What are the differences between the roles of husband and wife in a Christian marriage?

My answer would be that the Bible has little or nothing to say about roles (that is, who does what) within a marriage, but it has quite a lot to say about authority.  Authority does not have to do with who does what, but who leads whom and where the buck stops.
Ephesians 5:21-33 is key:

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church — 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Which, in the context, starts of with an admonition for mutual submission between believers and then goes on to define the authority structure within a family.
I have yet to meet a women who honestly would object to being submissive to a man whose objective was to love her "just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her".
Note also that Christian authority is (should be) exercised with a servant's heart.  That is to properly lead my wife I must strive to serve her.


Creation, Fall, Redemption (Restoration/New Creation): Who said it first?

While creation and redemption were early Christian/biblical concepts, the notion of a "Fall" draws heavily from Platonism and Neoplatonism. Pushing all three together into a narrative is probably easiest to attribute to Augustine, the great importer of Neoplatonist themes into Christian doctrine, but let's unpack each of the three.

Creation
Obviously the creation narratives in the first three chapters of Genesis have been interpreted in various ways throughout the history of Jewish and Christian thought. However, these differing interpretations usually disagree on the how of creation, (1) (2) (3) (4) not the cause of creation. (5) (6) (7) For example, Christian thinkers may disagree on the time span of creation (literal six days?), but all Christian theologians agree that God is ultimately creator. (8) (9)

Redemption
This is a bit tricky to answer in the context of this question and we will need to come back to it afterward for a fuller answer. Like the doctrine of creation, redemption has had many differing interpretations. It's probably best categorized under the doctrine of soteriology which answers the question: How does God save? Biblical concepts inside this doctrine include topics like redemption, reconciliation, propitiation, forgiveness, and justification. (10)
Depending on the period of Christian history and the theologian, the way we approach soteriology can be radically different, but indebted to Jewish thought, the early church always had a concept that God is the one who "saves". (11) (12)

Fall
Here's the missing piece of the puzzle that ties the narrative together. Many modern Christians have lumped concepts like Adam's first sin, the fall, and original sin together to mean the same thing. If that's you, you probably owe it to a modified version of St. Augustine's teaching on the issue. But that deserves a bit of unpacking. First, let's talk about the fall.
The fall really isn't a biblical concept. That language of descent doesn't manifest itself in the garden narrative or in the early Christian writings. If anything, the paradigm wasn't a vertical one, but a horizontal one: inclusion vs exclusion: Adam and Eve were excluded from the garden, Gehenna -- often translated as "hell" in English -- is literally a valley outside the city of Jerusalem. (13) (14) (15)
In fact, the concept of the fall, really becomes cemented in Christian doctrine because of Augustine. His project merges Plotinus, the great neoplatonist thinker, with the Christian tradition. In the Phaedrus, Plato describes the fall of the immortal soul in heaven, which Plotinius expands and orders into a systematic doctrine. (16) (17) (18)
In order to go any further, it's time to get some technical terminology out of the way. First let's start with the difference between original sin and first sin (or Adam's sin). The first sin is a reference to the Garden of Eden. Literally, it's when Adam and Eve ate from the tree. Original sin is also a concept that comes from Augustine, and it is a sharing of all humanity in the first sin. For Augustine, when Adam ate from the tree, all humanity shared in that sin in mass condemnation. (19) (20) (21)
What's going on here? Well, the church hadn't yet condemned the doctrine of the preexistence of souls in Augustine's time, but it was not common doctrine. Humans are not immortal, and therefore we need a beginning. For most Christians, our souls are created like the rest of created things and there was a time when "we were not." (22)
So Augustine can't use the concept of the fall like the platonists do. Individually, for Augustine, we don't fall into our bodies from an eternal, heavenly state. Instead, the entire human race fell into original sin during that first sin of Adam. (23) The consequence, for Augustine, is a perversion of our "will" or desire. Humans are now in need of repairing or mending this broken will. (24) (25)

Conclusion
In a famous quote from Augustine, he says, "My weight is my love." (26) What he means is that by loving higher things, our weight becomes lighter (like the ancient element of fire) and we tend toward heaven. By loving lower things, I become heavier and tend toward lower existence (like the ancient element of earth). Tying it together, redemption becomes the healing of our will or desire. When God heals us, we become capable of loving God, which draws our souls toward heaven.
Is this still the way all theologians view this narrative of creation, fall, and redemption? No. Throughout the history of the church, theologians have rethought these concepts. It's not really fashionable (or believable) to base a modern theology on Neoplatonism, but Augustine's impact can still be felt. Even thinkers who reject Platonism will still use concepts like Original Sin and the Fall, but interpret them in different ways.


The darkness appears to have been there from the beginning:

the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the water
Genesis 1:2, NABRE


Is Nessa or Vanessa a Catholic name?

Not to sure what you mean by a Catholic name. Names of children are normally based on language and are often originated from a particular demographically known region.

There is no saint by the name of Vanessa or Nessa.

Canon Law states that names foreign to Christianity are not to be given to infants.

  Can. 855 Parents, sponsors, and the pastor are to take care that a name foreign to Christian sensibility is not given.

Foreign names here simply means offensive to the Catholic Church, the dignity of the child and Christianity in general.

Vanessa seems to be a fine name, even if there is no St. Vanessa in the Roman Martyrology.

  Vanessa is a feminine given name, especially popular in the United States, Germany and Brazil. It was invented by the Anglo-Irish writer Jonathan Swift for Esther Vanhomrigh, whom Swift had met in 1708 and whom he tutored. The name was created by taking "Van" from Vanhomrigh's last name and adding "Essa", a pet form of Esther.- Vanessa

However Esther is indeed a biblical and saint’s name.

As for Nessa, I see no problem here either even though it has Arabic origins and is not a saint’s name.

  Khairunnisa (Arabic: خير النساء) is an Arabic female given name. It can also be spelt as Kherunnisa or Khair-un-nisa. Khair means peace and nissa means lady, so the complete name means "lady of peace". The name is transliterated as Hayrünnisa in Turkey.

  There are several other names with the suffix -un-nissa, such as Mehr-un-nissa and Zeb-un-nisa. The name "Nissa" can also be used independently and written as "Nissa", "Nisa", "Nysa", "Neesa" and "Nessa".

For some, Nessa may have origins in Irish mythology also.

  Ness, also called Nessa, is a princess of the Ulaid and the mother of Conchobar mac Nessa in the Ulster Cycle of Irish mythology. Her father is Eochaid Sálbuide, king of the Ulaid. - Ness (Irish mythology)

More information may be gleaned here.

Both names are quite fine.

Hope this helps and God Bless.


What is the will of the Father according to the LDS vewpoint?

There is not just one answer to this, but rather a combination of many things that we do to allow us to be "swallowed up in the will of the Father." What will allow us to enter the "Pearly Gates" is our actions and the direction we are heading. If we strive to do our best, it will allow the Atonement of Jesus Christ to cleanse us so we can enter therein.
Scripturally I think these verses help us to understand how we can submit ourselves to the Father's will. We must become like Jesus Christ as  1 John 3:2-3 explains:

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

and within the Book of Mormon, Moroni 7:47-48,

47 But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.
48 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen.

After a great sermon was given by the Prophet King Benjamin, in the Book of Mormon, his people said the following:

2 And they all cried with one voice, saying: Yea, we believe all the words which thou hast spoken unto us; and also, we know of their surety and truth, because of the Spirit of the Lord Omnipotent, which has wrought a mighty change in us, or in our hearts, that we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually.

These individuals were changed by the Word of God, so much so they had no more desire to do evil and were will to subject themselves to the Will of the Father.

5 And we are willing to enter into a covenant with our God to do his will, and to be obedient to his commandments in all things that he shall command us, all the remainder of our days, that we may not bring upon ourselves a never-ending torment, as has been spoken by the angel, that we may not drink out of the cup of the wrath of God.

King Benjamin was thrilled, as this was the reaction he wanted:

7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.
8 And under this head ye are made free, and there is no other head whereby ye can be made free. There is no other name given whereby salvation cometh; therefore, I would that ye should take upon you the name of Christ, all you that have entered into the covenant with God that ye should be obedient unto the end of your lives.
9 And it shall come to pass that whosoever doeth this shall be found at the right hand of God, for he shall know the name by which he is called; for he shall be called by the name of Christ.

We will not be allowed to enter the "Pearly Gates" of Heaven just because we belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It takes purification and sanctification by the Power of the Atonment of Christ.
The Prophet Alma taught:

32 For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors.
33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.

I would recommend you read the first bullet point under additional reading, this is the most recent sermon on this topic, given by an Apostle of the Lord.
Additional Reading:

David A Bednar: If Ye Had Known Me, 2016
Neal A Maxwell: Swallowed up in the will of the father, 1995
Submitting our Will to the Father's, 2004


What is the basis for the idiomatic understanding of "three days in the tomb" as two nights and a day?

Unfortunately I can't find the original source (yet), but according to this commentator, the Jerusalem Talmud states that a portion of a day was as a whole.

  The Jerusalem Talmud quotes rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, who lived around A.D. 100, as saying: “A day and night are an Onah [‘a portion of time’] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it” (from Jerusalem Talmud: Shabbath ix. 3, as quoted in Hoehner, 1974, pp. 248-249, bracketed comment in orig.).

The Jerusalem Talmud is also known as the Palestinian Talmud.

PS As the answer to the OP question, the reference (the argument amongst the early sages like Eleazar ben Azariah) is to the command "be ready on the 3rd day" (Ex. 19:15) with day defined earlier in Gen. 1:5, 8 (dark/evening and light/morning).  So, some sages thought in terms of periods (dark or light) to make a day.  When is the third day?  Some thought at least 4 periods, some 5, some 6 (Ishmael).  One said always 5 (Aqiva).  Following are examples.

4 PERIODS

before sunset (1 period and day 1)

night, morning (2 periods (or 3 total) and day 2)

night (1 period (or 4 total) and day 3)

5 PERIODS

night, morning (2 periods and day 1)

night, morning (2 periods (4 total periods) and day 2)

after sunset (1 period (5 total) and day 3)

6 PERIODS

night, morning (2 periods and day 1)

night, morning (2 periods (4 total) and day 2)

night, morning (2 periods (6 total) and day 3)

So, traditional Christianity counts the sign of Jonah as 4 periods to mean 3 days (Fri-Sun).

Some count the full 6 periods (3 days and 3 nights) in ways like Thursday after sunset to Sabbath at sunset.

What is totally wrong is the newish theory of death on Wednesday to either resurrection at Saturday sunset (7 periods or 4 days) or Wednesday to Sunday resurrection (9 periods or 5 days).


In Catholicism, does the efficacy of the sacrament depend on the intention of the priest?

The Church's current teaching points to the sacrament itself overcoming any weakness of an individual.

  If a priest intends to send babies to hell while he is baptizing them, are those infants deprived of regeneration, according to Catholicism?

No.  The presumption made that a priest intends to send babies to hell is based on absurdity (addressed later) similar to "if Korvin placed his hand in a blender with the intention of trimming his nails ..."

Canon law makes the presumption that a sacrament is entered into with correct intent. (An exception must be demonstrated)
Extraordinary claims require investigation.  The claim that an ordained bishop/priest/deacon did as described requires proof to be credible: such a bizarre case would need to be investigated by a tribunal.  For example, the sacrament of matrimony accrues the favor of the law unless it is asserted that the marriage was not sacramental.  In such case, a tribunal must examine the evidence and forward its findings on the facts of the matter to the local ordinary, and now to the archdioceses.

  CCC 1128 This is the meaning of the Church's affirmation49 that the
  sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: "by the very fact of the
  action's being performed"), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of
  Christ, accomplished once for all.  It follows that "the sacrament is
  not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the
  recipient, but by the power of God." 50 From the moment that a
  sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the
  Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it,
  independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless,
  the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one
  who receives them.

You ask in a follow up comment:

  What does "From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church" imply? If the priest's intention is not in accord with the Church's, does this section apply?

I respond:
The Church is the Body of Christ and is bigger than any one person in it or any one person serving it.
The intention of the Church is that all be saved through Baptism.  (Great Commission, etc)
That's how I heard it explained, and is consistent with how the church generally see the sacraments.  In the modern vernacular, if "on a given day" a priest does not have his A-game" the Church always does.  Why?  Because the Church is (a) the Body of Christ, and (b) One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  The holiness of the church is not abrogated by the sinfulness of one member.

Problem's with Clark's polemic

Assuming (1) a priest intends to send babies to hell, and (2) said priest with that intention would not first go to confession to cleanse himself of evil and lack of charity --  but instead with hate in his heart perform a baptism -- is to create an argument of the absurd.  Give me a freakin' break.  Whence comes this assumption?  From a lack of Christian charity.  While I question the honesty, the intent, and motive of anyone proposing that absurdity (Clark) we can play along since the polemic is now in play.

By having evil intention, per Clark's absurdist example, the clergyman by abdicating Christian charity falls into the Donatist category (Canon XII from Trent, which follows Canon XI, the basis of the argumentum absurdum) that you asked to set aside in establishing the criteria for an answer.  (Why would one suppose things happen in a vacuum?)

The Council of Trent covered more than one base in the Canons.  In any case, the current Church has addressed this in the cited CCC 1128.

The above considered, @MattGutting pointed to Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologoca, III, Q64 which is one of the notes for the CCC; it finds Thomas arguing with himself on this edge case.

  Reply to Objection 2: On this point there are two opinions. For some hold that the mental intention of the minister is necessary; in the absence of which the sacrament is invalid: and that this defect in the case of children who have not the intention of approaching the sacrament, is made good by Christ, Who baptizes inwardly: whereas in adults, who have that intention, this defect is made good by their faith and devotion.
  Consequently, others with better reason hold that the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is; while in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is expressed; and that this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, except the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister or of the recipient of the sacrament. (Further up, Aquinas posits "intent" thusly: And this intention is expressed by the words which are pronounced in the sacraments; for instance the words, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father," etc")

One can read this as "if he's up there doing the baptism, and says the words, the Church takes over."  (Or one can choose not to).  Part of the citation goes directly to personal intention being an obstacle, while the other passage argues the opposite.

Given that the CCC citation appears to be a product of synthesis over the years, the conclusion in the CCC stands up when the juxtaposition of both Canons XI and XII of Trent are considered.

I added citations from the CCC's notes.  I'd recommend a review of CCC 1117-1129 (if you can handle the corpulent prose) to get the larger view of how the Church sees the sacraments.  From the proceedings of Trent, it seems a mistake of reasoning to set aside the Donatism in relationship to the other matter.  Clark's attack looks like both a case of special pleading and an exercise in the absurd.

49 Cf. Council of Trent (1547): DS 1608.

  CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.
  CANON XII.-If any one saith, that a minister, being in mortal sin,-if so be that he observe all the essentials which belong to the effecting, or conferring of, the sacrament,-neither effects, nor confers the sacrament; let him be anathema.

50 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III, 68, 8.

Regarding CCC note DS 1608; Sources Catholic Doctrine (Denzinger-Schonmetzer; Enchiridion Symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum):

  The Ordinations of Schismatics *   [From the epistle (1) "Exordium
  Pontificatus mei" to Anastasius Augustus, 496] 169 (7) According to
  the most sacred custom of the Catholic Church, let the heart of your
  serenity acknowledge that no share in the injury from the name of
  Acacius should attach to any of these whom Acacius the schismatic
  bishop has baptized, or to any whom he has ordained priests or levites
  according to the canons, lest perchance the grace of the sacrament
  seem less powerful when conferred by an unjust [person]. . . . For if
  the rays of that visible sun are not stained by contact with any
  Pollution when they pass over the foulest places, much less is the
  virtue of him who made that visible [sun] fettered by any unworthiness
  in the minister. (8) Therefore, then, this person has only injured
  himself by wickedly administering the good. For the inviolable
  sacrament, which was given through him, held the perfection of its
  virtue for others.

The other reference in Denzinger looks to cross reference to 851, which is a reflects the Council of Trent

  1608 851 Can. 8. If anyone shall say that by the said sacraments of the New Law, grace is not conferred from the work which has been worked [ex opere operato], but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices to obtain grace: let him be anathema.


What is the meaning of "anything" in Matthew 18:19-20?

Another verse that supports this concept:

  Mark 11:24 (NASB)
  Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you.

Why doesn't this work?

Let's look at things a bit more in context (of Mark):

  Mark 11:22-24 (NASB)
  22 And Jesus answered saying to them, “Have faith in God. 23 Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it will be granted him. 24 Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you.

It's very clear that God will answer any prayer you have.  However, if you don't have faith, your prayers won't be answered.

Furthermore, we should pray continuously for something we want!  We see this in the parable of the widow and the unjust judge.  The widow constantly bothers the judge and he finally relents even though he is neither godly nor just.  He basically says "Fine, you can have it, go away."

Finally, we need to make sure that we're asking for the right motives.  James 4:1-3 shows that if we're asking for things for our own earthly pleasure, then that's the wrong motive.  Like Jesus, we should try to keep God's will in mind when we pray for something.

So, why doesn't it always work to pray for something?

Here seem to be the biblical criteria:

You must have more than one person agreeing on the need
You must believe that it will be granted
You must pray continually about it and make your prayers constant until it is granted
You must ask with the right motives

Then, you will be able to move mountains.

A word study

This isn't really necessary for the answer (once I re-read the question), but I'd already written it up, so I'll include it here:

This gets a bit more interesting in the Greek.

We see

  Again, [I-am-saying] [to-you] that [if-ever] two [of you] [should-be-agreeing] on the earth concerning [any/every] [practice/matter] which [if-ever] [theys-shoud-be-requesting] [it-shall-be-becoming] [to-them] beside the father [of-me] [the-one] in heavens

The translation in question "anything" actually comes from two words:  pantos [any/every] and pragmatos [practice/matter].

The word pantos is pretty self-explanatory, if you simply accept that it means "each thing, all, or every".  The word pragmatos is a bit more interesting, though:

Vines lexicon shows:

  From the root pragma (Strong / Vines entry)
  1. that which has been done, a deed, an accomplished fact
  2. what is done or being accomplished
      a. spec. business, a commercial transaction
  3. a matter, question, affair

So, in essence, the verse is saying that if ever two of you agree on the earth about any practice, every deed, any question that they are requesting, it will be given.

Word definition summary

Essentially, if two or more people agree to ask for any deed to be done or any question to be answered, God will do it.


Why did Jesus physically throw out the money changers instead of winning the argument with reason?

It seems that there is an assumption in this question that suggests reason is preferable to judgment.  Reason is appropriate when the problem is merely a misunderstanding, but judgment is appropriate when the problem is willful disobedience.

It is likely that the place in the temple where the market had been set up was in the Court of the Gentiles.  Thus, occupying that particular place was in essence excluding the nations from the worship of the one true God.  As Rick noted, the Temple was intended to be a place of prayer for all nations--not just the Jews.

  These I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.”  Isaiah 56:7

It seems unlikely that the people would not have known this, as it was called the Court of the Gentiles.  So, occupying that place was in direct violation to a command of God--not a misunderstanding.  Thus, it was wholly appropriate for Jesus to bring judgment rather than reason.


Why are slaves and slave women mentioned distinctly in the Old Testament?

Most, but not all, English-language  Bibles include phrases such as  "male slave or female slave".  Many readers  find them puzzling.   What, they wonder, does "male slave or female slave"  mean?  It appears to mean neither more nor less than "slave".   But, in that case,  why doesn't it just say so?

To understand  this we must first look at the Hebrew text, and then at principles of translation. The Questioner particularly asks about whether there is an implied distinction between men's work and women's work, and whether there is any Catholic rule mandating that male and female  be mentioned separately.

Hebrew Text

The phrase from Deuteronomy 5 14, translated in the Lexham English Bible (LEB) version as "your slave or your slave woman" is based on two Hebrew words ebed and amah (Strong's 5650 and 519). These are often translated as "male servant" and "female servant".

These words are sometimes  used by  a speaker to refer to himself  or herself as "your servant" when respectfully addressing  a person as of higher status.  Hannah refers to herself in this way when addressing Eli, and Jacob refers to himself this way when meeting Esau.

The word ebed is also  applied to household servants in relation to the householder, government officials in relation to  a king, worshipers in relation to God, soldiers in relation to commanders, serfs in relation to owners, and a vanquished people in relation to a conqueror, amongst others.

The words do  not  apply to any specific occupation. Rather, they are relationship words. They describe the relationship of one person to another. The context is always relational. Just as nobody can simply be "a brother", but only a brother in relation to somebody else;  in the same way one can only be an ebed in relation to someone else, such as an employer, king, commander, overlord etc. As no particular type of work is meant, it follows that they do not distinguish between "men's work" and "women's work".

Like many relationship words in many languages a different word is used for a man or boy than is used for a woman or girl. The phrase immediately before the example in the question refers to "your son or your daughter".  Few English speakers will wonder why son and daughter are mentioned separately - it is simply the conventional way we speak.

So, in the Hebrew, mentioning male slave and female slave separately, is no more, and no less, significant or emphatic than mentioning son and daughter separately. (Indeed the point of the verse in question is that there is no distinction to be made, as regards the Sabbath, between  sons, daughters ,slaves, strangers  and even farmyard animals. All alike must rest.)

So then the question is why not simply say "slaves" in English. Some versions do, but most do mention male and female separately.

Translation

There are different ways in which meaning in language is conveyed. These include the  explicit, the implicit and the  tacit.

Consider the following three questions:

Do you have any siblings?
Do you have any brothers or sisters?
Do you have any male siblings or female siblings?

These three questions are identical in meaning, but differ in emphasis. The first question tacitly includes both sexes. It does not say so, but we understand that the question relates to both male and female  siblings, as well as older and younger siblings, hairy and smooth siblings, and any  other types of sibling. The second question implicitly includes both sexes, the distinction is there but it is not emphatic. To most English speakers it is the most natural way to ask the question. The third question explicitly includes both sexes, and  comes across as placing a certain emphasis on doing so.

The Hebrew  "ebed and amah" implicitly includes both sexes. It is simply not possible to translate this into modern English in  a way that preserves the implicitness. We can use a phrase which explicitly includes both sexes, and so introduce an emphasis which is not in the Hebrew. Or we can use a phrase such as "slaves" which only tacitly includes both sexes, and so, arguably, loses something from the Hebrew. But we cannot use a phrase which implicitly includes both sexes without any emphasis, because we do not have different words in modern English.   The King James version, and some other older versions,  use "manservant" and "maidservant" and this is fairly implicit, as it uses different words; but in  modern English we do not say manservant or maidservant.

So, if we must err, do we err on the side of explicitness, or on the side of tacitness?

One of  many considerations in Biblical, and other,  translation is the distinction between formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence.  Very basically,  formal equivalence aims at an almost word-for-word translation, whereas dynamic equivalence aims more at a thought-for-thought translation. This article, by Vern S. Poythress and Wayne A. Grudem goes into this, and many other aspects of Biblical translation.

It includes a list of several common Bible versions, which it arranges in a spectrum from those it regards as most formal and literal, to those most dynamic and paraphrastic. The ways some of these translate the phrase mentioned by our Questioner, is tabulated below (going from formal at the top to dynamic at the bottom):

NASB  or your male servant or your female servant
KJV   nor thy manservant nor thy maidservant
NKJV  or your male servant or your female servant
RSV   nor thy manservant nor thy maidservant
NRSV  or your male or female slave
NIV   nor your male or female servant
GNB   your slaves
NCV   your male or female slaves
GW    your male and female slaves
NLT   your male and female servants
CEV   your slaves
LB    your (sons, daughters,) slaves (, oxen)

Those translations which go for a formal equivalence tend to replace ebed by male servant and amah by female servant. Those in the middle are a little freer, the word servant or slave is mentioned only once with the male or female bit mentioned separately. Those at the bottom are more tacit, with no mention of the two sexes at all.

There is nothing  in Catholic teaching that mandates that male slaves and female slaves must be mentioned separately in English translations, or that opposes dynamic equivalence translation generally.. Both the CEV and the LB, and other dynamic translations, have Catholic editions, with all 73 books.

The version quoted in the question appears to be from the Lexham English Bible which is a very formal and literal translation, intended to assist people to understand the underlying Hebrew or Greek text as closely as possible.

It may be noted in passing that translations of almost anything other than the Bible, with the possible exception of legal documents, are typically much freer than even the most dynamic Bible translation. With the Bible we are dealing with what many believe to be a divinely inspired original, and so it is seen as important not to miss anything out, even if it appears merely incidental.  Even some with a generally low view of Biblical inspiration may accept  that the ten commandments (the Questioner's example) were, quite literally, written in stone, by God Himself.

A local newspaper reported that:

"The Pensioners' Christmas meal was cooked and served  by the kitchen staff, waiters and waitresses of the Carlton Hotel. Entertainment was provided by the boys and girls of St. Mary's School,  and transport was provided by their parents."

Probably few readers would notice that, although we are told the waiting staff and entertainers were of mixed sex, we are not told whether the pensioners, kitchen staff or parents were. The reporter was simply using the  usual terms, and almost certainly did not intend to convey or withhold the gender makeup of any of the groups. However, when translating the Bible, these sort of apparent minutiae, are not readily dismissed, but  very carefully considered and weighed.


Do the "Anathemas" Pronounced in the Council of Trent still stand today?

To say of a person, "Anathema sit"—"Let him be anathema"—means simply that the person is excommunicated: regarded as having separated themselves from the body of the True Church. It appears that at an early time it corresponded to a more formal act and a more serious punishment than excommunication:

At a late period, Gregory IX (1227-41), bk. V, tit. xxxix, ch. lix, Si quem, distinguishes minor excommunication, or that implying exclusion only from the sacraments, from major excommunication, implying exclusion from the society of the faithful. He declares that it is major excommunication which is meant in all texts in which mention is made of excommunication.
("Anathema", The Catholic Encyclopedia)

But its later meaning was essentially the same as excommunication.
To say, then, with Canon IX,

If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification ... let him be anathema.

is simply to mean that anyone who does in fact hold this belief is considered to be outside the body of the Church. And similarly for any other use of the phrase.
The phrase "let him be anathema" has fallen out of use in the last several centuries; but the concept still appears. For example, in the 1950 encyclical Munificentissimus Deus, promulgating the dogma of the Assumption of Mary, Pope Pius XII closes with

Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith. ... It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Therefore, in brief: The anathemas of the Council of Trent still stand; but they are not formal curses or condemnations pronounced on individual Protestants. Rather, they are formal declarations that Protestants who hold these particular beliefs are not in communion with the True Church.


Assuming young-earth creationism, could Adam calculate the age of the earth using science?

For the sake of not getting into an argument, let's assume a genesis / biblical creation, literal/YEC-style. The "trees/rings" thing is pretty much unanswerable, but fortunately we don't even need to know anything about the garden of Eden / Adam, because what we do have is the light from other stars, for which we have good confidence for the distance / trajectory / etc. Under the laws of physics, the light has been travelling for many millions of years (indeed, the Hubble experts claim to have light from one 13 billion years ago).

This leaves us two conclusions inside a YEC/literal genesis:

the universe was made fully "with age", so no: you wouldn't have been able to use science to "age" it (see also, Last Thursdayism)
the laws of physics have been significantly changed, so no: you wouldn't have been able to use science to "age" it

(or of course the option that Genesis is not a reliable source of creation information)


What does Bible say about possibility of seeing/hearing people on Earth from heaven?

Many passages from the Bible have been used as the basis for people seeing and hearing from heaven. I think that I have now rounded up all the major points. I could be wrong, perhaps there are even more. Below I give the 7 major biblical points that I have seen brought up as supporting this view. Some of these points are related, but they all approach the issue from a slightly different perspective.

One important thing to remember is that the dead in heaven might not "see and hear" exactly like we do. This does not mean that they can't see and hear, but only that the faithful in heaven might see and hear things differently.

1: Faith in Heaven

Jesus says:

  Matthew 17
  20 He said to them, “Because of your little faith. Amen, I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”

Many things are impossible for us of little faith, but I would guess that the dead in heaven have faith at least the size of a mustard seed. If they do, then it is possible for them to hear us. (Of course, this passage does not say they must listen, but there is nothing in the Bible that suggests that they would not listen to people who cry out to them, or that God would command them not to listen when a loved one wants them to hear.)

2: The Psalms

Psalms are prayers. In at least two Psalms, the person who is saying these prayers is asking or commanding all of creation (including those in heaven, angels, hosts, and so on) to praise God:

  Psalms 103
  20 Bless the LORD, all you his angels,
  mighty in strength, acting at his behest,
  obedient to his command.
  21 Bless the LORD, all you his hosts,
  his ministers who carry out his will.

  Psalms 148
  1 Hallelujah! Praise the LORD from the heavens; praise him in the heights.
  2 Praise him, all you his angels; give praise, all you his hosts.

  Daniel 3:86 (not available in some Bibles)
  86 Spirits and souls of the just, bless the Lord;
  praise and exalt him above all forever.

Some might say that these passages are just figurative expressions of the psalmist's own praise. However:

  Revelation 5
  13 Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, everything in the universe, cry out:
  “To the one who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
  be blessing and honor, glory and might,
  forever and ever.”

  Luke 19
  39 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples.”
  40 He said in reply, “I tell you, if they keep silent, the stones will cry out!”

  Numbers 20:8
  8 Take the staff and assemble the community, you and Aaron your brother, and in their presence command the rock to yield its waters. Thereby you will bring forth water from the rock for them, and supply the community and their livestock with water.

So according to God (literally the words of God in this case), it is even appropriate to speak directly to rocks and expect something to happen. Of course, rocks are inanimate, which means they have no soul. But people (even dead people, of course) have souls, so we should expect that they would hear us like people and not like rocks, even if they don't hear in exactly the same way that we do. (We know that beings with only a soul can hear, even though they have no body, because the Bible describes angels having conversations with people.)

3: Moses and Elijah

At the Transfiguration of Jesus, the Bible describes Moses and Elijah talking with Jesus as if they are aware of what is and will be happening in the world:

  Luke 9
  29 While he was praying his face changed in appearance and his clothing became dazzling white.
  30 And behold, two men were conversing with him, Moses and Elijah,
  31 who appeared in glory and spoke of his exodus that he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem.

Some people might say that Moses and Elijah could hear Jesus because they "came down to earth". But others say that Peter, James, and John saw a glimpse of people who were "in heaven" talking to Jesus (when Peter suggested setting up tents, a cloud overshadowed them, a voice said “This is my beloved Son. Listen to him.”, and then they could no longer see Moses and Elijah).

4: Revelation

Revelation establishes that certain people in heaven "interact" with the prayers of other people:

  Revelation 5:8
  8 When he took it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones.

This describes the prayers of holy people filling up golden bowls, in heaven. The bowls are held by the 24 elders (the 12 apostles and the 12 tribes). The elders offer up these prayers to God like incense ("Let my prayer be incense before you...", Psalm 141:2). The point here is that, at the very least, these people are directly interacting with prayers. How do people usually directly interact with prayers? By hearing them (or knowing them, or saying them).

5: Raphael's Record

Tobit 12 describes Archangel Raphael doing the same, but with more clarity: the prayers of Tobit and Sarah are recorded, and this record is something that God wants kept and "presented" to Him:

  Tobit 12:12
  12 Now when you, Tobit, and Sarah prayed, it was I who presented the record of your prayer before the Glory of the Lord; and likewise whenever you used to bury the dead.

Obviously, God can hear all prayers, but He still wants a record kept. How did Raphael know what the prayers were? My guess is that Raphael could hear them.  Of course, Raphael is an angel, not a heavenly human person, but this seems to show that this is an activity endorsed by God.

6: Abraham hearing the rich man

The following parable implies that someone in heaven is capable of hearing:

  Luke 16:22-25
  22 When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and from the netherworld, where he was in torment, he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.
  24 And he cried out, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.’
  25 Abraham replied, ‘My child, remember that [...]

The rich man is in hell, suffering, and he cries out to Abraham. Abraham is dead and in a far-off and elevated place. Some people who argue against there being any biblical basis get this point entirely confused. It's not about the rich man seeing his family! It is about Abraham in that heavenly place hearing the rich man. Even this person in hell is heard by Abraham.

Some say that the only lesson of this parable is that people will not believe even if someone returns from the dead. Others say that the only lesson is that once you are in hell it is too late to pray, or that not all prayers will be answered, or that people who care more for riches than for the poor will go to hell. But others say that one important lesson is that faithful people like Abraham can hear prayers and are worth praying to.
The following is my own explanation of why this parable is important: There can't really be a sort of "isolation bubble" around a place like heaven, because then this parable would be describing something heretical. For example, no parable would ever describe someone being reincarnated as a cow while giving any kind of teaching, because reincarnation in general is a heresy and incompatible with the order of things. So we must believe that this parable describes something that is in accordance with the way in which God has ordered His creation.

7: Cloud of Witnesses

Hebrews is also often brought up as evidence that a "cloud of witnesses" can see us (this "cloud" refers to the dead that are in heaven, including: Abel, Enoch, Noah, Jacob, Moses, Rahab Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel, and the prophets, all mentioned in Hebrews 11):

  Hebrews 12
  1 Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin that clings to us* and persevere in running the race that lies before us
  2 while keeping our eyes fixed on Jesus, the leader and perfecter of faith. For the sake of the joy that lay before him he endured the cross, despising its shame, and has taken his seat at the right of the throne of God.

The interpretation depends on what the word "witnesses" means. Some have interpreted it to mean that the people are witnessing us (seeing us, like spectators in a stadium) as we "run the race". Others suggest that these people are witnesses to faith: good role models, a "cloud" of the faithful that we should hope surrounds us. I think the second view (that we should look up to saints) is more appropriate based on context, so this is the only point I don't entirely agree with. But I have included it because it is important.

So there are many passages from the Bible that serve as the basis for people seeing and hearing from heaven. Points 1, 3, 5, 7, and possibly 6 relate to the possibility of seeing (and not just hearing prayers).

The most important thing is to have the faith of Abraham, and to give prayer worthy to be offered up to God.


Christ is using his ability to perform miracles as evidence that he is God, and therefore has the right and the ability to forgive sins.

He is saying, anyone can say "Your sins are forgiven," without any evidence that they have the authority to do so.  But only God can heal a paralytic.  So by performing such a miracle, Christ is proving that he has the authority of God both to heal and to forgive sin.


There are actually two separate questions here, which need to be clarified.

  In what form was the original Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary?

  What was the form of the original Hail Mary?

First of all let us deal with the Hail Mary. And in order to understand the origins of this prayer we basically need to see this in the light of the Church's liturgical and official language: Latin, since vernacular languages will vary considerably.

  Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum.
  Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Iesus.
  Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae.
  Amen.

Let's start with the origins of the Ave Maria and who added the later portions of this wonderful prayer.

Although Wikipedia states that Saint  Peter Canisius (1521-1597 , a Doctor of the Church is credited with adding to the Hail Mary the sentence "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners", seems to be doubtful. It is plausible that  St Peter Canisius had some influence at the  Council of Trent in rendering the Hail Mary as we know it in its' official form.

  Who wrote the Hail Mary prayer?

  Actually, we owe the first half of it to the angel Gabriel and to Mary’s cousin Elizabeth. “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee,” are the words of the angel when he greets Mary at the Annunciation (Luke 1:28). During the visitation, Mary’s cousin Elizabeth welcomes her with the words, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.” (Luke 1:42). The joining of the two salutations in prayer appears to have become a widespread practice in the mid-eleventh century, though there is evidence of it showing up in eastern rites as far back as the sixth century.

  The second part of the “Hail Mary” is where we ask for Mary’s intercession: “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.” Various forms of this go back to the fourteenth century; the wording as we use it today became official in 1568.

The devotion to the hail Mary can be traced at least to the 11th century, at least as Marian Salutation.

  Abbot Baldwin, the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1184 wrote about a devotion to the ‘Hail Mary’ prayer and said, “To this salutation of the Angel, by which we daily greet the most Blessed Virgin, with such devotion as we may, we are accustomed to add the words, “and blessed is the fruit of thy womb,” by which clause Elizabeth at a later time, on hearing the Virgin’s salutation to her, caught up and completed, as it were, the Angel’s words, saying: “Blessed are thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.” - 11 Historical Facts You Probably Didn’t Know about the Hail Mary, but Should

The Hail Mary as we know it can be found in books from the 1400s.

  Dominican reformer Girolamo Savonarola wrote a piece in 1495 that contained the entire Hail Mary except the word ‘nostrae.’  There is currently a copy of this work in the British Museum. - 11 Historical Facts You Probably Didn’t Know about the Hail Mary, but Should

The Catholic Encyclopedia states something quite similar:

  We meet the Ave as we know it now, printed in the breviary of the Camaldolese monks, and in that of the Order de Mercede c. 1514. Probably this, the current form of Ave, came from Italy, and Esser asserts that it is to be found written exactly as we say it now in the handwriting of St. Antoninus of Florence who died in 1459. This, however, is doubtful. What is certain is that an Ave Maria identical with our own, except for the omission of the single word nostrae, stands printed at the head of the little work of Savonarola's issued in 1495, of which there is a copy in the British Museum. Even earlier than this, in a French edition of the "Calendar of Shepherds" which appeared in 1493, a third part is added to the Hail Mary, which is repeated in Pynson's English translation a few years later in the form: "Holy Mary moder of God praye for us synners. Amen.". In an illustration which appears in the same book, the pope and the whole Church are depicted kneeling before our Lady and greeting her with this third part of the Ave. The official recognition of the Ave Maria in its complete form, though foreshadowed in the words of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, as quoted at the beginning of this article, was finally given in the Roman Breviary of 1568.

The Hail Mary in the recitation of the Most Holy Rosary in our modern times has the ending as such is in English "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death" or as in French "Sainte Marie, Mère de Dieu, priez pour nous, pauvres pécheurs, maintenant et à l'heure de notre mort" did not exist when the  original rosary was thought to have been composed.

Seeing that in the early development of the rosary, it was a more scriptural way of meditating on the sacred mysteries of the life of Our Lord, since the original Hail Mary comprise of two elements the angelic salutation of the Angel Gabriel (Luke 1:28)  and St Elizabeth's words at Mary's Visitation (Luke 1:42).

Traditionally, the origins of the Holy rosary itself are believed to have been handed down from St Dominic in the year 1214. This may or may not be true.

  According to some Catholic traditions, the Rosary was given to Saint Dominic in a vision of the Blessed Virgin Mary and it was then promoted by Blessed Allan de la Roche. However, not all Catholics agree with that tradition. Some historians see a more gradual development for the Rosary, in that the repetition of Marian prayers which form the basis of the Rosary needed counting devices, which resulted in the modern form of the Rosary prayed on beads. - Wikipedia

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a more reserved approach to its' origin as a whole and tends to see the rosary as a natural development of piety:

  We have positive evidence that both the invention of the beads as a counting apparatus and also the practice of repeating a hundred and fifty Aves cannot be due to St. Dominic, because they are both notably older than his time. Further, we are assured that the meditating upon the mysteries was not introduced until two hundred years after his death. What then, we are compelled to ask, is there left of which St. Dominic may be called the author?

  These positive reasons for distrusting the current tradition might in a measure be ignored as archaeological refinements, if there were any satisfactory evidence to show that St. Dominic had identified himself with the pre-existing Rosary and become its apostle. But here we are met with absolute silence. Of the eight or nine early Lives of the saint, not one makes the faintest allusion to the Rosary. The witnesses who gave evidence in the cause of his canonization are equally reticent. In the great collection of documents accumulated by Fathers Balme and Lelaidier, O.P., in their "Cartulaire de St. Dominique" the question is studiously ignored. The early constitutions of the different provinces of the order have been examined, and many of them printed, but no one has found any reference to this devotion.


Does the Bible espouse moral absolutism or moral relativism?

I'd like to stand by by statement that it is an anachronism to judge the Scripture from modern biases.
One of the first rules of hermeneutics is that a text cannot mean today what it could not mean to the people who received it. This is a simple enough postulate, buttressed by the fact that not every word of God was for every time, and that the canon we retain consists of that which has proven to speak to all throughout the
ages. But, if it is to speak to us today, it had to have spoken to them then, too.
So, how then can we retain the fact that God is unchanging, and that the moral rules he laid down are transcendent?  We need to remember that God and Man are different.
1. God doesn't change, but people do
First and foremost, God doesn't change, but we do.  Imagine, if you will, one of those cheap holograms that they used to put in kid's cereal boxes.  You could hold the hologram completely still, but depending on your position, it could display two different images.  Even if God is unchanging, very few people would argue that we do. The problems that we face in the 21st Century are different from the problems that we faced in the 1st. Oddly enough, the Bible has nothing to say about the morality of nuclear power! Why? becuase any explanation would have been nonsensical to the original recipients.
The way in which we face our problems also dictates the way in which we will face God. If God were distant, the parallax would make the movement irrelevant. But God is close, and God is involved. As such, he will necessarily appear different, if he has stayed put and we have moved.
In the 1st Century, slavery was a fact of life. As such, it made sense to say, "if you're going to have slaves, treat them well."  That implied "if" is a very different beast then "you should have slaves."  In the milennia before Christ, it was permissible to have multiple wives, and so the injunction was given, if you have multiple wives, treat them all well.  That was not a command to marry multiple times by any stretch either. But in an age where silence is now equated with acquiensence, it will appear to us like a tacit endorsement. But to say that is not to make a statement about God, but rather about where we are.
Remember also that laws & principles can remain constant while their interpretation varies.  In 1787, the writers of the Constitution said that Congress should not make any law regarding the establishment of a religion or to prohibit the free exercise thereof.  That had a very specific meaning - In Virginia, the Anglican / Episcopal Church was the established church of Virginia.  The government collected taxes on its behalf, outsourced the institution of marriage, and generally proscribed that all citizens be members of that church.  Nowadays, it doesn't even occur to us to set up a federal church.  And yet, the United States interprets that clause to mean that schools cannot lead prayers, and the City of New York wants to interpret that to mean that churches cannot even pay rent to the school system to use vacant buildings on Sunday mornings. George Mason himself would have been bowled over at such a suggestion. The principle of antiestablishmentarianism itself is  thus absolute, even if its application bears no resemeblance to its former practice.
Finally, the Gospel is not a set of laws any way. It is a message that a gracious God loves us in spite of our sin.  That we are better at following certain laws at certain times and worse in others should be obvious.  Did Christians in the United States sin by holding slaves in the 17th, 18th, and 19th Centuries? Amen, yes, we did.  Did we ignore the principle that before God we are equaly? Amen, God have have mercy.  But I wonder what our great-great-granchildren we think of us.  Did we sin by driving cars like Hummers that were built in total disregard of the command that God gave us to be good stewards of the earth? Its a valid question.  I suspect in the years to come people will be asking how one can be a Christian given our long track record of being such rapacious stewards of the planet we were given to tend.
And yet, I don't think the absolute morality has changed.
2. From God's perspective, we're all sinners anyway. From our perspective, there are only degrees
From God's perspective, we're all sinners anyway. As Isaiah says,

Even our righteousness is as filthy rags.

In God's eyes, we're all sinners anyway. Much of the "law" we have been given is merely to mitigate against the fact, and minimize the harm we do to one another.
The Pharisees asked Jesus if it was ok to divorce a woman.  They knew full well that God "hates divorce" (Malachi) and wanted to trap Jesus.  But Jesus explained the whole purpose of divorce - divorce is totally legal, but not at all desirable.  As Jesus said, divorce was given "because of the hardness of your heart!"  I think we can unequivocally say that God hates slavery, for the reasons in my previous answer.  But he also is willing to meet us where we are.
Our laws, however, recognize that because man is so fallen, there are degrees of punishment that are appropriate. No more than a tooth should be taken for a tooth. No more than an eye may be taken for an eye.  The punishment for a double-homicide is necessarily different from the one for double-parking.  Just because one is not punished for doing a bad thing doesn't make it right. As Jesus said in Matthew 5:45,

"the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike."

Mere silence on the morality of slavery is not equivelant to support.
The incarnation is such a supreme act of love, because it is a holy God, in whose presence sin can not stand, doing everything He can to reach out to sinners.
Absolutely, He does not change. But relatively speaking, He will do everything He can to be with us, to take us where we are and fit us for where He would have us be.


Who is the speaker and who is "him" in Daniel 11:1 according to the Seventh-day Adventist?

I'll try to answer your question. As a Seventh-day Adventist, I have some inside information. :)
But before we get to the answer, it is important to understand some things about Seventh-day Adventists.

We have a set of beliefs that we regard as fundamental (click here for our list of 28 Fundamental Beliefs), but even those are not set in stone. They are subject to change. As the preamble to the 28FB states: Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference Session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God’s Holy Word. The Bible is the "definitive revealer of doctrines" (see FB 1). We take Isaiah 8:20 seriously.
We hold the Bereans in high esteem. (See Acts 17:11.) We check everything by the law and the testimony. Hence, beliefs are subject to change over time.
Like most groups, and maybe even more than normal, we are not monolithic. We have no creed but the Bible, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that we don't all agree on everything. There are even those who question some of the FB. But that's OK, for the most part. One of my favorite activities with some very close friends is discussing controversial beliefs. It is not uncommon for 3 of us to get together and have 3 different points of view on any given topic.
Given all this, you should not trust too much what you read on the internet about us, even if the writer is one of us, including me. Strictly speaking, getting an answer from a Seventh-day Adventist gets you the answer for that specific Seventh-day Adventist.
The most "official" publication is the 28 Fundamental Beliefs, and Daniel 11:1 is not on the list. Sorry.

Now, to your question: Who is the speaker and who is “him” in Daniel 11:1 according to the Seventh-day Adventist? The speaker is Gabriel and "him" is Darius.
The second most "official" publication is the S.D.A. Bible Commentary, so I'll start there. (However, many Seventh-day Adventists, including myself, do not regard it as authoritative and normative. Remember, the Bible is our only creed.)

The angel is telling Daniel of an event that took place in the first year of Darius. In that year Darius the Mede had been honored of Heaven by a visit of the angel Gabriel “to confirm and to strengthen him” (PK 556). Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 4, page 127

You see PK 556 in that quote. That's a reference to a book by Ellen G. White, who most of us consider to have been given the Spiritual gift of prophecy. Here's what she wrote:

Daniel’s prayer had been offered “in the first year of Darius” (verse 1), the Median monarch whose general, Cyrus, had wrested from Babylonia the scepter of universal rule. The reign of Darius was honored of God. To him was sent the angel Gabriel, “to confirm and to strengthen him.” Daniel 11:1. Ellen G. White, Prophets and Kings, page 556

Here's another quote from her.

Daniel’s prayer in behalf of his people, as recorded in the ninth chapter, was “in the first year of Darius” the Mede. Darius was favored of heaven; for in the first year of his reign the angel Gabriel “stood up to confirm and to strengthen him.” Ellen G. White, The Review and Herald, March 21, 1907

Now here are more quotes from other sources that are more or less well-respected by Seventh-day Adventists.

In Daniel 5:30, it is said: "In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. And  Darius the Median  took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old." And in Daniel 11:1, the same angel of the tenth chapter says: "Also I  in the first year  of Darius the Mede, even  I stood  to confirm and to strengthen him." Darius reigned two years, when he died, and Cyrus succeeded to the kingdom; and as the angel stood with Darius the Mede; and with Cyrus in his third year, to influence him so that Daniel's prayer could be answered, it is certain that it was by the influence of his holy angel that the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus to let go the captive people of God. Alonzo T. Jones, The Signs of the Times, February 11,  1886, page 91

But in the conquest of Babylon, Cyrus was only the leader of the forces. The kingdom and rule were given to Darius the Mede; for, said Daniel to Belshazzar, on the night when Babylon fell, "Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians." Then the record proceeds: "In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. And Darius the Median took the kingdom." Of him we read in Daniel 11:1,  the words of the angel Gabriel to the prophet: "I, in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him." Alonzo T. Jones, The Two Republics, page 669

The angel of the Lord had stood by Darius the Mede “to confirm and to strengthen him” (Daniel 11:1) in executing the purpose of God upon Babylon. Jeremiah 51:11-14. And through the faithfulness of Daniel, Darius had been brought to the knowledge of the true God. The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald May 17,  1898, page 316 (I believe this is Alonzo T. Jones also, but can't confirm.)

The Medo-Persian empire was born when the time was ripe for Israel's deliverance from the bondage of Babylon. The first king of the united empire was Darius the Mede. He was a man well advanced in life when he came to the throne; threescore and two years old, the record states. But throughout his reign, Gabriel stood by him "to confirm and to strengthen him." Stephen N. Haskell, The Story of Daniel the Prophet, page 161

The angel, after stating that he stood, in the first year of Darius, to confirm and strengthen him, turns his attention to the future. Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 1909 edition, page 247

Daniel 11:1 does not contain a significant point of doctrine to us so you won't find a significant treatment of it. I have to admit that I have spent more time researching the verse for this answer than the rest of my life combined. It's just fairly straightforward to us that Gabriel supported Darius.
Most of the material I found was from A. T. Jones. I haven't read his stuff, but I suspect that it has a lot to do with civil rights. You can follow the links I provided to dig through our online databases.


According to Catholicism, why did Jesus address inanimate objects?

He wanted to show His control over the universe. See St. Thomas Aquinas's discussion on God's divine governance in his Summa Theologica (I q. 103).

St. Bede says this about the mystical sense:

  Rising up, He threatened the wind, because when He had triumphed in His resurrection, He prostrated the pride of the devil. He ordered the sea to be still, that is, in rising again, He cast down the rage of the Jews. The disciples are blamed, because after His resurrection, He chided them for their unbelief. And we also when being marked with the sign of the Lord's cross, we determine to quit the world, embark in the ship with Christ; we attempt to cross the sea; but, He goes to sleep, as we are sailing amidst the roaring of the waters, when amidst the strivings of our virtues, or amidst the attacks of evil spirits, of wicked men, or of our own thoughts, the flame of our love grows cold. Amongst storms of this sort, let us diligently strive to awake Him; He will soon restrain the tempest, pour down peace upon us, give us the harbour of salvation.


How do Catholic marriage laws differ by region?

Canon law is for rites, not geographical regions.

There is only one Code of Canon Law applicable to the entire Latin Rite; its canons 1055-1165 are on marriage.

Another code is for the Eastern Rites: Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium; its canons 776-866 govern marriage.

However, there are provisions in canon law for local laws, at least in the 1917 Code

Canon 1089: § 1. With due regard for diocesan statutes added to the above…


Is it orthodox to abandon the concept that God of the Bible is person, but say that He is spirit?

In a mainstream evangelical understanding, God's essence does not consist of anything created.  Matter is created.  God is spirit and existed as such before the creation of matter or time or space.  A "body" is something physical, and only the Second Person of the Trinity has a body, which He received at the Incarnation.

Personhood does not mandate a physical body.  Every creation is lesser than its creator.  Thus, we could not have personhood unless God first possessed Personhood.

So, in summary, God is spirit, which is not matter, and He does exist in Three Persons, only One of which has a body, but He did not always have one, receiving His body at the Incarnation, which was later glorified at His resurrection.


Can we tell when the Roman pontiff is speaking "EX CATHEDRA"?

As you have known already not all pronouncements from a pope is spoken ex-cathedra. And the answer that you have quoted notes the three points to be fulfilled in order to make a pronouncement ex-cathedra:

  to be held by the whole church,
  in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
  he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals

If we test any pronouncement against it, we will know whether the pronouncement is spoken ex-cathedra or not.

Example 1: The words of canonization:

  "For the honour of the Blessed Trinity, the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the fostering of the Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own (2), after due deliberation and frequent prayers for the divine assistance, and having sought the counsel of our Brother Bishops, we declare and define(3) that --Name of the Person Here--, is a saint and we enroll him/her among the saints, decreeing that he/she is to be venerated in the whole Church(1) as one of the saints. In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".

Example 2: Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary:

  By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority(2), we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma (3): 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 to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith(1).

Example 3: Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception

  Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own (2): ...... We declare, pronounce and define (3) that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful(1).

Pronouncements that fulfill these conditions will be considered as an ex-cathedra statement. But it is to be noted that all of these pronouncements in the future probably will be announced before hand to the press and will be explicitly mentioned that it is an ex-cathedra/dogmatic declaration.


Do any copies of the Gutenburg Bible still exist?

From, "The Top 10 Rare Books" https://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/arts/literature/10-rare-books1.htm:

"It is believed that 180 copies of the Bible were produced--135 on paper and 35 on vellum, or calfskin.  Today, only 48 copies are known to exist, some of them only partial, almost all of them in the hands of museums, universities and libraries..."
"How much is a Gutenberg Bible worth?  A perfect copy hasn't changed hands in years, but in 2007, a single leaf went on sale for $74,000.  In 1978, Christie's auctioned off a perfect two-volume Bible for $2.2 million.  Another Christie's auction in 1987 transferred an incomplete version to a Japanese company for $4.9 million..."


Can a divorced aunt be a Catholic Godparent?

Being divorced may or may not be an impediment to being a godparent. It will in fact depend on several issues. Some divorcee are not at all guilty of any wrong doing within the marriage as may happen in the case of spousal abuse. Each case must be look at in its own merits.

If one is divorced and remarried without getting an annulment than one can not become a godparent.

  So, what are the requirements of a Godparent/sponsor in the Catholic Church?

  For Baptism, every child must have at least one Godparent and no more than two Godparents. If there are two Godparents, one must be a male and one must be a female.
  A Godparent/sponsor must be a Sacramentally Confirmed Catholic who has already received Holy Communion.
  A Godparent/sponsor should be at least 16 years old.
  A Godparent/sponsor may not be the mother or father of the child to be baptized.
  A Godparent/sponsor must lead a life of faith in keeping with the role and responsibilities to be undertaken.
  A statement attesting to the good standing of the person proposed to be the
  Godparent/sponsor must be obtained from their proper parish. Or, if they are already members of a Parish, the pastor must confirm their good standing and ability to fulfill the above requirements. This statement should be presented to the Parish at least two weeks before the scheduled baptism. A person without this statement often called a Sponsor Certificate) cannot serve as a Godparent. Try to prevent embarrassing a person by asking them to serve as a Godparent/sponsor, knowing that they are not practicing the Catholic faith, are in an invalid marriage, etc., and will be unlikely to obtain this statement from their proper pastor. - Godparent/Sponsor

In short your situation must be made known to the pastor performing the baptism(s).


Did Saint Patrick actually explain the Trinity using a shamrock?

As far as we know, he did not use this analogy. It does not appear in the extant writings attributed to him, nor in early hagiographies. There are several places in these documents where a shamrock metaphor wouldn't go completely amiss, and yet it doesn't seem to appear anywhere.

In the Confession attributed to Patrick, he talks a lot about how he is a simple unlearned person, who has nevertheless managed to convert a large number of people. That might suggest use of easily-understandable metaphors rather than very precise theological statements. On the other hand, there are biographies that say he studied under Saints Germanus of Auxerre and Martin of Tours, received large numbers of books from Pope Celestine I, and so forth, suggesting that he might have understated his level of education. His reported speech is generally quite direct and Biblical - more of a "repent, ye sinners" flavour than any kind of gentle analogy.

Given the complete lack of reference until the eighteenth century, it  seems more likely that the explanation was associated with him long after he actually lived, than that it was somehow preserved in tradition for the whole time, without appearing in any of the many written sources about this popular saint.

I'll now give some examples of shamrocks not appearing. There is a fifth-century poem or hymn attributed to him, called the Lorica of St. Patrick (Luireach Phadraig) or Deer's Cry (Faeth Fiada), which invokes the Trinity but does not use an analogy. The ninth century hagiography known as the Tripartite Life (Bethu Phátraic) recounts an episode where Patrick converts the two daughters of Lóegaire mac Néill, saying in response to their question about what kind of God he worships:

  St. Patrick, full of the Holy Spirit, responded, "Our God is the God of all, the God of heaven and earth, the God of the seas and rivers, the God of the sun and moon, and all the other planets; the God of the high hills and low valleys; God over heaven, in heaven, and under heaven; and He has a mansion, that is, heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them. He inspireth all things. He quickeneth all things. He enkindleth all things. He giveth light to the sun, and to the moon. He created fountains in the dry land, and placed dry islands in the sea, and stars to minister to the greater lights. He hath a Son, coeternal and coequal with Himself; and the Son is not younger than the Father, nor is the Father older than the Son. And the Holy Ghost breatheth in them. And the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are not divided. I desire, moreover, to unite you to the Son of the heavenly king, for ye are daughters of an earthly king."  1

This would be the perfect time to mention the shamrock, but it does not appear. The same goes for the seventh-century Life by Muirchú moccu Machtheni, and the other sources. It is frequently mentioned that people in Ireland did not generally know about or believe in  the Trinity before Patrick, and that he baptized people in the name of the Trinity, but there is no record of him using any metaphor for it, shamrock or otherwise, when he baptized or taught.

Tertullian's work Against Praxeas (Adversus Praxeam) uses a plant metaphor for the Trinity (chapter 8). Here, he says that the three persons of the Trinity are like the root, trunk, and fruit of the tree. This has something of a similar character to the shamrock metaphor, though the three parts for Tertullian have distinct roles2, and the clover leaves are all the same. It is possible that Patrick had some exposure to this idea, or independently reinvented it. But there is absolutely no evidence.

1. From the translation by James O'Leary, 1874. Original Latin and Irish text is on lines 1124-1138 of Kathleen Mulchrone's 1939 edition.
2. Partialism!? Modalism?! Perhaps. Metaphors are hard.


1 John 5:16 "you don't need to pray for that"?

I think that if one attempts to interpret this passage in the context of a taxonomy of sin, wherein some sins are "sins unto death" (e.g. "mortal" sins) and others are not (e.g. "venial" sins), then one will not arrive at a completely sensible meaning.

Another interpretation is that sin is "unto death" occurs when one has neither the slightest bit of compunction nor desire to repent.  Under this interpretation, what John is saying is that there is essentially no point to pray for such a person, since they themselves do not wish to avail themselves of the benefit of anyone's prayer.

The 20th century Orthodox theologian Justin Popovic, explains this passage:

  He committed a sin and died [spiritually] for it, dealing death to himself, killing himself; but if he supplicates God for his sin, he will be given repentance and through repentance, resurrection from the dead - life ... He shall not pray for a sin unto death.  But why?  Because man with his entire being, soul, and consciousness has voluntarily entered sin and remains there consciously and voluntarily, and does not want to renounce it and hate it.  This is already the "second death" from which one cannot resurrect.  On such a man, God neither desires nor wants to forcefully impose repentance.  He neither desires not wants to because God is love, is abundant in love, and lives and exists in it.  God crated man through love with God-like freedom.  If He were to forcefully impose His will, His Gospel, His salvation, His kingdom, and Himself, He would destroy mans free will.  Then man would cease to be a man and would become an automaton, a machine, and a robot.

Although certain western Church Fathers (e.g. Jerome, Augustine) seem to have understood a "sin unto death" as a particularly grave type of sinful act (e.g. Jerome, Treatise Against Jovianus II.III.20; Bede, Homilies on the Gospels II.5), their views do not represent the consensus of the first millennium Church.  Canon V of the 7th Ecumenical Council, for example, states "It is a sin unto death when men incorrigibly continue in their sin."

  The Lord God is not found among such, unless, perchance, having been humbled by their own fall, they return to a sober mind.  It behoves them the rather to turn to God with a contrite heart and to pray for forgiveness and pardon of so grave a sin, and no longer to boast in an unholy gift.  For the Lord is nigh unto them that are of a contrite heart [Psalm 33:18 LXX].

The subject of unforgivable sins arises elsewhere in Scripture.  The Gospels mention blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31-32; Mark 3:28-30; Luke 12:10).  In the Epistle to the Hebrews (6:4-6) we read:

  It is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

The eastern Christian understanding of these verses is summarized by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazanski:

  In all these cases, the reason why the forgiveness of sins is not possible is to be found in the sinners themselves, and not in the will of God; more precisely, it lies in the lack of repentance of the sinners. How can a sin be forgiven by the Grace of the Holy Spirit, when blasphemy is spewed forth against this very Grace? But one must believe that, even in these sins, the sinners, if they offer sincere repentance and weep over their sins, will be forgiven. “For,” says St. John Chrysostom about the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, “even this guilt will be remitted to those who repent. Many of those who have spewed forth blasphemies against the Spirit have subsequently come to believe, and everything was remitted to them” (Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew).1

1.  Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (3rd ed.), p.294.


Is there a specific purpose in placing a hot coal to your lips?

That is a reference to the commission of Isaiah (Isaiah 6). When he suddenly found himself in the immediate presence of the exalted God (likely Jesus), he was undone and fully aware of the separation between himself and the LORD. The coal touching his lips was a sign of the purification Christ provides, after which Isaiah can say "Here I am, send me!"

  So I said: "Woe is me, for I am undone!
  Because I am a man of unclean lips,
  And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips;
  For my eyes have seen the King,
  The Lord of hosts."  Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a live coal which he had taken with the tongs from the altar.  And he touched my mouth with it, and said: "Behold, this has touched your lips;
  Your iniquity is taken away,
  And your sin purged." Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying: "Whom shall I send,
  And who will go for Us?"
  Then I said, "Here am I! Send me"
   [Isaiah 6:5-8]


What is chronologically the last mention of redemption in the Bible?

The last mention of the English noun 'redemption' in the English bible (I am quoting from the KJV and using the list of words compiled by Robert Young in his Analytical Concordance) is in Hebrews 9:12.
The last mention of the English verb 'redeem' in the English bible is in Revelation 14:4. John the Apostle lived (and wrote) until approximately the year 100 and was (I assume without dispute) the last to write recorded scripture.
So this might be the definitive answer to your question ... but ...
There are two groups of words in Greek which are translated 'redeem' and 'redemption' in English.
The 'agora' group is based on the word relating to the place of public concourse and there are two main words agora and agorazo which feature in the bible.
The 'lutron' group is based on the word luo meaning 'to dispossess' and several words are involved - lutron, lutrosis and apolutrosis.
So it would be more complicated if you were asking about the original manuscripts in Greek ... and ... the Greek words are not consistently translated in the English bible, sometimes being translated into such words as 'purchase'.
The whole subject of redemption is an important one in the bible in both the Hebrew scriptures and the Greek scriptures. The two groups of Greek words mirror two words in Hebrew gaal (used many times in the Book of Ruth and elsewhere) and padah (never used in Ruth but used otherwise).
The question is a little more complicated to answer than it, at first, appears.


Q1.  How does the Tree of Life fit in Evolutionary Creationism?

I don't think it does.  Trying to fit the tree of life into the philosophy of evolutionary creationism is like trying to fit a catapult into into the Ferber method of sleep training a baby.  You are taking the description of a physical object with it's purposes and trying to view it through a lens of something that is not related.  The best place to start for a comprehensive view of the tree of life would be to do a biblical search on that phrase and write down observations.

  Q2.  Why would God be afraid of Adam becoming immortal? Is God not
  able to prevent such an event?

First, we would have to justify God being 'afraid'.  While that's an interpretive option, i don't think there's enough evidence to justify "fear" with certainty.  In this chapter we see consequences for sin combined with continual care for the man.  My best guess on how to interpret this section is: 1.  Taking from the tree of life means Adam will live forever and 2.  God didn't want Adam to live forever - maybe it was because Adam has experienced fallen-ness and because of God's love for Adam, He didn't want him to live forever in a fallen state.

  Q3.  If the Tree of Life is what it seems (an antidote to physical death)
  was it part of God’s plan for Humanity to never suffer physical death?

I think so.

  Q4. If so why create with a method that requires physical death to
  begin with?

God created life not death.  This physical death was warned about, the warning was ignored, man sinned, and the consequence of physical death took place.  From the text one could conclude that death could have been completely avoided by not sinning.

  Q5 If the Tree of Life is the antidote to the death that Adam suffered
  after sinning and that death is Spiritual death then why would God be
  afraid of him partaking of such a tree? Isn’t this exactly what Jesus
  is/does for us?

If we observe the details of the resurrected Jesus along with 1 Cor 15, I think the resurrected body is something entirely different than a person in his/her sinful state not being able to physically die.


Why did the children of Israel run out of food in the wilderness, causing them to complain?

There are several passages that suggest an answer; in particular Deuteronomy 8:2–3:

  2 And you shall remember the whole way that the Lord your God has led you these forty years in the wilderness, that he might humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep his commandments or not. 3 And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord. [ESV]

This passage reveals two things: first, that God's overall purpose for the wandering in the wilderness was to test the Israelites and humble them, for their own good (cf. Deut. 8:16).  And second, that through hunger specifically they would learn that "man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord." (cf. Matt. 4:4)

This makes sense given the attitude of the Israelites recorded in Exodus 17 as they have just been fed with manna and now want water.  Despite being led out of Egypt and through the Red Sea, they doubted God:

  And he called the name of the place Massah and Meribah, because of the quarreling of the people of Israel, and because they tested the Lord by saying, “Is the Lord among us or not?” (Ex. 17:7, ESV)

So, based on these passages, we could conclude that God allowed Israel to undergo these trials to promote their spiritual development and teach them to rely on God.  They repeatedly failed these tests: instead of trusting God's provision, the Israelites complained and doubted God.


What Biblical justifications are used for having separate denominations?

Rather than answer all the questions I'm going to stick with the main question.

Q. What is the Biblical justification for different denominations?

A. What is the Biblical justification for one Church?

There should never have been different denominations (or branches of belief) but as Paul stated here in Eph 4:1-16.  There is only one body of believers, the Church.

...

  3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

  4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope
  of your calling;

  5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

  ...

  14 That we henceforth be no more
  children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of
  doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they
  lie in wait to deceive;

  15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up
  into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

  16 From whom
  the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every
  joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of
  every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in
  love.

Paul did grapple with the beginnings of denominations in his day too.  It was because the believers brought in traditions and beliefs from the old testament law that they thought were still required, such as circumcision.

Why did it occur? because of many reasons.  But you could say simply that it's because the people who have started these denominations haven't believed and followed the one who is to guide us into all truth.  So instead they have substituted it with corrupted understanding and taught this corruption to others who do not have the knowledge.

Another reason can be because of poor translating.  There are many words added in some translations that are not there in the original text.  These words are added to help clarify the text but sometimes they change the meaning.  At least the King James writers had the integrity to italicise added words.

Even with poor translation though, the Holy Spirit can still guide you into truth.  And the only way to be guided is to walk in the spirit as in Romans 8.   We need to study the text and ask the right questions. Did you not know that you can ask the Holy Spirit in you questions about what you're reading?  In the end it comes down to a relationship with Jesus. Not everyone in the church has a relationship.  This is why Jesus said in Matt 7:21-23 -

  21 Not every one that says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
  kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father who is in
  heaven.

  22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied
  in your name? and in your name have cast out demons? and in your name
  done many wonderful works?

  23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me,
  you that work iniquity.

It's because it's all about the relationship.


According to Catholicism, why was the rabbit declared as unclean for the people of Israel?

I find no reference to Leviticus 11:6 on the websites of the Vatican or the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

The USCCB does maintain on its website the text of the New American Bible (Revised Edition), or NABRE, which is the only translation approved for public liturgical use in the United States. The NABRE translates Leviticus 11:4–6:

  4 But you shall not eat... the rock hyrax, which indeed chews the cud, but does not have hoofs and is therefore unclean for you; the hare, which indeed chews the cud, but does not have hoofs and is therefore unclean for you; ...

and has the following note on Leviticus 11:5–6:

  According to modern zoology, the rock hyrax (Hyrax syriacus) is classified as an ungulate, and the hare as a rodent; neither is a ruminant. They appear to chew their food as the true ruminants do, and it is upon this appearance that the classification in the text is based.

This is far from a doctrinal statement; but it is as close as one is likely to get, having (as the entire NABRE has) the imprimatur, or permission from the bishops to be printed.


Based on Luke 3:22 & 1:39-41, Genesis 1:2, the 'Holy Spirit' was already here, so who does John 16:7, 16:13-14, John 14:26 talk about?

Welcome to Stack Exchange Christianity. Enjoy your stay with us.

The Holy Spirit. along with the Father and Son, possesses every attribute of God. He, like them, is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, immutable, and so much more.

As with the Son, however, the role of the Holy Spirit in salvation history has changed. He has not changed, but his role changed, ever since God chose to involve himself in the affairs of his creatures, particularly the human species, who bear his image. That is because prior to God's creative work, there was no such thing as history. God's plan of salvation existed from eternity in the eternal counsels of God.

Once the infinite and eternal God chose to enact salvation's plan (which was in God's mind a fait accompli!), he identified with his creatures in their finitude and their history over time, from the beginning to the very end, from

  "In the beginning God" (Genesis 1:1)

to

  "a new heaven and a new earth” (Revelation 21:1);

from an eternal kingdom which appeared in time to a kingdom which will extend into eternity; when

  "the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever" (Revelation 11:15).

All this to say, Christians should not be surprised that the Holy Spirit's involvement in the outworking of God's plan of salvation is a bit mysterious.

Prior to his coming in power on the day of Pentecost, when

  Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting [, and t]hey saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them [, and a]ll of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them (Acts 2:2-4),

the Holy Spirit's presence and power were manifest primarily through a chosen few who were temporally led and filled by the Spirit primarily in their roles as prophets, priests, and kings. Moreover, through a group even fewer in number, God's Spirit breathed out God's eternal written word (see 2 Peter 1:20-21, and 2 Timothy 3:16).

Only with the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost did he thereafter come to indwell God's chosen ones forever. Heretofore, the Spirit came upon people intermittently to accomplish what they could not accomplish in their own strength.

Often, that manifestation of the Holy Spirit involved miracles: from making a donkey able to talk (Numbers 22:18), to raising people from the dead (e.g., 1 Kings 17:17 ff.); from forth-telling God's word with exactitude (e.g., 1 Kings 17:14--"thus saith the LORD"), to foretelling God's word in exquisite detail (e.g., Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; and 53:1 ff.)

With his coming on Pentecost, true believers in Jesus Christ were regenerated and then baptized into the body of Christ (see Titus 3:4b-7). Jesus foretold of this recurring phenomenon to his disciples during Passion Week as a way to prepare them for his imminent--yet temporary--departure from Earth (John 14 and 16, passim).

In conclusion, the personhood of the Holy Spirit has been and will be the same from eternity past to eternity future. In helping to bring to pass the will of God, he adapted his methodology to temporal situations, but always according to an unchanging theology. Christians for centuries have taken their cues from the Holy Spirit as they are led by him to change and adapt their methodology in performing God's kingdom work here on earth. They also need, however, regardless of methods, to be in agreement with the Holy Spirit's goal of magnifying the person and work of their God and Savior, Jesus Christ, to the glory of God (e.g., John 16:15).


Did the Romans not breaking Jesus' legs fulfill a prophecy?

Yes, you're absolutely right!  Jesus never broke any bones.  That's a fulfillment of the prophecy from Old Testament and it's written about in John.

  John 19:36 (NIV)
  These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,"

The prophecy that John refers to is found in Psalms 34:20:

  Psalms 34:19-20 (NIV)
  19 The righteous person may have many troubles,
    but the LORD delivers him from them all;
  20 he protects all his bones,
    not one of them will be broken.

Also related to this is the regulations regarding the passover lamb:

  Exodus 12:46 (NIV)
  It must be eaten inside the house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones.

Those were the regulations for the lamb that was slain for the passover feast.  There are many passages that relate Jesus to the passover lamb.  This lack of broken bones is one of these connections.  (This regulation can also be seen in Numbers 9:12.)