme some denominations say that Christians are no longer bound by the Ten Commandments.

As I said, "Protestantism" is rather broad.

As for God's commandments not being "heavy", John is pointing out that for a Christian, obeying God should be a natural thing, something that gives one pleasure, not something that could be considered a burden.

I once wrote something describing how the Ten Commandments could be seen in a totally different light, viewing them instead as Ten Freedoms.
I think that is the message that John is trying to convey.


According to the Protestant faith, was God grieved when He cast Satan out of Heaven?

Your citing of Genesis 6:6 and Ephesians 4:30 is good. That's probably as far as we can go in answering your question, however.

I want to say God was indeed grieved by the sin of His chief angel, Lucifer. God had invested a great deal in Lucifer. Lucifer was beautiful to behold, and he perhaps had a special place, or ranking, in the third heaven. Perhaps he was an angel of angels, a leader of other angels in the worship and service of God. To say God had no feelings whatsoever when He found sin in Lucifer and was forced to eject him from the third heaven, seems wrong. As to what those feelings were, however, I think the Scripture is largely silent.

In re-reading the book of Job recently, I noticed something interesting, and I'll pass it along to you. We read in 1:6 and 2:1,

  "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them."

  "Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the LORD."

The thought came to me: Hmm, the sons of God presented themselves before the LORD. I wonder if this event is repeated on a regular basis throughout history.

I suggest--I repeat, suggest--that this formal reporting, as it were, may in fact be a regular occurrence in God's universe, at least in the spiritual realm.

My thinking on this is as follows: 1) God alone is Sovereign, and He is sovereign over everything and everybody in all creation; 2) He holds things together (all things cohere through Him and the word of His power); and 3) no one can escape accountability to Him.

  "And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do" (Hebrews 4:13 NAS).

If these things are so, then perhaps God has a "standing appointment" with the sons of God (i.e., the fallen angels) to "keep tabs on them," so to speak. Being omniscient, He knows what they've been doing, of course, but the verses in Job simplify things for the benefit of us readers. Since His fallen angels are not omniscient (nor are they omnipotent or omnipresent), they need to be reminded frequently of what they may and may not do.

In particular, I think God, in His watchful care over His children, allows the infernal hosts of wickedness to "sift us as wheat" from time to time, as He did with Job and Peter, for example.

  Job: "Then the LORD said to Satan, 'Behold, all that he has is in your power; only do not put forth your hand on him.' So Satan departed from the presence of the LORD" (1:12).
  Job: "So the LORD said to Satan, 'Behold, he is in your power, only spare his life'" (2:6).
  Peter: "'And the Lord said, 'Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren" (Luke 22:31-32).

God, however, puts limits on what they (and the devil) can do, as He did with Job, when He told Satan he was not allowed to take Job's life (2:6). God also knows if and when we will repent, if in our being "sifted" we fail the test, as with Peter:

  "'But I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers'" (ibid.).

In conclusion, obviously God and Satan are on speaking terms, and Satan is on a short leash, as it were. Satan, however, knows that his time is short. His authority and activity as the "prince of the power of the air" are finite and will end one day when he is cast into hell, which was designed by God for the devil and his angels. Sad to say, many others will likewise be cast into hell one day, and I'm sure this, too, grieves God.

Consequently, God is patient and forbearing with us. Moreover,

  "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish , but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9 KJV).

I believe Satan can never, will never, repent. Human beings, however, God encourages to repent, and they are free to do so until the day they die. Once they die, however, repentance is not possible.

  ". . . as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation" (Hebrews 9:27-28 KJV, my emphasis).


Is the Canaanite woman from Tyre and Sidon a Gentile or not?

The short answer is yes. She is a Gentile.

It is quite possible that she is a descendant  of Canaan and thus Ham.

She is not not of Jewish decent and she is not a Samaritan. Greeks were considered to be Gentiles to both the Jews and the Samaritans.

  The Exorcism of the Syrophoenician woman's daughter is one of the miracles of Jesus in the Gospels and is recounted in the Gospel of Mark in Chapter 7 (Mark 7:24-30) and in the Gospel of Matthew in Chapter 15 (Matthew 15:21-28). In Matthew, the story is recounted as the healing of a Canaanite woman's daughter. According to both accounts, Jesus exorcised the woman's daughter whilst travelling in the region of Tyre and Sidon, on account of the faith shown by the woman.

  The woman described in the miracle, the Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7:26) is also called a "Canaanite" (Matthew 15:22) and is an unidentified New Testament woman from the region of Tyre and Sidon. "The woman is ... described as Syrophoenician by race. It is unclear whether Mark seeks to distinguish between a Phoenicianfrom Syria and one from northern Africa or between someone living in the coastal area of Syria and someone living in the central part." Her other notable characteristic is her non-Jewish status: the Gospel of Mark adds that she is a Greek (Greek: Ελληνις).

  The third century pseudo-Clementine homily refers to her name as Justa and her daughter's name as Berenice. - Exorcism of the Syrophoenician woman's daughter


How is the Catholic interpretation of the Woman of the Apocalypse as being Mary reconciled with the dogma of perpetual virginity?

Isaiah 66:7 foretells the painless virgin birth: "she brought forth; Before her pain came, she gave birth to a boy"; So painless birth is scriptural and that is how the Catholic Church interprets it.

And All the Church Fathers before AD 600 believed that Mary’s delivery was painlesssrc.

But what about the pain of the women in Revelation? It can be reconciled as:

Revelation is a prophecy of a Future event or is a cryptic narration of a future/past event. Pope St. Pius X says:

  "John therefore saw the Most Holy Mother of God already in eternal happiness, yet travailing in a mysterious childbirth. What birth was it? Surely it was the birth of us who, still in exile, are yet to be generated to the perfect charity of God, and to eternal happiness. And the birth pains show the love and desire with which the Virgin from heaven above watches over us, and strives with unwearying prayer to bring about the fulfillment of the number of the elect." (Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum, 24)

The pain of the Woman may signify the suffering the people of Israel went through before the coming of the Messiah. cf. Jn. 16:21-22
The women in the Revelation is not just Mary, but denotes more than her. The Woman in Revelation 12 is a composite image of the Daughter of Zion, Mary and the Church. Not every detail of this figure applies to each. As Held by H.H Benedict XVI.src
The clause wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth is figurative and alludes to Mary's spiritual suffering as prophesied by Simeon when the infant Jesus was presented in the temple (cf. Lk 2:35).

  Mary was preserved free from labor pains, not perpetual virginity is a non-infallible teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium and belongs to the deposit of faith. So Catholics are required to give their religious - as opposed to sacred - assent to this doctrine. Sacred assent applies to defined dogmas and the infallible teachings of the Universal Magisterium. But a non-infallible teaching isn't necessarily untrue because it hasn't yet been defined as dogma. It wasn't until the 14th century that the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist by transubstantiation was defined as dogma. Yet Catholics were required to profess their faith in this teaching of the Church.src - Italics mine

P.S: Catholics do not necessarily interpret bible literally


What's the significance of this image for Jehovah's Witnesses?

This is a depiction of the "immense image" recorded at Daniel 2:31-35.

The last publication released which discussed the immense image was the June 2012 Watchtower as discussed in Nathaniel's answer. Before that, there was the book, "Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy".

For Jehovah's Witnesses, the immense image is a symbol of how God's Kingdom will soon bring an end to the world powers that have prevailed throughout history alongside God's people. In particular, they believe that the feet of iron and clay symbolize the Anglo-American World Power (Britain and the United States). There will be no more world powers after this.

The prophecy about the immense image is also closely linked to several other prophesies in the Bible. On pages 12 & 13, the Watchtower mentioned above includes a diagram of how these prophesies are related.

The article also includes a picture of the immense image being struck at its feet.


The passage is most likely referring to the nation of Babylon.

Per ESV Study Bible Note:

  Jer. 6:22–23 great nation. Babylon. the farthest parts of the earth. Babylon’s army had outposts all over the ancient world. This army has no mercy; its horses are so numerous that their thundering hoofs sound like the roaring sea (4:13, 29).


The Bible is absolutely silent about any "before life" other than Jeremiah 1:5, which says God knew us even when we were in our mother's Womb.  that doesn't speak so much about our "before life" as God's Omniscience.

The LDS Church teaches about the "Premortal existence" but that's a doctrine unique to them.


What is the scriptural basis for a monarchical episcopate?

The scriptural basis on which Catholicism support the church polity of monarchial episcopate are the following scriptural passages:
Acts 21:18

On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the
elders were present-(ESV)

In Catholicism, being an elder and being a bishop are two different offices.Futhermore, in Catholicism, St. James was believed to be a bishop. Therefore, Acts 21:18 is an explicit Bible verse that supports monarchial episcopate when understood in terms of overall Catholic teachings.
Titus 1:5

This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what
remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I
directed you—(ESV)

Catholics believe that bishoprick and eldership aren't the same.Catholics believe that St. Titus was a bishop.In this verse, St. Titus appoints elders. In Catholicism, appointing elders is the function of a bishop.When read in Catholic lenses, Titus 1:5 is an another Bible verse that clearly supports monarchial episcopacy.
1 Timothy 5:17-22

Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor,
especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. 18 For the
Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the
grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” 19 Do not
admit(you-singular) a charge against an elder except on the evidence
of two or three witnesses. 20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke
(you-singular) them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand
in fear. 21 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the
elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging,
doing nothing from partiality. 22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of
hands(you-singular), nor take part in the sins of others; keep
yourself pure -(ESV).

St. Timothy is a bishop according to Catholicism.In this text, he possesses exclusive authority over the Ephesian elders.1 Timothy 5:17-22 supports monarchial episcopacy when read in light of Catholic theology.
Conclusion
Ample scriptural passages provided cogent biblical evidence for monarchial episcopate. This is only true when read in light of Catholic interpretation of eldership and bishoprick, though.

References:
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a80.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm


Does the Pope's encyclical Laudato si' have a Latin version?

There is now an official Latin version. Encyclicals are always published in the Holy See’s official journal, Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Laudato si’ can be found in volume 107, no. 9, published in 2015.