If God cannot tempt anyone, what is the meaning of the following scriptures?

Many people do not realize that believers and non-believers alike receive a default protection from God. They have a "hedge" around them similar to the hedge described as around Job. If it were not so, Satan and his evil spirits would do be able to do as they please.

  "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has?" (Job 1:10)

However, God will allow us to be tempted: To the faithful, temptations are allowed in the form of trials in order to bring to surface our sins so that we can then, by faith, overcome them. To the unfaithful, temptations are allowed because they seek it out purposely in their own presumption, and eventually when mercy is played out, God allows them to be exposed to an over-mastering temptation from Satan.

So in this context, it is not God who tempts, but God who allows.  Satan and his demons are the tempters, and tempts us by bringing to surface the natural sinful inclinations already present in our hearts.

When Scripture describes "an evil spirit from God", or "God stirred up animosity", or sending forth "strong delusion" or "a deceiving spirit", this must be read in context as God allowing it.

A clear example of things being attributed to God when in fact it is Him allowing it, is found in Job. It is described by a messenger that "The fire of God fell from the heavens and burned up the sheep and the servants" (Job 1:16). However, from earlier in the scripture, we know that it was Satan who did this and it was merely allowed by God:

  The Lord said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger." (Job 1:12)

Deeper spiritual understanding is necessary to understand the reason of God's actions in these circumstances. Many times, it is a judgement where God has withdrawn His mercy because the person did not repent. Other times, as in the case of Job, it was necessary. After all, did Job not repent in the end? Through this trial he realized something he otherwise would not have.


You ask: Does the evangelical tradition objectively say what Jesus considers to be the greatest source of His glory?  Not that I am aware of, although Protestant evangelicals believe in the triune nature of God.  While on earth, Jesus purpose was to glorify his Father in heaven and this he did by being obedient unto death.  In so doing, Jesus was glorified by God the Father.  The glory of one is the glory of the other:

  ”The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven” (Hebrews 13).

The Protestant evangelical view of the meaning of John 13:31 is that the glorification of the Son of Man (Jesus) and the glorification of God (the Father) are inextricably intertwined by virtue of the fact that Jesus (Son of Man and Son of God) is part of the One Being of God.

Jesus gave up the glory he already had in heaven, alongside the Father, in order to be born of a woman (John 1:14.)  As you point out (in John 17:5), before his death Jesus prayed to his Father to be glorified in God’s presence with the glory he had before the world began.  This glorification occurred at Christ’s resurrection and exaltation to God’s right hand (Hebrews 2:9).  The Bible also speaks about future glory, when Christ returns “in the glory of his Father” (Matthew 16:27).

As to what Jesus may have considered to be “the greatest source of his glory”, John chapter 12 gives us a few clues.  This event happened after Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem before the Passover.  Jesus tells his disciples:

  ”The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified” (John 12:23).

This does not mean a literal hour, or at that specific moment in time.  Jesus’ words refer to what is about to happen – his betrayal, his death, his resurrection.  Jesus speaks of “the hour” to which everything else has lead, the culmination of his ministry on earth.  The glorification comes as a result of his death, resurrection and exaltation.  This is borne out in Jesus’ next words when he acknowledges the reason he has come to this moment in time:

  ”Father, glorify your name!” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again” (John 12:28).

Moving forward to John 13:31, after Judas goes out to betray Jesus, there is no turning back.  Jesus knows that events have been set in motion that will lead to his death, and through his death and resurrection, God’s plan of salvation will be accomplished.  That is why he could say:

  ”Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him.  If God is glorified in him, God will glorify the Son in himself, and will glorify him at once” (John 13:31-32).  NOTE: Some manuscripts do not have verse 32

The glory is all about the vindication of God’s sovereignty, God’s holiness, righteousness and justice.  Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross and his resurrection will result in salvation for all who come to saving faith in what God, in Jesus, has done to defeat sin and death.  The glory of the Father and the glory of the Son are bound together because they, along with the Holy Spirit, are one in unity and one in purpose.  God is the King of Glory (Psalm 24:7-10) and Jesus is called “the Lord of glory” (1 Corinthians 2:8):  “None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.”


What's the difference, if any, between the Swedenborgian and Oneness Pentecostal doctrines of God?

tl;dr

Emanuel Swedenborg  (1688-1772) agrees with Oneness Pentecostals and other modalists in affirming the full divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while denying that they are three persons.

This has led to the common error of labeling Swedenborg and Swedenborgians "modalist."

However, Swedenborg rejects the essential, defining modalist doctrine: that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three different modes or manifestations of God to human beings.

Swedenborg, and Swedenborgians, are therefore not modalist in their doctrines and beliefs.

Now for a fuller answer to the question.

First, we need to define God from the modalist, Oneness Pentecostal, and Swedenborgian perspectives.

The Sabellian or Modalist doctrine of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

As defined in the Wikipedia article linked in the question, this is the Sabellian or modalist conception of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit:

  Sabellianism in the Eastern church or Patripassianism in the Western church (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian or anti-trinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son, and Holy Spirit are three different modes or aspects of one monadic God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead--that there are no real or substantial differences among the three, such that there is no substantial identity for the Spirit or the Son.

The Oneness Pentecostal doctrine of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

As defined in the Wikipedia article linked in the question, this is the Oneness Pentecostal conception of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit:

  The Oneness doctrine . . . states that there is one God, a singular divine Spirit, who manifests himself in many ways, including as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (a.k.a. Holy Spirit).

The Our Beliefs page of the website of the United Pentecostal Church International, which is the largest Oneness Pentecostal denomination, expresses its basic beliefs about God in this way:

  There is one God, who has revealed Himself as our Father, in His Son Jesus Christ, and as the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is God manifested in flesh. He is both God and man.

Emanuel Swedenborg's doctrine of God as being Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

In True Christianity #163, Swedenborg defines the Trinity of God in this way:

  There is a divine Trinity, which is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
  These three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are three essential components of one God. They are one the way our soul, our body, and the things we do are one.

(Note that although Swedenborg regularly uses the word "Trinity," by traditional Christian definitions of "trinitarian" he is non-trinitarian because he rejects the idea that the Trinity consists of three persons, but states instead that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit constitute a single divine person who is the one God.)

Swedenborg's doctrine of God is incompatible with, and denies, modalism

Swedenborg's theology agrees with Oneness Pentecostal doctrine in denying that there are three persons of God, denying that there was any "Son born from eternity," and affirming that the Son (and the Holy Spirit also) came into existence with the birth of Jesus Christ.

However, Swedenborg's theology rejects the defining characteristic of modalist doctrine, which is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three different modes of God, or three different ways that God manifests himself to humans.

Instead, Swedenborg's theology states that:

The Father is the transcendent, unknowable soul of God, of which we
can have no direct knowledge or experience at all.
The Son is the human body or visible appearance of God--and, since the
Incarnation, is the sole avenue by which the Father is known to human
beings.
The Holy Spirit is the divine truth and power flowing out from God,
and in effect is the manifestation of God to human beings.

Swedenborg calls this a Trinity of "essential components" (Latin essentialia) of one God.

These three are not different modes or manifestations to us of some underlying divine Spirit.

In Swedenborg's system, the Father is the underlying divine being, and is not perceivable by us at all. We finite humans are incapable of grasping or comprehending the infinite divine being of God. Only through the Son can we have any knowledge of God. And the Holy Spirit is the knowledge and power of God as it flows out from the Son, enlightening us and giving us spiritual life.

So instead of being modes or manifestations of God to human beings, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are more in nature of parts or constituents of the divine being. (The Latin word essentialia that Swedenborg uses to characterize them is somewhat difficult to capture and convey in English.) They are certainly not different appearances of God, as modalism and Oneness Pentecostals hold.

In Swedenborg's theology, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are entirely distinct from one another, and cannot change into or appear as one another. Together, these three distinct but fully united "components" form a single God, in one divine Person, whom Swedenborg calls "the Divine Humanity" and "the Lord God Jesus Christ." The three together are God just as our soul, body, and actions are us. There is no other underlying divine Spirit of which they could be "modes."

Swedenborg does state that God relates to humans in various roles, such as King, Priest, Prophet, Savior, and Redeemer. However, according to Swedenborg, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as used in the Bible are not roles, and thus are not modes of God. Instead, all of God's roles come from the Father, and are expressed by the Son through the Holy Spirit.

It helps to understand that Swedenborg did not interpret "Father," "Son," and "Holy Spirit" as literal terms, like our human fathers, sons, and breaths (which is the meaning of "spirit"). Instead, he saw them more as metaphors drawn from human concepts and experiences that the Bible uses to express deeper spiritual and divine realities about God.

For a fuller explanation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit from a Swedenborgian perspective, written for a popular audience, see my article, Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? What about that Holy Spirit?

For Swedenborg's own extensive presentation on the Trinity in one Person of God, see True Christianity, volume 1. (This link leads to its page on the publisher's website, which offers free downloadable PDF and EPUB versions, in addition to print and Kindle editions for sale.)

Please note: Although Swedenborg provides an extensive biblical basis in True Christianity for his doctrine of the Trinity, I have made no attempt to present it here because it is outside the scope of the question. I respectfully request that you vote this answer up or down based on how well it answers the question asked, rather than on whether or not you think Swedenborg's doctrine is true (which is off-topic on Christiainty.SE) or on how well I have supported that doctrine (which is not the purpose of this answer). Thank you.


Which theory of the atonement did C. S. Lewis hold?

C. S. Lewis is well-known for not calling himself a theologian.  Rather than seeking a systematic theological perspective, he understood the story of Christ as a "true myth."  As he explains:

It is true, not in the sense of being a 'description' of God (that no finite mind could take in) but in the sense of being the way in which God chooses to (or can) appear to our faculties.  The 'doctrines' we get out of the true myth are of course less true: they are translations into our concepts and ideas.1

Thus, it's not surprising that Lewis avoids taking a strong stance on a theory of atonement.  In fact, he deliberately downplays the different theories in Mere Christianity:

We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ’s death did this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us, and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself.2

In the same chapter, he writes regarding a specific image of the atonement: "if it does not help you, drop it."  He later clarified that he did not mean "reject" but rather that it "'need not be used' – a very different thing."3 Taking a position on this question is not necessary, he writes:

A man can eat his dinner without understanding exactly how food nourishes him.  A man can accept what Christ has done without knowing how it works.2

Did he express a preference?
Though he takes this general approach, can we glean from Lewis's writings to see which models he preferred, or at least, ones he did not prefer?  Yes, but the task is difficult.  For example, the language of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is actually less clear than an initial reading indicates: later in the book, the atonement is simply attributed to "deep magic" with no further explanation.  Similarly, in Till We Have Faces, the mechanism behind a substitute sacrifice is not explained.
First, we can safely say that Lewis was not particularly comfortable with the penal brand of substitutionary atonement.  In the aforementioned chapter in Mere Christianity he writes that "this theory does not seem to me quite so immoral and so silly as it used to"2—hardly a ringing endorsement.
That said, he is more comfortable with a "fiscal" substitutionary atonement.  He writes, “If you think of it as a debt, there is plenty of point in a person who has some assets paying it on behalf of someone who has not.” He continues, however, to further develop his idea of substitutionary atonement.  It incorporates some of the language of subjective models of atonement, in that one purpose of Christ's death is to make it possible for us to surrender to God.  By dying, Lewis says, the God-man undergoes surrender and death, making it possible for him to instill those characteristics in us and enable us to surrender to God and die to self.2
Elsewhere, in Reflections on the Psalms, Lewis again employs language reminiscent of a fiscal substitutionary atonement:

The price of salvation is one that only the Son of God could pay; as the hymn says, there was no other "good enough to pay the price." [...] As Dr. Moffatt translates [Psalm 49]: "None can buy himself off.  Not one can purchase for a price from God (soul's ransom is too dear) life that shall never end."4

Substitutionary atonement is also clearly seen in Miracles:

He tasted death on behalf of all others.  He is the representative 'Die-er' of the universe: and for that very reason the Resurrection and the Life. [...] Because Vicariousness is the very idiom of the reality He has created, His death can become ours.5

However, elsewhere he uses language more closely aligned with other models, such as the ransom to Satan model.  In Perelandra, the divine voice says to the protagonist (named Ransom), "My name also is Ransom":

It was some time before the purport of this saying dawned upon him.  He whom the other worlds call Maleldil, was the world's ransom, his own ransom, well he knew. [...] So that was the real issue.6

Views of scholars and theologians
Given what we have seen so far, it's not surprising that there is ongoing debate over which position Lewis held.  Some evangelicals, like Kevin DeYoung, while valuing much of Lewis's writing, reject his understanding of the atonement:

I would argue his view is more like Christus victor or ransom to Satan than penal substitution.7

Others do the same but find a different view in his writing:

For Lewis the atonement is not fundamentally a matter of pardon, imputation and forgiveness, but rather the actual transformation of fallen beings into Christlike creatures. [...] Salvation is not primarily a matter of having our sins wiped away but rather overcoming the chief sin of self-will or pride.8

Ironically, disagreement is perhaps most heated with respect to the model displayed in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe:

The cover story of Time on April 12, 2004, asked, “Why Did Jesus Die?” and went on to present the three major theories of Atonement. The writers cited Lewis as a contemporary example for the “role model” or Subjective theory: “C. S. Lewis, the Christian thinker and author of the Narnia series . . . was not a doctrinaire exemplarist, but the lion Aslan, who stood in for Christ, was clearly a figure to be emulated.” Peter J. Schakel, responding to this assertion, argues, “The writers of the article definitely miss the point. . . . Aslan gives himself to the Witch as a sacrifice to make amends for Edmund’s disobedience. By focusing on that theory, Lewis takes a stronger [Substitutionary] stand than he does in Mere Christianity.”
Likewise, in reference to Aslan’s death, theologian Howard Worsely readily states, “The precise interpretation of the atonement is penal substitution.” Another Lewis pundit, Shanna Caughey, chimes in: “This form of soteriology is called substitutional atonement.” Meanwhile, authors like Charles Taliaferro (gleefully) and Matthew Hall (gloomily) state that Narnian Atonement theology lands most definitely in the Ransom, or Christus Victor, camp.9

Summary
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe can indeed be seen as a microcosm of Lewis's thought on the atonement: in it, Lewis refuses "to be bound by any one depiction of the Atonement."9  His other writing makes it clear that he does not see any need to settle on a particular theory of the atonement, considering it to be something beyond human understanding.

References:

Letter to Arthur Greeves, quoted in James W. Menzies, True Myth, 192
Mere Christianity, Book 2, Chapter 4, "The Perfect Penitent."  See also The Problem of Pain, chapter 5.
Letter to Dom Bede, quoted in Walter Hooper, C. S. Lewis, 307
Reflections on the Psalms, Chapter 4
Miracles, Chapter 14
Perelandra, Chapter 11
DeYoung, "Cautions for Mere Christianity" (also archived via WebCite)
Scott R. Burson and Jerry L. Walls, C. S. Lewis & Francis Schaeffer, "The Nature of Salvation"
Touchstone, April 2009, "Mere Atonement" (also archived via WebCite)


The NET Bible gives an extremely helpful study note for this passage. Note that when it says "Yahweh" it's referring to the name translated "the LORD" and when it says "El Shadday" it's referring to what we translate "God Almighty":

  There are a number of important issues that need clarification in the
  interpretation of this section.

  It is important to note that “I am Yahweh” is not a new revelation of a previously unknown name. It would be introduced differently if it
  were. This is the identification of the covenant God as the one
  calling Moses – that would be proof for the people that their God had
  called him.
  The title “El Shadday” is not a name, but a title. It is true that in the patriarchal accounts “El Shadday” is used six times; in Job it
  is used thirty times. Many conclude that it does reflect the idea of
  might or power. In some of those passages that reveal God as “El
  Shadday,” the name “Yahweh” was also used. But Wellhausen and other
  proponents of the earlier source critical analysis used Exod 6:3 to
  say that P, the so-called priestly source, was aware that the name
  “Yahweh” was not known by them, even though J, the supposed Yahwistic
  source, wrote using the name as part of his theology.
  The texts of Genesis show that Yahweh had appeared to the patriarchs (Gen 12:1, 17:1, 18:1, 26:2, 26:24, 26:12, 35:1, 48:3), and
  that he spoke to each one of them (Gen 12:7, 15:1, 26:2, 28:13, 31:3).
  The name “Yahweh” occurs 162 times in Genesis, 34 of those times on
  the lips of speakers in Genesis (W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC
  2:340-41). They also made proclamation of Yahweh by name (4:26, 12:8),
  and they named places with the name (22:14). These passages should not
  be ignored or passed off as later interpretation.
  “Yahweh” is revealed as the God of power, the sovereign God, who was true to his word and could be believed. He would do as he said
  (Num 23:19; 14:35; Exod 12:25; 22:24; 24:14; 36:36; 37:14).
  There is a difference between promise and fulfillment in the way revelation is apprehended. The patriarchs were individuals who
  received the promises but without the fulfillment. The fulfillment
  could only come after the Israelites became a nation. Now, in Egypt,
  they are ready to become that promised nation. The two periods were
  not distinguished by not having and by having the name, but by two
  ways God revealed the significance of his name. “I am Yahweh” to the
  patriarchs indicated that he was the absolute, almighty, eternal God.
  The patriarchs were individuals sojourning in the land. God appeared
  to them in the significance of El Shadday. That was not his name. So
  Gen 17:1 says that “Yahweh appeared…and said, ‘I am El Shadday.’” See
  also Gen 35:11, 48:2, 28:3.
  The verb “to know” is never used to introduce a name which had never been known or experienced. The Niphal and Hiphil of the verb are
  used only to describe the recognition of the overtones or significance
  of the name (see Jer 16:21, Isa 52:6; Ps 83:17ff; 1 Kgs 8:41ff.
  [people will know his name when prayers are answered]). For someone to
  say that he knew Yahweh meant that Yahweh had been experienced or
  recognized (see Exod 33:6; 1 Kgs 18:36; Jer 28:9; and Ps 76:2).
  “Yahweh” is not one of God’s names – it is his only name. Other titles, like “El Shadday,” are not strictly names but means of
  revealing Yahweh. All the revelations to the patriarchs could not
  compare to this one, because God was now dealing with the nation. He
  would make his name known to them through his deeds (see Ezek 20:5).
  So now they will “know” the “name.” The verb יָדַע (yada’) means more
  than “aware of, be knowledgeable about”; it means “to experience” the
  reality of the revelation by that name. This harmonizes with the usage
  of שֵׁם (shem), “name,” which encompasses all the attributes and
  actions of God. It is not simply a reference to a title, but to the
  way that God revealed himself – God gave meaning to his name through
  his acts.

  God is not saying that he had not revealed a name to the patriarchs
  (that would have used the Hiphil of the verb). Rather, he is saying
  that the patriarchs did not experience what the name Yahweh actually
  meant, and they could not without seeing it fulfilled. When Moses came
  to the elders, he identified his call as from Yahweh, the God of the
  fathers – and they accepted him. They knew the name. But, when they
  were delivered from bondage, then they fully knew by experience what
  that name meant, for his promises were fulfilled. U. Cassuto
  (Exodus, 79) paraphrases it this way: “I revealed Myself to Abraham,
  Isaac, and Jacob in My aspect that finds expression in the name
  Shaddai…I was not known to them, that is, it was not given to them to
  recognize Me as One that fulfils his promises.” This generation was
  about to “know” the name that their ancestors knew and used, but never
  experienced with the fulfillment of the promises. This section of
  Exodus confirms this interpretation, because in it God promised to
  bring them out of Egypt and give them the promised land – then they
  would know that he is Yahweh (6:7). This meaning should have been
  evident from its repetition to the Egyptians throughout the plagues –
  that they might know Yahweh (e.g., 7:5). See further R. D. Wilson,
  “Yahweh [Jehovah] and Exodus 6:3,” Classical Evangelical Essays in
  Old Testament Interpretation, 29-40; L. A. Herrboth, “Exodus 6:3b:
  Was God Known to the Patriarchs as Jehovah?” CTM 4 (1931): 345-49;
  F. C. Smith, “Observation on the Use of the Names and Titles of God in
  Genesis,” EvQ 40 (1968): 103-9.

In summary, "the LORD" is God's only name and all other "names" are actually titles. The grammar in Exodus 6:3 doesn't imply that God had never told his name to the Hebrews before, but rather that they hadn't experienced the significance of the name. The Israelites were about to know God personally by seeing him fulfill his promises, whereas the patriarchs only knew him via the promises being made -- but they had in fact been told his name.


According to Jehovah's Witnesses, does Jesus make the same claim as God, that he is the "first and the last,"?

Although you specifically ask about the designation ‘First and Last’, there is a clear biblical link to that and the oft-concurrent designation ‘Alpha and Omega’, which is abundantly clear in the book of Revelation, and in JW literature. See https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/alpha-omega/ Who or What Is “the Alpha and the Omega”?

  “The Alpha and the Omega” refers to Jehovah God, the Almighty. This
  term occurs three times in the Bible.—Revelation 1:8; 21:6; 22:13.
  …Why does God call himself “the Alpha and the Omega”?  Alpha and omega
  are the first and last letters of the alphabet in Greek, the language
  used to write the part of the Bible commonly called the New Testament,
  which includes the book of Revelation. The respective positions of
  these letters in the Greek alphabet are used to illustrate that
  Jehovah alone is the beginning and the end. (Revelation 21:6) He was
  Almighty God in the infinite past, and he will continue to be Almighty
  God forever. He is the only one who is “from everlasting to
  everlasting.”—Psalm 90:2. Who is “the first and the last”?  The Bible
  applies this term both to Jehovah God and to his Son, Jesus, but with
  different meanings…”

More on that later.

Here is another official JW link, ‘Highlights From the Book of Revelation’, 15 January 2009 Watchtower - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2009046#h=11:0-12:0  However, I used the 1988 JW publication “Insight on the Scriptures” Vol. 1  which states (in agreement) that only Jehovah God has the title ‘Alpha and Omega’ in Rev. 1:8. This is because the verse goes on to say this one is “the Almighty” (page 81). JW teaching is that only Jehovah is the Almighty God, and Jesus is the Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6)  This explains two points in their article on ‘Alpha and Omega’:

(1) “Although the preceding verse [7] speaks of Christ Jesus, it is clear that in verse 8 the application of the title is to ‘the Almighty’ God.” Then the article cites Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament (1974) in support, as it apparently states, “It cannot be absolutely certain that the writer meant to refer to the Lord Jesus specifically here… There is no real incongruity in supposing, also, that the writer here meant to refer to God as such.” Thus, the JWs feel justified in adding the word ‘Jehovah’ before ‘God’ in their New World Translation of Rev. 1:8. citing 7 translations dating from 1599 to 1961. [See their 1969 KIT for that.]

(2) ‘Insight Vol. I’ also acknowledges an “additional occurrence of this phrase in the King James rendering of Rev. 1:11”. But the JW view is that some Greek manuscripts, including the Alexandrine, Sinaitic, and Codex Ephraemi rescriptus, do not have the trumpet sounding “I am the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last”. They therefore omit this, as do many other modern translations, which is possibly why you did not include verse 11 in your question.

The ‘Insight’ book then goes on to deal with Rev. 21:6 where it says “I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end,” dismissing that as applicable to Jesus because verse 7 adds, “and I shall be his God and he will be my son”. JW theology acknowledges Jesus as the Mighty God of Isaiah 9:6, but refuses to have him elevated from what they take to be a secondary level of deity, to a God who is to be worshipped. See Isaiah’s Prophecy Vol. I pp130-131 (published 2000). The ‘Insight’ book, however, does not say that but gives as its reason for applying verse 6 to Jehovah:

  “Inasmuch as Jesus referred to those who are joint heirs with him in
  his Kingdom as ‘brothers’, not ‘sons’, the speaker must be Jesus’
  heavenly Father,  Jehovah God.” (The JW link above agrees with this.)

You particularly want to know how “the eternality” of Jesus Christ (John 1:1-3) relates to Jesus being the first and the last. It is common knowledge that the NWT renders John 1:1 as ‘the Word was a god’, meaning the Word cannot be of the same Being as God. JWs do not believe in “the eternality” of Jesus Christ and so offer an interpretation of him being ‘the first and the last’ that only refers to his unique,  one-of-a-kind resurrection. This is why JW doctrine, that the Word was created by Jehovah and so had a starting point in time, has to be explained as only referring to Jehovah raising Jesus to life in a unique way (as the ‘first fruits’ of those who sleep in death), and that as nobody else will be so resurrected, Jesus is ‘first and last’ in that sense only.

Isaiah 44:6 is dealt with in the JW book “Isaiah’s Prophecy” Vol. II pp64-65 (published 2001). It is not quoted in isolation but includes verses 7 & 8 to give context. Then the paragraph following explains how Jehovah is challenging the [false] gods to present their case, adding,

  “Only ‘the first and the last,’ who existed before all the false gods
  were thought of and will still be there when they are long forgotten,
  can do such a thing. His people need not fear to bear witness to this
  truth, since they have the support of Jehovah, who is as firm and
  stable as a massive rock!”

It does not say a word about Jesus. That would fit in with the JW stance that Jesus being ‘first and last’ is only with respect to his unique resurrection – something that happened TO him, and not due to his BEING the first and the last. As JWs insist that only Jehovah is eternal (with no starting point in time) they agree he is eternal in his un-created being, but that Jesus is a created (hence, different) being: “The Bible applies this term both to Jehovah God and to his Son, Jesus, but with different meanings” as that first JW link says. I give this answer purely to answer your question, without agreeing with the JW stance.


When is it okay to curse people in the name of the Lord?

First off, "boys" is a very unfortunate translation here, as the original word properly means "youths" (teens/young men, not children.)  And a group of over 40 youths coming out to confront a single man with angry words is a lot more than simple "jeering".  Imagine the scene!  His life was most likely in danger.  (Remember when Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael away because Ishmael was endangering young Isaac with his "teasing"?  The ancient Hebrews seem to have had quite the gift for understatement in these matters!)

Also, this wasn't just any man they were harassing.  This incident came right after Elisha witnessed Elijah's ascendance into heaven, when Elisha was granted an official status as the spiritual heir to Elijah.  In other words, he was the new prophet of God, as Elijah had been.  To harass him was to reject his authority as the emissary of God to Israel, and that is where Elisha is different from us.  He was a prophet of God, and he had the authority to call upon the powers of heaven in order to protect himself, as Elijah did.


Where do primary sources for the Bible reside?

The short answer to the question is: in museums and libraries throughout the world.

The sheer number of fragments alone means that no one academic entity - let alone even one government or ecclesiastical authority - can "own" them all.

There are over 5500 manuscripts, miniscules, unicals, papyri, parchments, and fragments that critical scholars have used to ascertain the authentcity of the Scriptures as we have them today. A corpus like the Nestle-Aland 28 brings together some of the best consensus from the history of the manuscripts to most definitively decide what the "original" text most likely said - and the use of an appartus will illustrate the various manuscripts that were used to make the determination.

For more about apparatuses and manuscript evidence, you should check out other questions already here.

With over 5500 manuscripts, then, a complete list is too broad.  That said, there are a few key manuscripts that scholars would go to right away:

Dead Sea Scrolls, at the Shrine of the Book at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.  Side note: I've been there, and it is just way cool.  The museum itself looks like one of the jars in which the scrolls were found, and it showcases the Great Scroll of Isaiah.  The actual scrolls themselves can be viewed online.
Codex Vaticanus, at the Vatican Library in Rome.  Did you really thing the Vatican wouldn't have one of the best manuscripts in its own library?  This too, is online, but trust me, it is worth the visit.
Codex Sinaticus, at the British Museum and three other museums: the British Library, the Library of the University of Leipzig, the National Library of Russia in Saint Petersburg, and the Holy Monastery of the God-Trodden Mount Sinai (Saint Catherine’s). These were distributed for "safekeeping", after being "rescued" (sounds so much better than "stolen", eh?) from St. Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai, by Tischendorf, back in 1859. It is available online for viewing.  Sadly, while I have been to the British Museum, I didn't see this!  (Too busy looking at the Rosetta Stone, and the Cyrus Cylinder which may be the oldest extra biblical verification of a bible text, dating from the 500s BC.)

Interestingly, the oldest known fragment of the New Testament - p52, John Ryland's fragment of a verse in John - is located in library at the University of Manchester, England. There are online pictures too...


I believe these are symbols of martyred apostles.

Key: Peter
Sword: Paul
Axe: Possibly Matthew
Trident: Thomas

Jacob Prahlow has collected some research.

Although an upside-down cross is associated with Peter, he was given the keys of the kingdom (Cf. Matthew 16:19) and the key is a very common symbol.

Paul, a Roman citizen, was executed by the sword rather than crucified. While the date of his death is rather hazy, the place is known and there is an enormous basilica on the site. Paul is very often depicted with one or two swords: the sword of truth and the sword of martyrdom.

Both Matthew and James brother of John are traditionally held to have been martyred by beheading. James is recorded in Acts 12 as being killed “by the sword” — Matthew’s death is not recorded, but one tradition is that he died by the axe.

One legend of Thomas’ death in India is that he was killed with a trident.


Why Christians wear some elaborate costumes which sometimes outshine those of the pre-Christian epoch?

In short:

Dressing nicely in front of God is a good thing.
Priests do not actually dress in an "elaborate" way, but they do dress in a formal way.
Some people see pictures of the pope during very special ceremonies, and assume that all priests dress this way, which is simply not true. The pope is required to dress in a way that fits his status as pope. He is the Vicar of Christ, and Catholics expect him to dress like it. This does not mean that his garments must always be ornate, but that they should be appropriate. But this question is about priests, not the pope.

So why should priests wear "special" or "nice looking" clothing? Some of the basis for this is:

  John 12
  3 Mary took a liter of costly perfumed oil made from genuine aromatic nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and dried them with her hair; the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil.
  4 Then Judas the Iscariot, one [of] his disciples, and the one who would betray him, said,
  5 “Why was this oil not sold for three hundred days’ wages and given to the poor?”
  6 He said this not because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief and held the money bag and used to steal the contributions.

We should not hesitate to make our priests match their position. They are serving God. We dress nicely when we go to meet someone important to us, and priests should do the same. Sometimes, the Catholic priest acts in Persona Christi, which means "in the person of Christ". The priest does not become Christ, and he does not become a high priest, but he exercises certain very sacred powers that have been granted to him by God. We should have respect for that, and we should think of the eternal heavenly service of the High Priest Jesus during Mass, especially during the Eucharistic Prayer. From the Baltimore Catechism:

  365. Who said the First Mass?
  Our Divine Saviour said the first Mass, at the Last Supper, the night before He died.

The vestments themselves are not actually "ornate", even when the are on the more-elaborate side of the scale. They are simply formal. For example:

The dress goes a long way towards communicating the importance of religious life, and the commitment of the priest to living that life. Appropriate priestly vestments lend dignity to the office of the priest, and they lend dignity to the services themselves:

Catholics generally like to see that sort of formality. It is beautiful, and beauty praises God. Not your taste? That's fine, there are smaller Catholic parishes. But there is nothing wrong with giving praise to God in this way. Jesus might wear humble clothes, but that does not mean that we should wear our most "humble" clothes when going to see Him. He is the King of Kings, the Lord of all creation.


Are "sin" and "transgression" different in LDS terminology?

Yes they do have different meanings, though not consistently. Joseph Fielding Smith declared about the fall:

  I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin. … This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin … for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do!

-Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56, 1:114–15

Dallin H Oaks, referring to the above quote, said:

  This suggested contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression”. It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall.

-http://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/11/the-great-plan-of-happiness

Further, It has been said that Adam and Eve merely transgressed the law because they did not yet know the difference between good and evil, and thus they were not accountable for sin. A similar argument is used to say that children cannot sin; they are not accountable. They do, however, trangress laws.

The distinction between the two terms is not always clear cut though and invariably the two will be used interchangeably despite the subtle difference.


Why are the other names of God not used in Christianity?

To be clear, Christians do use other names of God in some contexts.

Michael Card's song El Shaddai was wildly popular in the 80's, and is often credited with launching the career of Amy Grant.
I remember singing Jehovah Jireh, and dozens of other songs like that.
Kay Arthur has a popular study based on the names of God, directed especially at women.

That list came to mind in the first 30 seconds of thinking.  There are many, many others.

As to why these aren't more popular? I'd suggest it's simply linguistic.  People gravitate towards the familiar when addressing a person.  Even if the Duke of Cambridge has 4 main names and 21 titles, they're still going to call him "Prince William" ninety nine times out of a hundred.  It's the same with "God." Hebrew is hard to pronounce, has the appearance of being overly formal in the King James, and generally is more foreign to the culture of mainstream American evangelicalism than anything else.  In spite of that, as shown above, we often incorporate it.  As such, I think the question should actually be reversed - why use the Hebrew as much as we do?


What is the origin of the idea that Matthew, Mark, and Luke didn't mention Lazarus in order to protect him?

Reconsidering Johannine Christianity: A Social Identity Approach,
by Raimo Hakola, page 17 and 18, elaborates that Hugo Grotius (d. 1645) was the first to theorize this need for not mentioning Lazarus with Matthew and Mark, yet further, according to [Richard] Bauckham that as for Luke, certain more intimidating details like a person being raised from the (3rd day, definitely) dead may have been left out for political reasons; to make the Christians seem less threatening.

From one miracle to the next, there is one more detail of significance to the raising of Lazarus. I have heard audible discussions of professors of ancient religion at Brigham Young University (difficult to source) include mention of a belief of the Jews at that time that a person is really finally dead and the spirit is finally left after three days, hence the drama and added uncertainty that might be directed at anyone who could then raise that person alive again.  Even without that detail, this was the pinnacle of miracles publicly accepted as literal facts that could not reasonably be denied at the time (John 11:44-48).

[ and ] denote a guess of which Bauckham that Raimo was referring to.


What is the origin of the story of the penitent thief as a young boy?

The story is found in the Apocryphal Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Saviour:

  (23) And turning away from this place, they came to a desert; and hearing that it was infested by robbers, Joseph and the Lady Mary resolved to cross this region by night. But as they go along, behold, they see two robbers lying in the way, and along with them a great number of robbers, who were their associates, sleeping. Now those two robbers, into whose hands they had fallen, were Titus and Dumachus. Titus therefore said to Dumachus: I beseech you to let these persons go freely, and so that our comrades may not see them. And as Dumachus refused, Titus said to him again: Take to yourself forty drachmas from me, and hold this as a pledge. At the same time he held out to him the belt which he had about his waist, to keep him from opening his mouth or speaking. And the Lady Mary, seeing that the robber had done them a kindness, said to him: The Lord God will sustain you by His right hand, and will grant you remission of your sins. And the Lord Jesus answered, and said to His mother: Thirty years hence, O my mother, the Jews will crucify me at Jerusalem, and these two robbers will be raised upon the cross along with me, Titus on my right hand and Dumachus on my left; and after that day Titus shall go before me into Paradise. And she said: God keep this from you, my son. And they went thence towards a city of idols, which, as they came near it, was changed into sand-hills.

There are also variations that make the Penitent Thief the young son of the leader of a band of thieves. Here is one other variation on the tale, which makes him a little spider. Here's a quote:

  So, the soldiers passed on and left the Holy Family in peace — all because a little spider had spun its web across the entrance to the cave.
  Barclay then writes: “And that, so they say, is why to this day we put tinsel on our Christmas trees, for the glittering tinsel streamers stand for the spider’s web, white with hoarfrost stretched across the entrance of the cave in which the Holy Family stopped and found shelter on the way to Egypt.
  “It is a lovely story, and this much, at least, is true: No gift that Jesus receives is ever forgotten.”

All of this is considered apocrypha, so we do not need to believe that it actually happened and some of these stories can have theological problems, so it's best to be cautious, but the core of the story was not made up by the priest, if that is what you are asking.


How are the 12 Anathemas of St. Cyril against Nestorius supposed to be read?

It would seem that only the first paragraph was Cyril's side of the argument.  Here's another copy of the text:

  If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the mother of God (for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God become flesh, let him be anathema.

It links to a copy on the CCEL.  The bit labeled as Nestorius: is included in a "Notes" section.  The scan of that page makes the situation slightly more clear.


What does "to appeal from the Hell" mean?

As a matter of English usage, to "appeal from" something is to request that it be set aside or modified in your favor. As a non-Christian, Hitchens paints the picture of someone asking God to be released from Hell. As far as I know, any Christian who believes Hell might be for a limited period of time (a minority of Christians but still a lot of people) would see release as totally God's choice.

Christians differ about how literally to take the descriptions of Hell. Describing a place as both "fire" and "outer darkness" suggests these might be metaphors. The Greek words usually translated as "forever" could also mean a long time, literally "ages and ages".


Mark and Romans: are these the same Rufus?

The same Rufus may have been mentioned in Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians (ch. 9):

  Παρακαλῶ οὖν πάντας ὑμᾶς, πειθαρχεῖν τῷ λόγῳ τῆς δικαιοσύνης καὶ
  ἀσκεῖν πᾶσαν ὑπομονήν, ἣν καὶ εἴδατε κατ’ ὀφθαλμοὺς οὐ μόνον ἐν τοῖς
  μακαρίοις Ἰγνατίῳ καὶ Ζωσίμῳ καὶ ῾Ρούφῳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις τοῖς ἐξ
  ὑμῶν καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ Παύλῳ καὶ τοῖς λοιποις ἀποστόλοις

  I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the word of
  righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as ye have seen
  [set] before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius,
  and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in
  Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles.

Pseudo-Hippolytus enumerates Rufus as one of the Seventy Apostles (Luke 10), and lists him as "Bishop of Thebes".

Rufus is in commemorated in the Synaxarion of the Eastern Orthodox Church on April 8.  An entry in the Synaxarion of the Monastery of Simonos Petra on Mt. Athos (Greece) states:

  Saint Rufus may have been the son of Simon of Cyrene mentioned in
  Mark's Gospel (15:21).  In his Epistle to the Romans, Saint Paul
  writes: Salute Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine
  (16:13).  He later became Bishop of Thebes, in Greece.

  The Synaxarion:  The Lives of the Saints of the Orthodox Church,
  Vol. 4 (March-April), p.371

This, of course, is a modern work, but the Simonas Petras compilation is derived from a long stream of written tradition on Mt. Athos that dates back to at least 800 AD.

The latter Great Collection of The Lives of the Saints, by the Russian Sergius of Radonezh (d.1392) does not mention the connection with the Rufus of Mark, nor does Nikolai Velimirovic' Prologue.  These latter two, along with the Simonas Petra volumes, are the most comprehensive Synaxaria that have been translated into English, so from an Orthodox Christian perspective the best one could say is that the connection with the Rufus of Mark is tentative.


What was the general opinion of the Early Church Fathers concerning the giants/nephilims?

There's some consternation about this issue, but it's clear that the Jewish writers (Philo and Josephus) confirm their existence and reason (Gen. 6:4).  As well, there is some early Christian literature that confirms same.

Here's Athenagoras on the issue:

  Some, free agents [angels], you will observe, such as they were created by God, continued in those things for which God had made and over which He had ordained them; but some outraged both the constitution of their nature and the government entrusted to them: namely, this ruler of matter and its various forms, and others of those who were placed about this first firmament (you know that we say nothing without witnesses, but state the things which have been declared by the prophets); these fell into impure love of virgins, and were subjugated by the flesh, and he became negligent and wicked in the management of the things entrusted to him. Of these lovers of virgins, therefore, were begotten those who are called giants.788 And if something has been said by the poets, too, about the giants, be not surprised at this: worldly wisdom and divine differ as much from each other as truth and plausibility: the one is of heaven and the other of earth; and indeed, according to the prince of matter,—
  “We know we oft speak lies that look like truths.”
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.v.ii.xxiv.html

Another early mention was in the Clementine literature:

  “But from their unhallowed intercourse spurious men sprang, much greater in stature than ordinary men, whom they afterwards called giants; not those dragon-footed giants who waged war against God, as those blasphemous myths of the Greeks do sing, but wild in manners, and greater than men in size, inasmuch as they were sprung of angels; yet less than angels, as they were born of women.
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.vi.iv.xi.xv.html

Philo had this to say:

  Therefore he [God] utters no fable whatever respecting the giants; but he wishes to set this fact before your eyes, that some men are born of the earth, and some are born of heaven, and some are born of God
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/philo/works.xi.xiii.html

And Josephus mentions giants as well:

  For many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants.
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.v.ii.xxiv.html

Commodianus wrote this about 275 CE:

  Then the Highest uttered His judgment against them [angels]; and from their seed giants are said to have been born.
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.v.ii.iv.html

So, the idea of angels procreating was fairly widespread and believed early on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenagoras_of_Athens
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04165a.htm


Matt 15: What penalty for not washing hands?

According to the rabbinical interpretation of Ex. 34:27,34 (and others) God gave to Moses other laws and maxims orally, as well as verbal explanations of the written law, enjoining him not to record these teachings, but to deliver them to the people by word of mouth. Most modern Jewish traditions descend from the Pharisees with the notable exception of Karaite Judaism. There were many Jewish sects at the time of Christ with the main branches being Sadducee, Pharisees, Essene and Zealot. A close examination of Jesus's teachings would place him somewhere between the Pharisee and Essene with an apocalyptic emphasis -- or maybe the Gandi of the Zealot movement, where he would agree with their apocalyptic beliefs while abhorring their violent tendencies.

According to the Gospels, he upbraided the Pharisees for their oral traditions and even went so far as to say their oral law was a rejection, breaking or voiding of the written law. As Christianity and rabbinical Judaism shaped each other during the first few centuries of the common era, the rabbinical interpretations of the oral law eventually came to be written down, in spite of the fact that during Second Temple Judaism many Pharisees believed it was against God's law for them to be put into writing.

Ritual hand-washing is from these "added" laws from the oral tradition. Using asmachta, (a Biblical hint, rather than an explicit requirement) the Talmud used the requirement of washing the hands in Leviticus 15:11 as a hint for hand-washing in general. Leviticus 15:11 only speaks about washing the hands after they have been in contact with an issue of bodily fluid and the only penalty or punishment mentioned is being considered ritually impure until sundown. Ritual purity was important to many Jews to the extent of breaking the second commandment which we often call the Golden Rule. This is the reason Jesus praises the actions of a Samaritan to implicate the priest and Levite (same thing, two different people and never mind that most Second Temple Levitical priests were Sadducee, not Pharisee) who would not show compassion for the victim of the robbery who was lying bleeding on the side of the road in the parable, because his blood would have make them ritually unclean.

So, other than social ostracism, the disgust and disdain of the Pharisees and being temporarily barred from attendance at the Temple, there is no recorded punishment or penalty to be meted out for the offense.


Justification of Offertories according to the Regulative Principle of Worship

There are a number of times that the Psalms have a call and response to them (there is one which has "for his love endures forever" as the second half of every verse). The liturgy which is shown in the book of Revelation has a clear chorus which is separate from the congregation (elders who bow down are separate from the great multitude). If it is possible for one subset of the congregation to sing a part of a song, why would it be impossible for one subset to sing the entire song?


Does the nature of God's love for us include what we humans would call "constant, strong, and genuine affection"? (Catholic)

The Catechism says

  God's love for Israel is compared to a father's love for his son. His love for his people is stronger than a mother's for her children. God loves his people more than a bridegroom his beloved; his love will be victorious over even the worst infidelities and will extend to his most precious gift: "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son."

  Jn 3:16; cf. Hos 11:1; Is 49:14-15, 62:4-5; Ezek 16; Hos 11

  The hierarchy of creatures is expressed by the order of the "six days", from the less perfect to the more perfect. God loves all his creatures and takes care of each one, even the sparrow. Nevertheless, Jesus said: "You are of more value than many sparrows", or again: "of how much more value is a man than a sheep!"

  Lk 12:6-7; Mt 12:12

  God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love. Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man.

  Cf. Gen 1:27; 1 Jn 4:8, 16.

Those references describe what seems to me to be a "constant, strong and genuine affection".


Is the popular image of the Puritan as purveyor of an intolerant monoculture accurate?

As this question does not seem to be eliciting many responses I will add my own view. My perspective comes from reading many books written by Puritans, in fact this has been my main diet as a Christian.  Unfortunately my view is limited by my knowledge of the history of the early colonies in America.

From my own perspective the Puritans as a group of more or less independent Calvinists, settling among the early colonies of America, were nothing more than Christians getting caught up in a part of the world seeking opportunity and wealth in a new frontier.  Among the population of the general crowd, filled with ambition and greed over the many new opportunities, the Puritans would have been seen as intolerant for sure.  Also it would have been no surprise that some Puritans were truly judgmental and even racists, as we would still find people in churches today with that disposition.  On the other hand, among the colonies there would have been many brave and regular 'good folk' who have taken a chance at a better life and would not have been caught up with the greed of the industries, but would have been simply wanted a quite life and kinship among townsmen, etc.  Here there were probably be less of a contrast with the Puritans among them, for this simple life of hard work and honest living is somewhat Puritanical. These sorts of people would have many things in common with the Puritans and the churches in those communities would have probably been less criticized.

Aside from the typical stage that a movie might present the old west and the little church within in it, when reading the actual writings of the Puritans what I find is a big emphasis of love and charity which opposes the concept of casting an intolerant monoculture. Among the Puritans there was also efforts to bring salvation to the native Americans.  I think this is where the picture has its truth on both sides.  Some in the name of religion tried to eliminate native culture and stole the children to be 'educated' etc. Possibly even sexually molesting some of them. However, I think this trend was not so much the Puritans but other denominations, especially Catholic as we find similar things today.  Yet considering the great racist and vile attitudes of the colonies against the natives, some of that prejudice and racism and rigid monoculture values of the British, that plagued many parts of the world, would have also infected even loving and holy British men to some degree.

I find this specifically true of the accounts that Jonathan Edwards has in his diary of attempts to be a missionary to the natives.  You can tell he loved them but there was some monoculture and rigidity in his words. I perceive them as trace elements reflecting the wicked arrogant white-man society in which he lived, not his own sentiments. In fact when trying to understand how to show liberal compassion and love, I like to read Jonathan Edwards.

To answer the question, I think the new frontier for many Europeans was a place to force their rigid and mono-cultural ideals upon weaker races and this would have stained, to a degree, even the good hearted puritans that sought a simple life to honor God.  Among these groups some Europeans especially those who were physically attracted to other races would have probably spent their liberal days in local saloons and would have cursed the Puritans just as party goers curse holy people today.  Sinners often feel judged by holy people even when they are not judged. Drunkards and fornicators would have been more 'easy going' and less ridged, yet also the most ridged when facing races where no attraction or mutual financial benefits existed, such as with the natives.  So really we have many aspects to the answer that are probably not that different than how things are today. Are we rigid and trying to force a monoculture today? In some ways people would say we are but in many ways, especially in our love, we are truly not. Many people would think Jesus was rigid and monocultural in that he required every nation to repent of their idols, but that does not make the insult true.


Where did the "humans become angels" tradition come from?

this might not truly answer your question. but it does shed some light about "us" becoming "like" angels.

Luke 12:25
For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage--"neither can they die any more" ( Luke 20:36 ). Marriage is ordained to perpetuate the human family; but as there will be no breaches by death in the future state, this ordinance will cease.
but are as the angels which are in heaven--In Luke ( Luke 20:36 ) it is "equal unto the angels." But as the subject is death and resurrection, we are not warranted to extend the equality here taught beyond the one point--the immortality of their nature. A beautiful clause is added in Luke ( Luke 20:36 )--"and are the children of God"--not in respect of character, which is not here spoken of, but of nature--"being the children of the resurrection," as rising to an undecaying existence ( Romans 8:21 Romans 8:23 ), and so being the children of their Father's immortality ( 1 Timothy 6:16 ).

Bible Study Tools
I imagine that somewhere along the way that people saw this as they would become angels when they went to heaven.  this doesn't say that at all. it really means equal unto the angels
this may be where we started thinking that we too could become Angels. but we really shouldn't want that.  We as saved individuals will become physical/spiritual beings after the resurrection, the Angels are only spiritual beings.
I could not find much more information on the subject, I am at work so I am rather limited in my research time.


How do we understand that the law was given by angels

Exodus seems to be silent about the angel.  It's a later Jewish tradition, which believes that the angel of presence was God's intermediary to dictate the law to Moses.  Please note: that even in the tradition, the law was transmitted, not given, by the angel.
See the non-canonical pseudepigrapha work Book of Jubilees 1:27-29 and 2:1 :

27And He said to the angel of the presence: Write for Moses from 28 the beginning of creation till My sanctuary has been built among them for all eternity. And the Lord will appear to the eyes of all, and all shall know that I am the God of Israel and the Father of all the children of Jacob, and King on Mount Zion for all eternity. And Zion and Jerusalem shall 29 be holy.' And the angel of the presence who went before the camp of Israel took the tables of the divisions of the years -from the time of the creation- of the law and of the testimony of the weeks of the jubilees, according to the individual years, according to all the number of the jubilees [according, to the individual years], from the day of the [new] creation when the heavens and the earth shall be renewed and all their creation according to the powers of the heaven, and according to all the creation of the earth, until the sanctuary of the Lord shall be made in Jerusalem on Mount Zion, and all the luminaries be renewed for healing and for peace and for blessing for all the elect of Israel, and that thus it may be from that day and unto all the days of the earth.
1 And the angel of the presence spake to Moses according to the word of the Lord, saying: Write the complete history of the creation, how in six days the Lord God finished all His works and all that He created, and kept Sabbath on the seventh day and hallowed it for all ages and ...

More on this can be learned from a journal article Angels at Sinai: Exegesis, Theology and Interpretive Authority by Hindy Najman, 2000.
Example Christian assessment of the use of the Book of Jubilees can be read from the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on the book.


Why was neither David nor Solomon stoned to death?

Solomon married his concubines, so he wasn't practicing adultery - just polygamy, which was not forbidden.

David murdered Uriah, but did it by proxy. He did not kill Uriah, rather he set up a situation in which he would fall in battle. Beyond that, yes David "killed his ten thousands," but did so in battle, and thus it isn't murder. And as Caleb pointed out, God punished David.


Prevenient Grace - Negative Responses to Scriptural Examples of It

I am understanding your use of the word prevenient grace to be not only God's influence upon men before actual justification but also joined with the assumption that his intended influence upon men to draw them to salvation by the Holy Spirit can be rejected and is resistible.  In this sense the grace you imagine is something opposed to Calvinism.

To answer the question from the standpoint of a Calvinistic view we must first make clear that Calvinism does not reject the idea that there is a gracious influence from God before actual grace is received through the gospel, rather it upholds it. Calvinism only rejects the idea that it is resistible. The original reason for rejecting the idea of the original Roman Catholic teaching of prevenient grace is because under Catholic theology it is actually a means to introduce the idea that grace is only half grace (from the protestant concept) and always depends on cooperative human works. Under this scheme grace can be earned by cooperating with previous grace and justification is not in a moment but through a lifetime of 'cooperative' works. Therefore, under a reformed evangelical view, Catholic theology actually says that salvation is by human effort 'aided by the Holy Spirit' and is therefore actually just salvation by works. You seem unaware as you toy with the phrase prevenient grace that many theologians see such a devilish background lurking around it.

One can see this line of reasoning from Calvin himself.

  the Papists confess that we are under the tyranny of the devil, and slaves to him, and that there is no right will in men, except through the prevenient (præeunte) grace of the Holy Spirit. But as I have already said, they talk vainly of the grace of the Spirit, and say that it is an influence by which God enables us to follow that which is right, if we have a will to do so. Thus, then, the grace of God, according to them, leaves men in suspense, so that they are free either to receive or to reject the grace of God. Afterwards, they join the subsequent grace, which, in their view, is a reward; for if I assent to God, that is, if I suffer myself to be ruled by his Spirit, and embrace the grace offered to me, God will then reward me with another grace to confirm me in my right purpose. And thus they confess that perseverance is in part the gift of God; but they always imagine it a co-operating grace. And then, as perseverance, according to them, is God’s subsequent grace, and is, as it were, a handmaid, it ceases to be grace, for it is rather the reward of merit. (BOOK OF THE PROPHET JEREMIAH and THE LAMENTATIONS BY JOHN CALVIN, p4.213)

However I understand that under your thinking you are associating the idea of prevenient grace NOT as a sinister means to destroy the protestant view of grace. You have a more happy idea in mind, for you seem to be considering people like Baptists or any evangelical that does not believe in the non-resistible grace of reformed theology.

I assume these question arise not from the subject of God's influence on men prior to new birth but are an outcome of wrestling with the idea of election. I can't imagine a big interest in the term otherwise. From this standpoint you may be contemplating a 'limited acceptance' of the concept of 'prevenient grace' to be a possible solution to the unresolvable tension between the idea of free will and predestination.  However, I do not think this will really resolve that tension for it does not address the issue before time began but merely in the experience of men with the Holy Spirit in time.  This means regardless of how we color a limited acceptance of some kind of grace that can be 'rejected or accepted' it can not prove if it is ultimately resistible or not.  For example, this simple Calvinistic type question removes the relevance of prevenient grace from the subject of predestination: 'What if God choses to provide limited influence of goodness towards those destined to hell, only to establish more guilt on their soul for rejecting his prevenient grace, knowing that they would reject it. On the other hand for the elect he provides 'more' prevenient grace which becomes 'irresistible' in order to save those he choses to save?'

I do not actually think God works in a way that we can fully comprehend and understand to relive the tension of election and free will, so my question above is actually not my question.  My personal theology is Calvinistic with some associated mysticism, a.k.a..humble admission of not knowing everything. What I mean is all the elect will be saved and actual saving grace is irresistible but I also believe God desires the salvation of all men. The knowledge that can relieve this apparent contradiction is not in my mind declared in scripture, making faith our only refuge and comfort for the desired removal of the seeming tension.

Anyway to answer your specific examples:

Cornelius coming to the Peter even though apparently not yet a Christian in Acts 10
Luke 19:10 This is not an example that opposes irresistible grace as Cornelius eventually becomes a Christian, which rather supports Calvinistic beliefs in irresistible grace

Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." This has no bearing on Calvinistic doctrine concerning irresistible grace for of course the grace of God has appeared to all men but only those who are irresistibly drawn to it can take hold of it through faith.

John 6:44: "No man can come unto me, unless the Father who hath sent me, draw him..." This is a actually a proof text for irresistible grace which assume a prevenient and irresistible saving work of the Holy Spirit upon a sinner who is unable to draw himself or properly cooperate in a meritorious way into his salvation.

John 16:18 "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;"Again this has no bearing on Calvinistic views concerning irresistible grace, for being convicted of sin and fearing the judgment as a guilty sinner, or being convicted of one's justification by freely accepting the irresistible grace of God is entirely in accordance with Calvinistic views of the work of the Holy Spirit, condemning the damned and saving the elect.

Possibly your only confusion is that you did not realize every Protestant believes in a kind of external grace before actual justifying grace (call it prevenient or whatever). The only difference between some Baptists for example and reformed parts of the church is that this prevenient grace is not resistible with respect to the elect and their being drawn into actual justifying grace.


Why do so many baptisms occur with regular clothes on and not swimwear?

In most churches this is more a practical thing than a theological thing. Most people don't particularly want to appear in public in swimwear, and churches certainly don't want to leave open any possibility of being seen to be parading scantily clad people for baptism. Some traditions use baptismal robes, which are white and usually worn over regular clothing.

The uncomfortableness of wet clothes is often addressed by people actually wearing a swimsuit, and casual clothes over the top. In any case, it's absolutely normal to go and get changed as soon as the baptism is over. The amount of time you are in wet clothes is very small; and since baptism is at least in part about entering into the suffering of Jesus, it's not inappropriate.

As for damaging the clothes, baptism candidates do usually get choice in what to wear: they usually make sensible clothing choices, and get advice. Cotton shirts are popular clothing, and silk and wool unpopular. Dresses and skirts are unpopular because they float up. But its really about what makes the candidate and the rest of the congregation comfortable.

If you were asking why baptisms aren't conducted naked, all of the above applies double. Without a clear and incontrovertible biblical or theological reason, the downsides of naked baptism would clearly outweigh the positives.


Why are babies dressed in white during a Roman Catholic christening?

The color white is primarily symbolic of the pure state of the baby's/adult's soul along with the renewal of life after being cleansed of original sin by the Holy Spirit. But as with all symbolism, there are many more things associated with the color (according to Wikipedia):

  According to surveys in Europe and the United States, white is the color most often associated with innocence, perfection, the good, honesty, cleanliness, the beginning, the new, neutrality, lightness, and exactitude.

There are no official Catholic teaching on the color of clothing, but people may choose white on account of the tradition and symbolism of the color.


Would Mormons accept communion, administered by a representative of another Christian denomination, as valid?

A better answer would come from an actual LDS war veteran, but I would imagine that a Mormon in the military may participate in an available ceremony as a symbol of friendship, unity, and support with the rest his regiment. Although they may participate, Latter-day Saints maintain that ordinances are only authorized when exercised by the Priesthood of God, which is had His Church only (the LDS Church). That's not to say the ceremony by the non-LDS chaplain is not beneficial to the Latter-day Saint—it still provides him a blessed opportunity to worship with other Christians who share the same fundamental beliefs—it just is not binding in heaven. In fact, I think any decent member of the LDS Church would encourage, not disparage, participation in available Christian worship services.

You can find out more about the LDS Church and military relations on its website: https://www.lds.org/callings/military-relations/organization-leader-responsibilites?lang=eng and https://www.lds.org/callings/military-relations/military-chaplains?lang=eng. There's nothing particularly quotable but it should give good background. I think the point is that this is up to the individual member's conscience. Other questions and answers on this site go into detail about the Priesthood authority necessary for ordinances to be valid in heaven.

As an aside (that may or may not be relevant), I have personally met and informally interviewed a Latter-day Saint astronaut who commanded a couple Shuttle missions. I asked about how he worships in space. Even he, a Priesthood holder, needed to obtain authorization from his local Priesthood leader (bishop or stake president) before the mission to be able to administer the Sacrament if the opportunity arose. Of course, this was done privately in the extremely limited personal time allotted. But the point is, the administration of ordinances that are considered officially valid before the Lord is well organized, even... in space.


According to John 19:19-20,

19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put [it] on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, [and] Greek, [and] Latin (KJV, 1769)

The phrase "Jesus the Nazarene, the king of the Jews" was written in three languages: Hebrew (likely Aramaic), Greek, and Latin.
In Aramaic: ישוע נצריא מלכא דיהודיא (see Peshitta)

In Greek: Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων (See Textus Receptus)

In Latin: Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum (See Latin Vulgate)

INRI is an acronym meaning Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum, or "Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews."


Why is the Lord's Prayer different in the NIV and KJV?

There are two differences here:

"from evil" (KJV) versus "from the evil one" (NIV)
"for thine is the kingdom..." in the KJV but not the NIV.

The first difference reflects an alternative translation choice for the Greek word "πονηροῦ". This might be in the masculine or the neuter gender - the word forms are the same. But there is a difference in meaning: if it's masculine, then it's referring to a specific individual who is evil, "the evil one", but if it's neuter, then it means non-personified "evil" in general. In the absence of any immediate grammatical clue, it's a matter of judgement which reading to choose. The NIV translators simply made a different call from those who translated the KJV.

The second difference reflects the fact that not all early source texts include this bit of the Lord's Prayer. In fact, there is a denominational distinction as well: the standard Catholic  version of the Lord's Prayer does not include it, but most Protestants do put it in. It is not present in the oldest manuscripts of Matthew, but there are versions that include it, so again it is a matter of judgement between the two sets of translators as to which text version is "better".


Based on Satan was a cherubim, then yes.

GotQuestions

  Cherubim/cherubs are angelic beings involved in the worship and praise
  of God.

Who is Satan?

Satan comes from Judaism; "Satan" is from the Hebrew word for "adversary." Satan was existed in the traditions of Judaism as the heavenly prosecutor in what Christians call the Old Testament long before the incarnation of the logos aka the birth of Jesus.

Job 1:6 NIV

  One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and
  Satan also came with them.

Satan's origins are hinted at here:

Ezekiel 28:16 NIV

  Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you
  sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I
  expelled you, guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones.

Power the cherubim

Isaiah 37:16 NIV

  Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, enthroned between the cherubim, you
  alone are God over all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven
  and earth.

Here is a popular depiction of the order from Matthaeus (Matthäus) Merian the elder (1593-1650).

 Relationship to music

Ezekiel 28:13 hints to his relationship to music (see pipes and timbrels)

Ezekiel 28:13 KJV

  Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy
  covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx,
  and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and
  gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in
  thee in the day that thou wast created.


Will God give us the gift of vision, dream, and prophecy if we request Him?

First a point of clarifications:
In the widest sense, pentecostalism is the belief that there is a second, post-regeneration experience called the baptism with the Holy Ghost usually through the laying on of hands, which is externally manifested often with speaking in tongues (but this is not a universal belief). Charismatic Christianity believes in the active working of the supernatural gifts of the Holy Ghost in the normal life of the church such as miracles, healings, dreams, visions, prophecy, and speaking and interpreting tongues.
Pentecostals would be Charismatic Christians, but Charismatic Christians might not be Pentecostals. Assemblies of God is an example of the former, and I think theologian Gordon Fee might be an example of the latter.
To answer your question, it is the standard teaching in the Charismatic Movement that God still speaks to individuals with prophetic gifts: prophecy, visions, words of knowledge and wisdom. Prophetic Gifts are not considered to be "foretelling the future" but rather "words from God for edification". There is an emphasis on the personal relationship with God through his presence and Spirit, which manifest in such experiences.
Usually Pentecostal and Charismatic churches are MUCH less credal than Reformed and Catholic denominations because it emphasises the personal relationship so much, which means there is a MUCH wider diversity of beliefs and applications of what is believed. In the more conservative charismatic churches, there is a strong emphasis on "testing every spirit" and therefore a "healthy" scepticism.
The Old Apostolic Church with roots in Catholicism was founded in the 19th century and is one of the oldest Pentecostal movements and (at least here in South Africa) make a very big deal about God speaking to individuals regularly through dreams and consulting the "priest" to help with interpretation.
So to answer your questions, it is hardly meaningful to say standard Pentecostal teaching, but what might be considered standard Pentecostal and Charismatic teaching is that God still speaks to individuals about personal matters through the prophetic gifts of the Holy Ghost: Dreams, visions, prophecies, interpreted tongues, and maybe some other; and "Spirit-filled" believers can and should experience it.
Can I ask for God to speak to me through these gifts?
It is also important to note that Pentecostals (and most Charismatics) teach that there is also a difference between charismatic gifts (the focus of 1 Cor 12&14) and Offices (Eph 4:11 & 1 Cor 12:28). They mostly believe all believers can operate in charismatic gifts, like prophecy, visions, tongues, even miracles and healings. But some are "set" in the church to fulfil a certain function in ministry:

And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. (1Co 12:28)

These offices would have a function and role in the church, usually, focussing on equipping all believers to operate in the Charismatic gifts and leading the church with their "primary gift" for the purpose of growing into the unity of faith (Eph 4:13)
With this in mind, Biblically (if you grant the continuation and distinction of Charismatic gifts operating and Certain Offices) we can say the following:

Gifts are distributed by the Holy Ghost to ANYONE according to His will (1 Cor 12:11)
All offices are appointments by Jesus for the Church to grow into the unity of Faith (Eph 4:10-13)
The gifts and offices' primary and best purpose is to edify the body not the individual (1 Cor 12:7; 14:1-4, Eph 4:12)
If it is from God it will and must be administered orderly (1 Cor 14:33)
Prophetic words must be subject to the Scriptures and prophetic Office (1 Cor 14:32)
Therefore Prophetic words must be judged/interpreted (1 Cor 14:29, 1 Thess 5:20-21)
The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.(Rev 19:10)
The Good gifts are given to those who "are hungry" and ask for it (Luke 11:13)

So to answer your question, it will appear that if you grant the continuation of Spiritual Gifts, anyone can and should absolutely ask for it, but its purpose, like anything we ask God for, is not to consume it on your own lusts (James 4:3), but rather on the edifying of the Body. As a member of that body personal ministry to you by the Holy Ghost will obviously benefit the body, but not if it only serves to promote your own self-interest like your career or relationships apart or instead of the Testimony of Jesus.
I think most will say that to desire an Office would also be a good thing (similar to 1 Tim 3:16) but that it is ordination by Jesus Christ not for all. Many believe that some of these offices closed with the close of the Bible Canon, especially the Office of Apostle but some would include the Prophetic Office also.
Most Charismatics would use 1 Cor 14:1 and 1 Thess 5:19-21 to encourage everyone to operate in spiritual gifts and Luke 11:13 to receive it by asking.

Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye
may prophesy. (1Co 14:1)

Quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1Th 5:19-21)

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? (Luk 11:13)

But in practice, the emphasis on the personal relationship with God the Holy Ghost, means that it is often applied primarily personally to know God's will for your own life. The idea of "putting out a fleece" like Gideon (in my experience as a Pentecostal) is very common among Charismatics to test if something is from God, while submitting your prophetic word or dream for judgement is very uncommon.
That being said, regardless of the continuation of any gifts or offices, like the Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost is God and can speak independently of any gift or office. In which case, there is no judging just obeying. This seems to be the Apostles' experience in Acts 8:29; Acts 10:19; Acts 13:2 and Acts 16:6-7. and certainly the Old Testament experience for the Prophets that spoke moved by the Holy Ghost - it was God speaking, not through a Gift or an Office, but rather in his own Devine right. Faithful Pentecostal expositors are unlikely to condone the use of these as examples of how the Gifts of the Holy Ghost or active offices administer the prophetic word of God today.


In which writing(s) did Augustine assert that God exists outside of time?

Augustine addresses this question in at least the Confessions and the City of God.  In book 11 of the Confessions he deals with the subject of time extensively, and ultimately he decides that it is inherently associated with change.  In City of God he writes:

Time does not exist without some movement and transition, while in eternity there is no change. (11.6)
tempus sine aliqua mobili mutabilitate non est, in aeternitate autem nulla mutatio est

With this definition, it's perhaps unsurprising that he sees God as outside time, and, indeed, the creator of it.

Since then, God, in whose eternity is no change at all, is the Creator and Ordainer of time, I do not see how He can be said to have created the world after spaces of time had elapsed, unless it be said that prior to the world there was some creature by whose movement time could pass. (11.6)
Cum igitur Deus, in cuius aeternitate nulla est omnino mutatio, creator sit temporum et ordinator: quo modo dicatur post temporum spatia mundum creasse non uideo, nisi dicatur ante mundum iam aliquam fuisse creaturam, cuius motibus tempora currerent.

That is, to Augustine, it is logically impossible for time to have existed without God creating it.  Similarly, in the Confessions:

How would innumerable ages pass, which you yourself had not made?  You are the originator and creator of all ages.  What times existed which were not brought into being by you?  Or how could they pass if they never had existence? Since, therefore, you are the cause of all times, if any time existed before you made heaven and earth, how can anyone say that you abstained from working?  You have made time itself.  Time could not elapse before you made time. (11.xiii)
nam unde poterant innumerabilia saecula praeterire quae ipse non feceras, cum sis omnium saeculorum auctor et conditor? aut quae tempora fuissent quae abs te condita non essent? aut quomodo praeterirent, si numquam fuissent? cum ergo sis operator omnium temporum, si fuit aliquod tempus antequam faceres caelum et terram, cur dicitur quod ab opere cessabas? idipsum enim tempus tu feceras, nec praeterire potuerunt tempora antequam faceres tempora.
You made time itself.  No times are coeternal with you since you are permanent.  If they were permanent, they would not be times. (11.xiv)
nullo ergo tempore non feceras aliquid, quia ipsum tempus tu feceras. et nulla tempora tibi coaeterna sunt, quia tu permanes. at illa si permanerent, non essent tempora.

And as the creator of time, God is necessarily outside of it – he does not experience it like we do:

Your 'years' neither go nor come.  Ours come and go so that all may come in succession.  All your 'years' subsist in simultaneity, because they do not change; those going away are not thrust out by those coming in.  [...] Your Today does not yield to a tomorrow, nor did it follow on a yesterday.  Your Today is eternity. (11.xiii)
anni tui nec eunt nec veniunt, isti enim nostri eunt et veniunt, ut omnes veniant; anni tui omnes simul stant, quoniam stant, nec euntes a venientibus excluduntur, quia non transeunt. isti autem nostri omnes erunt, cum omnes non erunt. anni tui dies unus, et dies tuus non cotidie sed hodie, quia hodiernus tuus non cedit crastino; neque enim succedit hesterno. hodiernus tuus aeternitas

English text is from the Dods translation of the City of God and the Chadwick translation of the Confessions.  Latin text is from the City of God and the Confessions on the Latin Library.


Can a communion host be made differently according to Catholicism?

Can a communion host be made differently?

The valid material of the Eucharistic host is unadulterated wheat reduced to flour, diluted with natural water, and baked with fire. Host (Catholic Encyclopaedia)

The shape of a communion host may be different, but generally speaking hosts in the Latin Rite are round. Hosts in many Eastern Rite Churches are cubic in shape.
What if we make hosts wrapped in clear edible coating that would prevent crumbling and also people from touching the bread?
The short answer to this is that it would be invalid matter. Redemptionis Sacramentum is very clear on this matter.

The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition. It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament. It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist. Hosts should obviously be made by those who are not only distinguished by their integrity, but also skilled in making them and furnished with suitable tools. (no. 48)

Thus anything more than wheat and water added to the confection of a communion host would constitute invalid matter.
The General Instruction of the Roman Missal has this to say about communion hosts:

By reason of the sign, it is required that the material for the Eucharistic Celebration truly have the appearance of food. Therefore, it is desirable that the Eucharistic Bread, even though unleavened and made in the traditional form, be fashioned in such a way that the Priest at Mass with the people is truly able to break it into parts and distribute these to at least some of the faithful. However, small hosts are not at all excluded when the large number of those receiving Holy Communion or other pastoral reasons call for them. (no. 321)

It is outside the domain of this question to appease the need to receive communion on the hand, one way or another. But I will simply add these two statements:

In a letter to The Tablet this week the chairman of the Latin Mass Society, Joseph Shaw, observed that it was not permitted to distribute the host on the hand at the Extraordinary Form, and that in parishes where this was made mandatory, only the priest would consume. He also said that there was no objective medical foundation for suspending reception on the tongue.
Professor Jim McManus, Director of Public Health, who has advised the Bishops’ Conference on their response, told The Tablet: “The guidance is consistent with the fact that coronavirus is spread through saliva. That is backed up by studies which show that the virus has been consistently detected in the saliva of 91.7 per cent of patients.” - Coronavirus dispute over communion on the tongue

Coronavirus Note: My parish still allows communion on the tongue! Many dioceses still allow it. There is no proof that either practice is more dangerous than the other during this pandemic. Our bishop requires all priests to immediately sanitize their hands if they knowingly came into contact with someone’s tongue or lips while distributing Holy Communion. Each priest has a washing station about two (2) meters from the place where he is distributing communion. This will not go back to normal anytime soon, and even possibly during our lifetime!
Just as the priest takes the paten off the chalice, in order to expose the wine when he say the words of consecration, so to the hosts must be exposed when the priest says the words of consecration over them.
A priest saying the Mass with hosts which are covered by some form of clear edible coating implies that he is praying directly over another substance than simply natural bread. This implies very serious invalid matter! If referred to Rome, it would without a doubt receive a negative judgement.
The following is exact how I was taught in the seminary:
Are microscopic particles which fall from the Host still the Eucharist?

How small is too small?
Still, we must emphasize that some persons fall into serious confusion on this point. Because every particle of the consecrated Host is surely Jesus, they think that even every microscopic particle which falls from the Host is also Jesus – but in this, they err.
A piece of the Host which is visible to the human eye (under usual conditions and without assistance) as what appears to be a piece of bread, is surely Jesus. However, those particles which are so small as to be invisible to the human eye, or to be indistinguishable from a particle of dust – these cannot any longer be the Eucharist.
The Church teaches that the Eucharistic Presence remains “as long as the Eucharist species subsist”. This means that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist, so long as the Eucharist retains the accidental properties of bread and wine. Hence, if a Host is dissolved in water (as is done when the Host has become putrefied, as through vomiting after the reception of Communion), upon being dissolved it is not longer the Eucharist. Likewise, the Precious Blood, when the Chalice is purified with water (and wine), is no longer the Eucharist.
The same must hold true for those particles which are so small as to be unrecognizable as “bread”. If the fragment is so small as to appear to be dust or a speck of some other substance, rather than a “crumb” of bread, it can no longer be the Eucharist. Likewise, those microscopic particles which fall from the Host are not the Eucharist, since they clearly do not retain the appearance of bread.
Excessive scrupulosity about such things will only cause the true faith to be ridiculed. Indeed, in this case, the words of the Catechism of the Council of Trent are most helpful. Warning priests to dissuade the people from a vain curiosity into such mysteries, the Roman Catechism states:
“No less of caution should be observed by pastors in explaining the mysterious manner in which the body of our Lord is contained whole and entire under the least particle of the bread. Indeed, discussions of this kind should scarcely ever be entered upon.
“Should Christian charity, however, require a departure from this rule, the pastor should remember first of all to prepare and fortify his hearers by reminding them that no word shall be impossible with God.”