Can a Catholic eat the food prepared for the Muslim Eid al-Adha?

The May Catholics eat Muslim foods prepared for the Eid al-Adha?

  Eid al-Adha is also called the “Sacrifice Feast” and it honors the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son, as an act of submission to God’s command. It marks the end of the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, the fifth Pillar of Islam. - What is Eid al-Adha?

The short answer is yes.

But that said one might avoid scandal, if in fact that possibility actually were to exist somewhere.

The Eid al-Adha is a dietary slaughter of certain animals and is not meat offered to idols, but is done in remembrance of Abraham’s willingness to sac rice his only son, Isaac.

Let us now look into the matter more deeply.

Eid al-Adha food is not offered to idols at all as the above quote demonstrates. The word sacrifice should really be slaughtered. On Eid al-Adha, which comes at the end of the hajj, or monthlong pilgrimage to Mecca, Muslims ritually slaughter a goat or other halal animal in memory of the ram Ibrahim sacrificed in place of his son. Part of the meat is eaten at the feast that is a highlight of the holy day. See here: A good weekend to be a Catholic goat

In fact, the world’s Catholic bishops at the Second Vatican Council approved Nostra Aetate declares that Catholics and Muslims have much in common.

  In 1965, Pope Paul VI and the world’s Catholic bishops at the Second Vatican Council approved Nostra Aetate, the declaration on relations with non-Christian religions. The decree’s denunciation of calumny against Jews gets most of the attention, but it also proclaimed this:

  “The church also regards with esteem the Muslims. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in himself, merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,” although “they do not acknowledge Jesus as God” and regard him as only a prophet. The subsequent Catechism of the Catholic Church likewise defines the belief that “together with us [Muslims] adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

  Such interfaith concord is disputed by some conservative Protestants in the U.S. For example, the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry believes the Catholic Church has “a faulty understanding of the God of Islam,” and Muslims “are not capable of adoring the true God.” Hank Hanegraaff of the “Bible Answer Man” broadcast — now a convert to Eastern Orthodoxy — has asserted that “the Allah of Islam” is “definitely not the God of the Bible.” [Note that “Allah” is simply the Arabic word meaning “God.”] - This is not a trick question: Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?

How could it be not permitted when Catholics in Muslim countries deal with this subject in a different way:

  The Indonesian government set June 25 for Eid al-Fitr this year. Indonesia traditionally celebrates Eid al-Fitr over two days.

  Many churches located next to mosques — including Jakarta’s St. Mary of the Assumption Cathedral — postponed Mass June 25 so as not to interfere with Eid prayers. Catholics — including bishops, priests, nuns and laypeople — also visited and greeted Muslims at mosques and in their homes.

  Archbishop Antonio Filipazzi, papal nuncio to Indonesia, paid a courtesy call on Indonesian President Joko Widodo after attending Eid prayers at Istiqlal Mosque in Jakarta.

  Archbishop Robertus Rubiyatmoko of Semarang visited Muslims attending Eid prayers at Central Java Grand Mosque to foster “fraternity among the people of Indonesia.” Other bishops also visited local Muslims leaders.

  “I hope that interfaith life in the archipelago, especially in Central Java, will be much better in future, so that peace and joy can be established,” Archbishop Rubiyatmoko said.

  At churches across Indonesia, Christians offered lunch or gift parcels for poor Muslim families.

  In Jakarta, the archdiocese and Community of Sant’Egidio organized an Eid al-Fitr lunch at the Friendship House in West Jakarta for 160 poor Muslim children and their families.

  “The poor hardly ever have the chance to sit together for meals. So we invited them so they could sit and eat together,” said Piere Doe, coordinator of the event. - To ease tensions, Indonesian Catholics help Muslims celebrate Eid al-Fitr

According to the Church, Muslim halal meat is not sacrificed to idols at all.

  The Roman Catholic Church does not teach that food certified by either the appropriate Jewish authorities as meeting requirements for Kosher certification, or by Islamic authorities as meeting requyirements for Halal certification are foods offered to idols. The Catholic position is that the God of the Jews and the God of Muslims is the same God as the Christian God,, and therefore not an idol.

  In explaining different understandings between most Jews and most Muslims, from the understanding that most Christians have of God, Catholics teach that Jews and Muslims, and frankly many non-Catholic Christians, too, have (at best) an incomplete knowledge of the nature of God. - According to the Roman Catholic Church, is halal meat being offered up to idols?

AthanasiusOfAlex comment to this same answer follows as such:

  Muslims do not assert that thereby they are offering a sacrifice to God. They are simply fulfilling their dietary requirements. That is very different from the situation described in Acts and 1 Corinthians.

Pakistan Church offers Eid guidelines on sacrificial meat:

  Father Inayat Bernard, rector of Lahore's Sacred Heart Cathedral, condemned those who term the Muslim feast as "the devil's sacrifice."
  "Such misconceptions are spread by semi-literate church leaders during this time of the year. They use selected Biblical verses to prove that this feast honors the devil," he told his congregation on Aug. 19.

  "This is Sunnat-e-Ibrahimi (Abrahamic tradition) and relates to a prophet who was revered by three major religions. It is a pure diet and there is no harm in eating it. But do not force others to do so.

  "We should abide by cultural norms and share the happiness of our Muslim siblings. It is a part of living the interreligious dialogue as per Vatican Council II teachings. Nothing is haraam (prohibited and sinful) for us except those things that come out of the human body as stated in the Bible.”

  His sermon was part of a church awareness drive as Muslims in Pakistan finalize preparations for the Islamic festival from Aug. 22-24. - Pakistan Church offers Eid guidelines on sacrificial meat

The Church presently lacks an absolute
definitive answer on the subject: In unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas. End result would be that it is permitted to eat such foodstuffs, but at the same time scandals should also be avoided if occasioned in some particular circumstance.

Addendum*

What exactly do Muslims say when they slaughter halal animals?

It is more exactly the recitation of one of their verses: "In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful".

  The Basmala (Arabic: بسملة basmalah), also known by its incipit Bismillāh (Arabic: بِاسم الله, "In the name of God")[1], is the Islamic phrase bi-smi llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ "In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful".

  This is the phrase recited before each surah (chapter) of the Qur'an – except for the ninth. It is used by Muslims in various contexts (for instance, during daily prayer) and is used in over half of the constitutions of countries where Islam is the official religion or more than half of the population follows Islam, usually the first phrase in the preamble, including those of Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Maldives, Pakistan, Tunisia, and the United Arab Emirates. - Basmala (Wikipedia)

The method of slaughter is as follows:

  The food must come from a supplier that uses halal practices. Dhabīḥah (ذَبِيْحَة) is the prescribed method of slaughter for all meat sources, excluding fish and other sea-life, per Islamic law. This method of slaughtering animals consists of using a well-sharpened knife to make a swift, deep incision that cuts the front of the throat, the carotid artery, trachea, and jugular veins. The head of an animal that is slaughtered using halal methods is aligned with the qiblah. In addition to the direction, permitted animals should be slaughtered upon utterance of the Islamic prayer Bismillah "in the name of God". Halal (Wikipedia)

Arabic-speaking Christians sometimes use the name Basmala to refer to the Christian Trinitarian formula "In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit", as in the tradition of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.


Is swearing (making an oath) considered bad in Christianity?

The key passages on this are:

  James 5:12 (ESV):
  But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth
  or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no,
  so that you may not fall under condemnation.

and

  Matthew 23:16-22 (ESV):
  “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple,
  it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is
  bound by his oath.’ 17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold
  or the temple that has made the gold sacred? 18 And you say, ‘If
  anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the
  gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ 19 You blind men!
  For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift
  sacred? 20 So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by
  everything on it. 21 And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and
  by him who dwells in it. 22 And whoever swears by heaven swears by the
  throne of God and by him who sits upon it.

It seems that the issue here is that everything we say should be true.  We should not need to claim a distinct truthfulness for a particular statement that contrasts to falsehoods in our normal dialogue.  All of our statements should carry the same level of honesty and truthfulness.

In English, I don't think we really use the word "swear" in this way.  Oftentimes it's just an expression.

The Pharisees were distinguishing between the object on which someone was swearing, when it shouldn't have mattered if there were any swearing at all.

So, if the person is sensitive to this particular phrase, you could simply explain that you are using the word as an idiom and not swearing by the temple or the gold of the temple or anything like that.  Hopefully, the person can understand that.

It is actually quite dangerous to just accept church teaching without question.  Knowing what without knowing why can lead to significant problems.  This is where the question of Sola Scriptura and Church Authority collide.  Acts 17:11 commends the Bereans for being more noble than the Thessalonians.  The commendation was based on the fact that they didn't just accept what Paul taught, but "examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."  If the Bereans were commended for this, we would do well to follow that pattern.


Where did the artistic rendering of Jesus originate?

Popular Mechanics (of all sources) did a good article on "The Real Face of Jesus".

The article discusses how the current representations of Jesus came to be.  The European image with long wavy brown hair that we're all familiar with in Western cultures isn't universal at all.  Rather, it seems to simply have been an image that artists rendered, and that we, as a culture, find pleasing.  He looks Kind, loving, gentle, and everything we know Jesus was, but it it, of course, just an artist's interpretation, copied and emulated over the years.

From the article: (emphasis mine)

  Further clouding the question of what Jesus looked like is the simple
  fact that nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus described, nor have
  any drawings of him ever been uncovered. There is the additional
  problem of having neither a skeleton nor other bodily remains to probe
  for DNA. In the absence of evidence, our images of Jesus have been
  left to the imagination of artists. The influences of the artists'
  cultures and traditions can be profound, observes Carlos F.
  Cardoza-Orlandi, associate professor of world Christianity at Columbia
  Theological Seminary in Atlanta. "While Western imagery is dominant,
  in other parts of the world he is often shown as black, Arab or
  Hispanic."

Hopefully, the above will do for an answer.  I know it's vague. For a more specific answer, I believe you'd have to find the earliest representation of Jesus that you feel represents the western image we're used to.  This would be a difficult thing to do, and still meet with the site's strong bias toward objective answers (or those based upon commonly accepted canon or a specific doctrine.)

First, there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of artist's depiction of Christ.  Selecting the first one would be like finding a needle in a haystack.
Second, whether or not an image seems to match the current accepted "look" is a bit subjective.  (Just look at the results here and try to determine which ones do and do not fit.)


How do spiritual fathers of Catholic Church explain a sudden urge to pray?

The Holy Ghost gives grace to help us begin to pray.

"Should we surrender to that urge?" We should "pray without ceasing" (1 Thes. 5:17).

Since we cannot do anything without Christ (Jn. 15:5: "without me you can do nothing"), the Holy Ghost needs to give us initial, prevenient* grace before we can even begin a good action of prayer.*"Prevenient" literally means "coming before"; prevenient grace is the initial unmerited grace that comes before other graces.

We grow in charity by making more intense acts of charity, which are begun under the Holy Spirit's initiative. Prayer is a means toward the end of growth in charity (perfection).

From Fr. Antonio Royo Marín, O.P.'s excellent Theology of Christian Perfection p. 408:

  Without the actual prevenient grace, man can do absolutely nothing in the supernatural order, and without the more intense grace, the more intense act [of charity] is impossible. That actual grace which is more intense cannot be merited, for this would be a contradiction*; but it can be infallibly impetrated [asked of God], although under a gratuitous title, through prayer which fulfills the necessary conditions.

*Because then the effect (more intense charity) would be greater that the cause (less intense charity); cf. axiom 6.4: "The cause is greater than the effect."

Every change (e.g., from a state of non-prayer to a state of praying) is due to God, the Unmoved Mover / Unchanging Changer.


Do Christian groups which think homosexuality is a sin think you can be a practicing homosexual and also a Christian?

1. What you "are" is irrelevant

Let us first distinguish between being a member of a class - in this case homosexuals - and engaging in any sort of behavior.  For many people, being a member of the class "homosexual" means having feelings in one direction or another.  In no event would a "temptation" towards a certain behavior be taken as exclusion.

James makes it clear that temptation itself is not sin.

Galatians also makes it clear that being a member of any class is irrelevant:

  26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

At the risk of self promotion, look at this answer for more.

2. What you do is irrelevant

Even without broaching the question of whether or not homosexual activity is sin, this question still be categorically answered "Of Course you can!"

The primary message of the Gospel is grace.  Grace is God's unmerited favor - the free gift that he bestows in which he says "You are forgiven"

Remember that before God ALL MEN ARE SINNERS.  As Isaiah 64:2 says, eve "our righteousness is as filthy rags" in God's sight.  There is simply no person that God loves more than any other - he is "no respecter of persons"

Furthermore, as Ephesians 2:8-9 states,

  "For by grace you are saved through faith - it is NOT through any work of your own, lest any man should boast."
  Since there is nothing that you do to earn your salvation, your status is irrelevant.

3. Whether or not you continue in homosexuality is the only question

Once one is a Christian, one is expected to grow in Christ - to become more Christ-like. Here is where as you mature, you may want to put these things away.  But, understand, obedience comes out of love and desire to be more like Christ.

As Jesus says in John 14:12 "If you love me, keep my commandments."  It is explicitly not "Do what I say so that I will love you."

Under no circumstances should one believe they need to get clean before being washed by Jesus!

Finally, what you probably want to ask is "Is Homosexuality a Sin"
This question has been asked here and here.  Gene Robinson, the Episcopalian bishop of New Hampshire who left his wife for another man likes to argue Acts 10 - (Let no man declare unclean what God has declared clean) - that God is doing a new thing.  I personally don't think God's word has changed on that matter - but I bring it up to say that Christians debate the matter.

In any case, sin is irrelevant.  God's grace is what is important.

Of course you can be whatever you want and be a Christian.  The question is whether or not God will leave you that way.


According to Catholicism, do the saints and martyrs in heaven rise again on judgment day?

Yes according to the Catholic Church the bodies of the saints and martyrs in heaven rise again on judgment day.

St Thomas Aquinas states in his Summa Theologica:

  The saints in heaven, since they are blessed, have no lack of bliss, save that of the body's glory, and for this they pray. But they pray for us who lack the ultimate perfection of bliss: and their prayers are efficacious in impetrating through their previous merits and through God's acceptance.

The Catholic Church teaches that the only saint to be in heaven in both body and soul is the Blessed Virgin Mary.

  This doctrine was dogmatically defined by Pope Pius XII on 1 November 1950, in the apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus by exercising papal infallibility.


What was the makeup of beliefs during the time of the 325 Councile of Nicaea

Around the time of the 1st council of Nicaea (325), what was the makeup of Bishops at the time?

This was a first ecumenical church council, on which the bishops gathered together to settle the raging of the heresy of Arianism. It is recognized by Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches as real ecumenical council. It was the first ecumenical council, although there are many other local councils, beginning with the first Apostolic council, were gathered to solve a various range of problem that stand before the Church of Christ in those times.

  I read that 1800 people attending this council, but was this a fair cross-section of followers of Jesus or was it influenced in one direction or another?

That was the real Jesus followers, i.e. people of His church, that have a valid rights to make a counsil in name of Christ. The main formulae of the councils was like the following:

It deigns to Holy Ghost, and to us.

That means that the council solution (of course verifyed by time) is not only from men, and from God too.

  I heard that at around 360, the dominant understanding of Jesus was more of an adoptionist belief, is this true historically?

If you mean the time between the two ecumenical counsils, the most of church's creations like Divine Liturgy, monastic orders, etc were developed or finally adopted in that time. However there are people that have the adoptionist belief of course, but such people was in all times including Apostolic.

  After people were exiled and executed and books burned, when was the creed established as the dominant creed and pretty much no-one else believed otherwise?

Although the state can execute and exile the people, I think there are really a little bit of them were executed at those time, even Arius has dead with his own death. The state really executed only those people, which it treats as dangerous for it, but the since the Church was under the state, anyway it tried to save many lives even heretics. Therefore I don't think that all of people lost their faith.


If Jesus is God the Father, did God the father die on the cross when Jesus died?

Most Trinitarians use this to summarize the Trinity:

The Father is God
The Son is God
The Holy Spirit is God
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all distinct (not one of them is identical to the other).

Therefore, when Jesus died on the cross, God the Father did not also die on the cross.


How do proponents of sola fide explain Titus 1:16?

Laying the Groundwork

The Transformation of Salvation

It is important to note that, according to the Bible, the following things occur at the moment of salvation by faith alone:

We, who were once dead, are made alive in Christ:

  When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions.  (Colossians 2:13)

We, who were once in the dominion of darkness, are brought into the kingdom of Jesus

  For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.  (Colossians 1:13-14)

We, who were once alienated from God, hostile to God (or enemies of God) have now become the children of God by virtue of a new birth:

  And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds" (Colossians 1:21)

  But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.  (John 1:12-13)

We, who were one sinful, are now a holy nation, made righteous and renewed in our spirits:

  But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.  (1 Peter 2:9)

  For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified [declared righteous] as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.  (Romans 3:23-24)

  Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, 10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him.  (Colossians 3:9-10)

The Impact of the Transformation

So, at the moment of salvation, a very significant transformation has occurred.  We are changed at the very core of our beings so that our desires have changed and our spirits are now alive.  Indeed, we have the Holy Spirit Himself indwelling us:

  Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? (1 Corinthians 6:19)

What this results in is a drastic change in desires.  Someone who has truly put their faith in Christ should have new desires, and their salvation should naturally result in a change in their actions.

So, you should see the impact of their faith in the works that they do, but it is not a salvation by works.  Put another way, we believe that salvation is by faith alone, but a genuine faith will inevitably result in a change in actions and behavior.  If you observe no change in desires or actions, then it is cause to doubt the genuineness of the faith.

Titus 1:16

From an evangelical perspective, the verse you cited is not speaking about those who truly believe in Christ, but whose actions have failed to change.  Rather, it is speaking of those whose faith is not genuine and whose actions reveal this to be true.  Jesus Himself indicated that "by their fruits you will know them" in Matthew 7:16.

Conclusion

So, if you observe someone professing faith in Christ who is doing abominable things without shame or repentance, we should not conclude that this is someone who has truly put his or her faith in Christ, been brought out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light, made a new creation, forgiven, cleansed, made righteous, made alive and indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God, but who is failing to reflect in any way the life of a Christian.  Rather we should conclude that no change has really taken place and, as a result, no true faith has been exercised.


What is the support for saying Jesus believed Genesis was a literal account of creation?

Jesus did not make an explicit statement on the matter, but he did seem to take Genesis as true and historical in some sense.

Consider Jesus's words in Mark 10:6ff on divorce:

  "But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

with a parallel is in Matthew 19:1ff:

  "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

It seems that Jesus here assumes, rather than states outright or tries to prove, Adam to be a historical person at the beginning of creation.† As far as I can tell, the historicity of Adam was the shared view of all the Jews in the first century, including Paul (see especially Acts 17:26; Rom 5:12ff; 1 Cor 11:8f; 15:21f,45ff; 1 Tim 2:13f), and I don't see any reason to impute a different view to Jesus. Indeed, this passage seems to give some evidence that he held the standard view.

The key is "from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’" Ken Ham reads the first part as meaning "at the beginning" (as the NIV and other translations render it, and that's a fair interpretation of "from" in this context), and he takes the making of them male and female as happening there "at the beginning of creation."

But one could also accept Adam as historical and at the beginning (like Ham), while arguing that Jesus and the author of Genesis both believed the methods and timeline of creation are telescoped and stylized,‡ rather than a strictly historical play-by-play record as in Ham's understanding.

Under such a view, if perhaps Adam were the culmination of God's work after 13.8 billion years of creating, starting the history of mankind proper, then Jesus' understanding in the parallel passages above could be compatible with a non-Young Earth Creationist view.

In short, it seems there are multiple plausible interpretations of Jesus' words§ related to how he thought Genesis should be understood. Ken Ham has one plausible interpretation, but there are others, even among conservatives.

Footnotes:

† Calvin also sees this as the natural reading: "[according to Jesus,] the order of creation ought to serve for a law.... And thus from the order of creation is proved the inviolable union of one husband with one wife." Calvin also here assumes, rather than proves, the historicity of the Genesis creation account.

‡ For instance, Genesis 1-2:3 presents the light being created before the ordinary sources of such electromagnetic radiation, namely the sun and stars. Interpreters going back at least to Augustine in the 400s have thus seen this passage as a highly stylized (but still good, true, and beautiful) account of creation, but not a play-by-play list of events. (Compare the Framework interpretation.) John Walton presents another view that also has a historical Adam but a stylized account of the world's and Adam's origins since it is a "functional" rather than "material" description.

In short, there are multiple plausible interpretations of the creation besides Ham's play-by-play, and many of them have a good footing in Christian tradition. Hence, one may have to choose between the different views based on other factors, such as presuppositions about the authority of the Bible, the overall method of interpretation of it, one's understanding of nature ("God's other book"), etc.

§ Similar things could be said of the New Testament apostles in their writings.


What are the Roman Catholic pilgrimages in Northern America?

The Society of St. Pius X has been hosting annual U.S. pilgrimages for nearly two decades. From their site:

  Pascua Florida Pilgrimage to St. Augustine

  March 29-April 3, 2016   6-day, 100 miles (75 miles of walking and 25
  miles of canoeing) to St. Augustine, FL, the oldest
  continuously-settled city in the United States.   Discover more about
  this
  pilgrimage>

  Cataldo Pilgrimage to Sacred Heart Mission

  July 22-24, 2016   3-day, 50-mile to Sacred Heart Old Indian Mission
  in Cataldo, ID, the oldest Catholic church in Northwest U.S., founded
  by Fr. Pierre-Jean De Smet.   Discover more about this
  pilgrimage>

  Santa Fe Pilgrimage to Padilla Cross

  July 22-23, 2016   33-miles overnight (men and boys only) to the
  monument at Lyons, KS, erected to honor America's Protomartyr, Fr. Juan
  de Padilla (+1542).   Discover more about this
  pilgrimage>

There's also a Starkenburg Pilgrimage and an Auriesville, NY, pilgrimage, which honors "a group of Jesuit priests and religious [who] were martyred by the Iroquois Indians" "over 400 years ago".

The American branch of Tradition, Family, and Property (TFP), a lay Catholic group, also does Marian pilgrimages.


Why was Jeremiah called the "weeping prophet"

The extent to which Jeremiah is known as the 'weeping prophet' is so entrenched that there is even an Englsh word - jeremiad ("a sad lamentation") - that enshrines the concept.

Jeremiah's weeping traditionally comes from his authorship of the book of Lamentations (his other book!), which is a jeremiad (if you'll pardon the pun), mourning the capture and destruction of Jerusalem in 587BC.  If you read Lamentations, you will hear Jeremiah's anguish, and yes, tears, in his works.


Is Galatians 4:6 speaking of the Holy Spirit?

Yes, Paul is referring to the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus. In John 14, when Jesus said to his disciples during passion week

  "'I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you'" (v.18),

he was promising that although he would not in the very near future be with them physically, he would be with them by his Spirit. He called his post-ascension presence with them the helper and the comforter (in Greek, the paraklete), one who not only comes alongside us and puts his arm around our shoulders, but one who abides and dwells in us (v.17).

The disciples would discover not many days after Jesus made this promise to them that the Spirit of Jesus in them would also be their empowerer:

  "'. . . you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth'" (Acts 1:8).

The important point to realize is this:  out of obedience to his Father and his love for us, Jesus not only became one of us in his humanity through the virgin birth, but he chose to retain his humanity forever.

  " Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith , 'Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, 'Lo , I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me), to do thy will, O God'" (Hebrews 10:5-6 KJV, cf. Psalm 40:6).

Not only did Jesus atone for our sins "in his own body on the tree" at Calvary (1 Peter 2:24), but he rose from the dead in bodily form and 40 days later ascended into heaven in bodily form. We Christians anticipate with great joy seeing our Lord and Savior face to face! Were it not for Jesus,

  "who, although he existed in the form of God, [and] did not regard equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant and [being] made in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:6),

we would still be lost in sin and condemned to hell for all eternity. We thank God, therefore, that Jesus became the God-Man for us, that he might redeem us from the curse of the Law, according to which we deserved only condemnation, since we all have sinned.

In conclusion, your question cannot be answered fully without the all-important assumption that

  the Father is fully God
  the Son is fully God
  the Holy Spirit is fully God

Jesus did not cease being God when he became a human being, nor will he ever cease being fully God. To indwell every believer, however, only his Spirit--the Holy Spirit--became the person through whom--and the induement by which--we are assured of Christ's presence with us until we see him face to face in glory.


Priestly hiring competitions in the Catholic Church

Burkholder's Spaniards in the Colonial Empire says: "...competitive examinations (oposiciones) began in Mexico in 1575. Prior to participating, competitors had to document their limpieza de sangre. During the exam they had to demonstrate knowledge of moral theology and administration of the sacraments plus their skill in either Nahuatl or Otomí."

The concourses were announced by circular letter. The qualifications of a learned "opponent", or examiner were printed: "Certificado impreso de los meritos del bachiller don Francisco de la Peña, cura del pueblo de San Pedro Tlasquapan, opositor del concurso de curatos vacantes en el arzobispado de México."

Brading's Una Iglesia asediada describes Michoacan diocesan hiring as follows: Some of the high clergy from the cathedral chapter were synodal judges in charge of hiring. The bishop picked from the three candidates they referred to him, then sought the viceroy's approval.

Still, I doubt the above was unique to Mexico, and for all I know the concourses are still going on.


When is the first documented case of Christians praying to the dead saints?

The earliest may not be easy to find, but I'll put a marker down.
St Ephraim the Syrian, who died in 373, prayed:

Ye victorious martyrs who endured torments gladly for the sake of the God and Saviour; ye who have boldness of speech towards the Lord Himself; ye saints, intercede for us who are timid and sinful men, full of sloth, that the grace of Christ may come upon us, and enlighten the hearts of all of us that so we may love him.
— Encomium in Martyres

Here he is clearly invoking the prayers of martyrs (who have died, rather by definition).


As has been discussed in the comments of the OP, the likelihood that sources or "accounts" (Luke 1:1) which the Gospel writers may have used as references, being documented, is scanty at best. That being said, there exists at least some evidence from one church Father that has been used to promulgate the potential of what could be "Q."

The church father in question is none other than Papias of Hierapolis (roughly 60-130 CE).
Although some sources claim Papias' writings survived through the middle ages, they certainly have not made it into the 20th and 21st centuries.1
Thankfully, we have some portions of Papias' writings seemingly quoted verbatim by Eusebius of Caesarea in his "Ecclesiastical History".

Eusebius quoting Papias' writings pertaining to the origins of the Gospel of Matthew:

  "Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the
   Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could."
  - Eusebius of Caesarea, "Ecclesiastical History"  3.39.14-17

The translation of the word "logia" in the english ("λόγια" in the Greek), is the main point of contention. In non-Christian contexts, the word was traditionally interpreted as "oracles", however 19th century biblical scholarship argued "logia" was better interpreted "sayings." 2
This interpretation has given credence to the notion that Papias is really referring to a "sayings" gospel like that of the the Gospel of Thomas or "Q" that Matthew incorporated into his Gospel.

Although not the strongest of arguments, this case does at least give potential to an ECF's acknowledgement of a source used by Matthew that would've contained content similar to what "Q" is theorized to contain.

Sources:

Harnack, Adolf (1893). Geschichte der Altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius. 1. p. 69
Lührmann, Dieter (1995). "Q: Sayings of Jesus or Logia?". In Piper, Ronald Allen. The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q. pp. 97–116.


Is August 15th a day of obligation for all Roman Catholics?

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a holy day of obligation for the entire universal Church (Code of Canon Law, 1246 §1).

At the same time it should be recalled that the conference of bishops can suppress or transfer some holy days of obligation with the permission of the Apostolic See (Code of Canon Law, 1246 §2).

See also: What are the Holy Days of Obligation? (Catholic Answers)


How do cessationists interpret James 5:13-18?

Richard Gaffin, who provided the cessationist perspective in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?, says in his book Perspectives on Pentecost (pg. 114) that individual endowments of healing were "foundational gifts" which have "passed out of the life of the church." But he says more:

At the same time, however, the sovereign will and power of God today to heal the sick, particularly in response to prayer (see, e.g., James 5:14, 15), ought to be acknowledged and insisted on. ... Healing ... ought to be an expectation of God's people today.

This seems to be agreed by most cessationists. But beyond this, it seems that the interpretation of James 5 is quite disparate between individual cessationists. There's not a whole lot of agreement other than the point that, "God still heals people today."
In Saved by Grace (pg. 38), Anthony Hoekema (an influential CRC pastor and reformed systematic theologian) says:

The main theme of the passage is not the efficacy of anointing with oil but the power of prayer--see the concluding sentence and note the example of Elijah in verses 17-18. The situation James here describes is that of a person who is obviously "too sick to go to church"; hence he is invited to ask the elders to come to his house. ... The grammatical structure of the sentence suggests the possibility that the elders first rubbed the sick person with oil (presumably olive oil) and then prayed over him (or her). The application of the oil, however, was for medicinal purposes. James is saying, in other words, that the church’s ministry to the sick should include the best medical help that can be found.

B. B. Warfield would seem to agree with Hoekema. In The Theology of B. B. Warfield, Fred Zaspel summarizes pages 169-173 of Warfield's Counterfeit Miracles:

"The emphasis falls wholly on the sick man's getting himself prayed for officially by the elders of the church, and the promise is suspended wholly on their prayer, on the supposition that it is offered in faith." And the anointing with oil Warfield takes in a medicinal sense. Oil was a universal medicine in the day, and the word for anointing is not the ceremonial term but the term meaning "to rub." The exhortation is to offer medical help while looking to the Lord for healing. But even if the oil is symbolic of the Holy Spirit and the anointing a ceremonial rite, there is no exclusion here of the ordinary medical attention. More to the point, there is nothing of miraculous gifts. God heals in answer to prayer, and that is the promise this passage makes.

Herman Hanko, a PRC pastor and editor of the Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, wrote in the May 1975 edition of that publication:

Although it is true that the word which the apostle uses here is oftentimes used in Scripture for physical sickness, this is by no means always the case. ... This word and its cognates is therefore often used in Scripture to refer to spiritual weakness. See such passages as I Cor. 2:3; Heb. 5:2; 7:28; 4:15; II Cor. 7:5-9. ... The context refers very emphatically to sin: "and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him." ...
The text speaks emphatically and without qualification of this prayer being answered with healing. But it must be remembered that we have in all the Scriptures no promise of God that He will always make us better when we are physically sick. Not even faith healers dare to claim this absolutely. We conclude therefore, that the reference of the text is to spiritual weakness. ... Inability to pray is the spiritual sickness or weakness to which the apostle refers. Such spiritual weakness may come for various reasons. ... In a very real sense, when the saints call the elders they call Christ Himself. ...
The apostle adds, "anointing him with oil." This phrase must not be taken in the literal sense of the word. James uses many such Old Testament figures which he does not intend to be taken literally, but which must be taken in the spiritual sense. For example, in chapter 4:8 the apostle refers to Old Dispensational forms of cleansing when he says: "Draw nigh to God, and He will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye doubleminded." Rather, oil is a symbol of the Holy Spirit. And anointing with oil in the Name of the Lord means that the prayer which is offered as an intercessory prayer by the elders is a prayer for the Holy Spirit. It is a prayer that the Spirit may come upon the sick and restore those sick to spiritual health.

His fellow PRC minister Rodney Kleyn agrees.
John MacArthur takes a very similar approach:

The weak are those who have been defeated in the spiritual battle, who have lost the ability to endure their suffering. ... Metaphorically, the elders’ anointing of weak, defeated believers with oil conveys the responsibility for elders to stimulate, encourage, strengthen, and refresh (cf. Luke 7:46) these people.


Does Deuteronomy 17:18 prevent bible translation copyright

It's an invalid legal argument and would fail if tested.

Copyright subsists in the arrangement of the words themselves within the literary work. The licence to copy is separate from the literary work.

Quite apart from copyright law, Dt 17:18 needs to read in context.

  17 14 "When you come to the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and dwell in it, and then say, 'I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me'; 15 you may indeed set as king over you him whom the LORD your God will choose. One from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. 16 Only he must not multiply horses for himself, or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to multiply horses, since the LORD has said to you, 'You shall never return that way again.' 17 And he shall not multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply for himself silver and gold. 18 "And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, from that which is in the charge of the Levitical priests..."

Note verse 15: "One from among your brethren you shall set as king over you." Even if that verse could be adduced to licence making copies, it would only apply to the king elected to rule over the people. It couldn't apply to everyone who was made a king by virtue of Revelation 5:10.


Can more recent revelation from LDS prophets nullify or change official Mormon scripture?

Are you referring to anything specifically?  If you can provide a specific instance, that might be more informative.

In short: the answers are: Nullify, no.  Takes precedence, yes.

For example, polygamy is an eternal law.  And although it is not practiced today, it has been practiced as noted in the Bible (Genesis 16:3; 25:1; 29:21-30; 30:3-4, 9), spoken of in the Book of Mormon: (Jacob 2:30), and practiced in the beginnings of the LDS church.  However, the prophet in 1890, President Woodruff, wrote a Manifesto which lifted the commandment to practice plural marriage LDS.org topic: Polygamy. In that instance, the prophet didn't "nullify" the law, because those who had practiced it would still be sealed in heaven, however the practice on earth was stopped because the Lord commanded it.

In general, scriptures were written by prophets, who received the revelation from God, and the words of the living prophets are considered scripture: "In addition to [the] four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazine, and instructions to local priesthood leaders. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (Articles of Faith 1:9)." LDS Gospel Principles

Revelation from the living prophets are spoken as if from God.  (D&C 1:38) Also, God does not change.  (1 Nephi 10:18).  Therefore, the revelation and the scriptures are from God, and God does not change, though he may give some specific instruction to certain people at different times, it doesn't nullify scripture.

This pattern is shown when Christ declared that the law of Moses was fulfilled in Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

In an interesting address by a modern prophet (an apostle at the time) to the students at BYU in 1980, President Benson said, "Beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence." Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet


What's is the case for premarital sex being an instance of πορνεία (porneia)?

The word porneia is often translated as "fornication".

  1 Cor 7:2 (KJV)
  Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

It's worth noting that more modern translations use "sexual immorality" here instead of "fornication" due to the confusion with that given word.

Looking at the English definition of "fornication", we see:

  Dictionary.com
  Fornication

  1.
  voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or two persons not married to each other.

Premarital sex is fornication; adultery is fornication; any type of sex where the two people are not married or not married to each other is fornication.

Strong's Concordance gives us the original definition of porneia.

  1) illicit sexual intercourse

  a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with
  animals etc.

  b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18

  c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12

This root word includes all forms of sexual acts that are not within the confines of  marriage (a heterosexual one at that).  The study of the word itself shows that anything and everything outside the realm of marriage is a sin.

It's also worth noting that this word is one of the root words for pornography.

Regarding your link
In this answer, I point out the clear and obvious refutation to link that you provided above.  They claim that adultery was a property rights violation against the husband.  However, they ignore the fact that raping a virgin was a property rights violation against the father.  Furthermore, if a woman became married and the husband found no proof of her virginity, he had a right to have her stoned for not being a virgin.  Clearly, premarital sex was explicitly forbidden.


What is the Orthodox Position On Lack of Veneration for Mary in NT Epistles?

In addition to the Annunciation accounts in Luke, we might also consider Luke 11:27-28, where Jesus declares his mother blessed not because she is His mother, but rather because she heard the will of God and carried it out.  Likewise the examples of His obedience to her as a child and at the Wedding of Cana (Luke 2:51, John 2:3-10) and His care for her even near the moment of His death (John 19:26-27).

I think your specific question is answered by the broader question of why not everything taught in the Gospels seems to be discussed in the Epistles of the New Testament.

Within the Orthodox faith, the Gospels are seen as central to the entire Bible.  The Gospels, wrote Archbishop Averky Taushev:

  comprise the very essence of the law of God's new covenant with mankind, for they show us the salvific events of Jesus Christ's life and His divine teaching.1

"Everything we need to know for our salvation," one Orthodox priest I know states during almost every sermon, "is contained in the Gospels."

The Epistles, on the other hand, are an "interpretation of the teachings of Christ, as applicable to various situations in life."2  Father Lawrence Farley writes of the Epistles:

  The epistles witness to this corporate reality, and give examples of how Christian life is lived out in this body.  We do not need a divine rule book outlining what to do in every conceivable situation.  For that day to day direction we have the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  The epistles give us something more valuable than a book of instructions.  They give us models, glimpses of life, slices of apostolic reality to taste and feed upon.  If we didn’t have the Holy Spirit, no doubt a comprehensive rule book thundering away would be helpful.  But since we do have the Holy Spirit, the epistles fit our need precisely.

Also relevant here, I think, is the fact that each Epistle in the New Testament addressed some specific set of issues that were causing conflicts for believers.  Paul wrote the Romans to help them understand how they should relate to Jews and non-Christians; he wrote to the Corinthians largely to address divisions within the community and address immoral behavior; he wrote the Galatians because they were backsliding back into Judaistic practices; etc.  We might conclude that since nothing seems to be written regarding how one should be respecting Mary (who was probably still alive at the time), then apparently no one was going around insulting her, claiming she wasn't a virgin, etc.

The Epistles are not viewed within the Orthodox Church - I think it is correct to say - as some corpus of dogma that needs to be appended to the Gospels (along with Acts and Revelation) to create a sort of comprehensive manual of systematic theology.  In the Orthodox view, this turns the Bible into a kind of pseudo-Koran.

1.The Four Gospels, p.xiv
2.Ibid., p.xiv


What is an overview of Protestants' answers to why I still sin when I have the Spirit of God in me?

If I have the Spirit of Jesus in me, why do I still sin?

Jesus did not sin because he had a different father than the rest of us. His father was God.

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

Our physical connection to Adam means that sin reigns in our flesh.

  1 Corinthians 15:21-22  For since by man came death, by man came also
  the resurrection of the dead.   For as in Adam all die, even so in
  Christ shall all be made alive.

Being freed from the compelling power of sin means that we have the possibility of living by the Spirit free from the influence of sin.

  Romans 6:11-14  Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed
  unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.   Let not
  sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the
  lusts thereof.  Neither yield ye your members as instruments of
  unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that
  are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of
  righteousness unto God.   For sin shall not have dominion over you:
  for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Any of us who are honest can relate to the frustration of Paul as he reflects of the difficulty of trying to keep the law by the power of his flesh in Romans chapter seven.

  Romans 7:15  For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that
  do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

In chapter eight Paul shifts dramatically talking about the victory the Christian who walks by the power of the Spirit has.

  Romans 8:4-5  That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in
  us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.   For they
  that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they
  that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

There are many people who intensely deny that any Christian can demonstrate carnality (the flesh). They would say that any demonstration of sin indicates that a person is not a Christian. When pressed on this declaration, they often rephrase it as any demonstration of "gross sin".

There are Christians who fail to mature and become as fruitful as they could or as the Lord would have them.

  1 Corinthians 3:1-3  And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto
  spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.   I have
  fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to
  bear it, neither yet now are ye able.   For ye are yet carnal: for
  whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye
  not carnal, and walk as men?

There are Christians who are overtaken by sin.

  Galatians 6:1-2  Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which
  are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness;
  considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.   Bear ye one
  another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

There are Christians following the course of the world.

  James 4:4  Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the
  friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will
  be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Satan has set the course of this world.

  Ephesians 2:2  Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course
  of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the
  spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

He has designed the world to resonate with the flesh.

  1 John 2:16  For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and
  the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but
  is of the world.

Jesus warned even his disciples about leaven (teachings) that were dangerous.

  Matthew 16:11  How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not
  to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the
  Pharisees and of the Sadducees?

  Mark 8:15  And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the
  leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.

The three groups cited each had a worldly characteristic. The Pharisees believed that they had achieved their own righteousness. The Sadducees believed they had inherited their righteousness. The Herodians were not so much interested in righteousness but in political and economic power and influence. These are all influences that can enter the life of a Christian and spread like leaven until the Christian is spiritually immobilized and made ineffective.

It is difficult to reach a carnal Christian. He is both limited in his capacity to understand and is often disinterested in the things of the Lord.

The original question might be more accurately stated as "If I now have the Spirit of Jesus in me, why do I still sin as much as I do?"

Because our physical bodies still have their connection to Adam, we will have the influence of the flesh. This influence can be magnified by any of the following;

Our entanglement with the world.
Our habits and values developed from childhood.
The teachings of our church.
The imprint of the world we receive from TV, work, and school.
The influence of those with whom we associate.
Our comforts and conveniences.
Our divided loyalties (Christ versus 401K, health care, savings account, good job, etc.)

Like the rich young ruler there is often much that we cannot let go of.

  Luke 18:24-27  And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said,
  How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
  For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a
  rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.   And they that heard it
  said, Who then can be saved?   And he said, The things which are
  impossible with men are possible with God.

There is a point where the sinful influence of the flesh will no longer be felt.

  1 Corinthians 15:54  So when this corruptible shall have put on
  incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then
  shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is
  swallowed up in victory.


What are the meanings of the abbreviations used in the Hatch/Redpath Concordance to the Septuagint?

One place to start would be with the first edition of the work, which is available on Wikimedia Commons (only the 2nd volume and supplement are on Google Books). From what I can tell, the second edition closely follows the first, so the list of abbreviations and symbols (found in the supplement) should be helpful:


Troubled people showing interest in reading the Bible: how to explain to them that faith is a lifestyle and not an "ATM"?

Unfortunately, the problem is a result of the "Modern Gospel".
(God is love, come to Him and He will fix your broken marriage, drug problem, financial woes, etc.)

The Gospel as told in Scripture is not even close to what's being preached by most Evangelical Churches today.

(That we're sinners who have offended God by our selfishness, disobedience, and unbelief, and that we have earned hell, but if we simply rely on His free gift, repent, and trust in Christ, He will save us from an eternity in Hell.)

Notice that The Scriptures don't promise an easy life. They promise trials, hardship, and persecution. See my answer here.

Some relevant verses:

  (Mark 8:34-36) If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life
  will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s
  will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world
  and forfeit his soul?

  (Acts 9:15-16) But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings,
  and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he
  must suffer for my name's sake.

  (John 15:18-21) If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me
  before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love
  its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of
  the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I
  said to you... If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you...
  because they do not know Him who sent Me.

Unfortunately, all we can do with those who have been taught the modern gospel  is to take them to Scripture and tell them the truth.

Unfortunately, un-teaching false doctrines spread by well-meaning, but misguided people is a part of life. I'm sure there are plenty of people un-teaching my mistakes as well.


Does the Roman-Catholic Church recognize the Quinisext Council?

This article gives much more detail on the historical context of the council and what was discussed there, but the answer to your question lies in the last few paragraphs:

  The patristic Church never accepted the idea of a sexually active
  priesthood, and the Quinisext Council in Trullo certainly does not
  represent apostolic teaching.

And this Q&A seems to indicate that the canons were integrated into the Byzantine Rite, but no others in the Catholic Church.


How do Christians incorporate present moment everyday faith in light of God's multi-generational nature?

If I understand your question correctly, the answer is "watch and pray". In Luke chapter 21 some of his disciples were remarking about how beautiful the temple was when Jesus told them that "the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”

The disciples then asked "when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?"

Jesus then tells then what signs to look for and ends his instruction by saying "Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man.”

Mark 13 also gives an account of this interchange between Jesus and his disciples but concludes a bit differently with the parable about the man who went away, leaving his servants in charge..."It’s like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with their assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch.   Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping."

What were they watching for? The signs that Jesus is about to come again. What were they to pray for? To be awake, so as to escape from the coming judgement.

This is especially meaningful in light of your question of the "inter-generational" nature of God's timetable.  God knows it's going to be a while between courses but he's trying to get us to focus our attention, knowing we are very prone to wandering off the path if we see some shiny bauble. It's almost like he's saying "pay attention!"

Jesus asked his disciples to wait for him outside the garden where he went to pray just before he was arrested but rebuked them with "couldn't you wait for one hour with me?" (He probably would have said "Jeez" if he wasn't Jesus). But I think the point is that in our everyday lives, we are waiting for someone, and the exhortation is don't get impatient as it may be a while. Just keep looking every day, and just keep waiting every day, and while you're waiting ask the Father for mercy. I think it keeps us focused in the right direction as it keeps our eyes on Jesus, rather then worrying about the timetable.


Isn't "Jehovah-Jireh" (and other such names) just the name of a place?

Titles vs. Names

I think the confusion stems from a lack of precision in our terminology, where we talk about the names of God when we really mean the titles of God.

This has been reinforced by decades of Christian literature that refer to the names of God when really discussing His titles. Take this devotional for example.

This distinction is easier to see in the suzerainty treaties of the ancient Middle East where the preamble begins with the name followed by a list of titles ascribed by the vassal. Take a look at the preamble in this Akkadian Hittite treaty for example: "These are the words of the  <name>Sun Mursilis, <followed by titles>the great king, the king of the Hatti land, the valiant, the favorite of the Storm-god, the son of Suppiluliumas, etc."

Famously, the pentateuchal covenants are structured like suzerainty treaties and the Mosaic covenant begins with the LORD's name followed by a title ('the deliverer' which one might label the act following His name) in Exodus 20:2: "I am YHWH your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." There are many other examples in the OT.

I only mention this to show that there is a distinction between 'names' and 'titles' in the literature of this period and especially when doing exegetical work, there may be value in noting the difference.

A specific example: Jehovah Jireh

Seems to me that the naming of an altar, especially by the patriarchs, was usually an act of commemoration or thanksgiving, indicating something they wanted to say about the character or activity of YHWH in the episode that transpired.

This is certainly the case with Jehovah-jireh where the naming of the place commemorated the LORD's activity in Gen 22 in providing the sacrifice in Isaac's stead. Abraham was no doubt greatly relieved and uses the honorific 'jireh' to mark the occasion and it's location.

The key to me is that unlike with names, titles can be assigned by anyone and to anyone. That's why we have a William the Conqueror, an Ivan the Terrible and a Bloody Mary in our vocabulary today.

And Jehovah Jireh is structurally an honorific much like William the Conqueror, which others used to describe William I.

Abraham does the same at this altar in ascribing the title 'Provider' to YHWH, leaving Christians many millennia later a beautiful honorific to ascribe to God in our daily usage.


Why isn't supralapsarianism's first decree to create?

Quick note up front, I'm planning to edit this to add further info when I have time to break out my Berkhof and/or other relevant texts. But here's a quick response:

I think part of the problem here is wikipedia. You are getting confused by the wording of wikipedia, which is confusing, and not exactly accurate.

Supralapsarianism teaches, essentially, that God determined to create for himself a people to redeem and a people to judge (if you accept double predestination). Once he had made this decision he then determined how to accomplish this through the creation of a people who would fall and be redeemed by Christ. To use a logic order as you have above, it would be formulated as:

  Supralapsarianism (modified)

the election of some men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the rest of sinful
mankind in order to make known the riches of God's gracious mercy to the elect)
the decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to the elect sinners
the decree to redeem the elect sinners by the cross work of Christ
the decree that men should fall
the decree to create the world and men

Infralapsarianim teaches, on the other hand, that God determined to create people, determined that these people would fall and that he would redeem them through his Son. Again, to use the logic order it should be formulated:

  Infralapsarianism

the decree to create the world and (all) men
the decree that (all) men would fall
the election of some fallen men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the others)
the decree to redeem the elect by the cross work of Christ
the decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to the elect

Keep in mind that in both views God is proactively determining each step. None are reactionary but rather the will of God in eternity. The debate is purely over the logical order of God's thought and, therefore, necessarily speculative.

Here's a much better source than wikipedia to help clarify these terms:  https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/superinfra.html


Is a word [letter] and [scripture] in 2 Peter 3:16 the same meaning?

In English, the literal meaning of the noun "scripture" is "something written". When Peter uses the word in the passage you cite, he probably is using "Scripture" to refer to a specific set of writings accorded esteem as "holy", but in Peter's case, he is not referring to the Christian Bible, but to the books considered Holy by the Jews, that is, the Word and the Prophets. In your illustration, Peter would be more likely, if someone came to his door and asked what he was doing, to answer simply "I'm writing."

Now in the case of the passage you cite, "letter" refers to a particular type of writing, a written message intended to communicate a message to a person or group of people, in the same sense that one today might write a letter to an individual who is distant, and for whom communication by other methods is not desired or feasible. Paul's letters are particular kinds of writing, but are still scripture. Peter here is drawing a particular kind of equivalence between the letters Paul wrote, with the Hebrew Bible.


I don't have a definitive answer, but here are a few things to keep in mind about the text. When I consider some combination of these, it doesn't bother me that an omniscient God is "surprised".

The word in the text is not usually translated "surprised" as if it was an unexpected event. The sense is one of wonder or awe or marvel or (as in your translation) amazement. God being omniscient had to have known this ahead of time, but that doesn't preclude a sense of wonder.
Jesus was fully man. This means he felt and knew the things that men and know feel in addition to the things that God feels and knows. This could just the the human side of him expressing wonder.
The narrator of the story is NOT omniscient and, in spite of being guided by the Holy Spirit in the authoring of the text, is unable to know what was in Jesus mind and exactly how it worked. He described things as they appeared.
Jesus was deliberate communicator. If having a visible physical/emotional reaction to something would help his audience understand the situation better, I'm sure he could manage that. If we needed to know that that kind of faith was a wonderful thing, his marveling at it is a great way to mark it's importance.


Is there an authoritative resource that spells out the differences and similarities of most major denominations?

I have two approaches in mind, really, because I don't know the intention of your question (i.e. finding the best denomination for yourself, or fact-finding for some kind of research project).

The only resource I can point at for a reliable baseline on teaching/doctrine is the Bible. "By this all will know that you are my disciples - if you have love among yourselves". This is how Jesus pointed out what identifies his true followers in John 13:35. That implies there are also un-true followers, warned against in Matthew 7:13-23. Unity in teaching and thinking is also referred to as important aspect of true discipleship (1 Corinthians 1:10, 1 Timothy 2:8, 2 Timothy 2:23,24). Because I learned to look at the Bible for answers, I'm not really involving myself in all the beliefs that vary in interpretation, because that might be a lifetime spent - or wasted. As far as I am concerned, there is only one biblical truth that takes personal time and effort (study) to find.

As far as my understanding of different denominations goes, the numbers I heard have varied to as much as thousands. On this page you find some list, but first glance already tells me it's somewhat outdated. It does, however, provide links to potentially useful resources, such as Wikipedia.

Significant to consider is the statement that more than 2 new denominations are formed each day. In addition to that, beliefs within professed denominations such as, say, Catholicism, can vary greatly. Then, is number of registrations a reliable figure in this case, if a large part does not even share the beliefs associated with the denomination? Relating to the previous approach, the question is asked wether or not all the denominations can actually be classed as Christian. According to the Bible as referred to above, they cannot.


What is meant by the statement of Our Lady to St. Dominic according to the Catholic Church

Why would the Catholic Church make an explication on such a statement when such a tradition is in serious doubt?

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a more reserved approach to its' origin as a whole and tends to see the rosary as a natural development of piety of which St. Dominic does not have any particular role at all:

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

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

Wikipedia goes on to say:

  Alanus de Rupe (Alain de la Roche) was a 15th-century Dominican preacher, best known for his efforts to promote the Rosary. Alanus claimed to have experienced a vision by which it was revealed to him that the Blessed Virgin Mary had appeared to St. Dominic and gave him the Rosary as a means to combat the Albigensian movement. Alanus de Rupe's revelation concerning St. Dominic and the Rosary was generally accepted until the 17th century when the Bollandists concluded that the account of Dominic's supposed apparition of Our Lady of the Rosary is not mentioned in any documents of the Church or Dominican Order prior to the accounts of Alanus over two hundred years later.


Since I had to find relevant Bible verses for another purpose, I'll answer my own question with them. I still expect someone to write a more full answer. This interpretation/selection of passages is close to the Lutheran view.

David does seem to state that we're born sinners:

  Psalm 51:5 (ESV)
  Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
  and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Paul also writes to the Romans, saying that "one trespass led to condemnation for all men"

  Romans 5:12-13,18 (ESV)
  12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.

  18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

He also makes a similar statement when writing to the Corinthians:

  1 Corinthians 15:22 (ESV)
  For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

The Bible does seem to say that we indeed are sinful from birth because of the Fall of Man.


Does Hades (The bosom of Abraham) still exist after Christ's resurrection

I will answer the question from the viewpoint of Roman Catholic doctrine.

Before Christ's death, the state or "place" of the souls of all dead people (Hebrew sheol, Greek hades and Latin inferus [1]) was divided into several "compartments".

Gehenna or hell (latin infernus [1]), inhabited by the souls of the damned, where they are tormented by fire (Mt 5:22,29,30; Lk 16:23-24). It is de fide doctrine that this is an everlasting state for each soul in it, and consequently that, as a potential state for souls or "place", it existed before the death of Christ,  exists after it, and will exist forever [2].
The "Bosom of Abraham", "Limbo of the Patriarchs" or "Limbo of the Fathers" (Latin limbus patrum), inhabited by the souls of the purified righteous before Christ's death, where they did not suffer any torment, did not see God, but were comforted by the expectation that at some future time they would be redeemed and taken to the vision of God (Lk 16:22). It is de fide doctrine that this was a temporary state for each soul in it, which ended after Christ's death, and that, as a potential state for souls or "place", it existed only before the death of Christ [3].
The Limbo of Infants (Latin limbus infantium or limbus puerorum), inhabited by the souls of those who die in original sin only, where they do not suffer any torment, do not see God, and do not have any expectation of being redeemed and taken to the vision of God at some future time. It is de fide doctrine that this is an everlasting state for each soul in it, and consequently that, as a potential state for souls or "place", it existed before the death of Christ, exists after it, and will exist forever [2]. (But it is not de fide doctrine that there are actually any souls in it, because it is not de fide doctrine that any person actually dies in original sin only.)
Purgatory, inhabited by the souls of the righteous who still need purification, where they suffer a pufifying pain which is essentially different from the torment of gehenna. It is de fide doctrine that this is a temporary state for each soul in it, which ends when it is completely purified (after which the soul went to the "Bosom of Abraham" before the death of Christ and goes to the Beatific Vision after it), and that, as a potential state for souls or "place", it existed before the death of Christ, exists after it, and will cease to exist at the time of Christ's Second Coming and the resurrection of the dead.

Notes

[1] There are two different Latin terms, which must not be confused:

Inferus,  meaning just "low" (comparative: "īnferior"), refers to the global state or "place" of the souls of all dead people, encompassing all of the above "compartments". This is the term used in the Apostle's Creed or Symbol of the Apostles when it states that, after his death, Jesus "descendit ad inferos" (plural accusative of inferus) [1.a].
Infernus, a derivative word, refers to gehenna or hell [1.b].

[1.a] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inferus

[1.b] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/infernus

[2] After the general resurrection of the dead, the whole human person, soul and body, will be forever in that state.

[3] Pope Benedict XII in his 1336 Apostolic Constitution "Benedictus Deus" [3.a] [3.b] defined that the souls of all the righteous who were completely purified at the time of Christ's death were taken to the Beatific Vision at that time, and that after that time, the souls of all the rigtheous, once they are completely purified, go directly to the Beatific Vision. From that, it follows that, after the death of Christ, the "Bosom of Abraham" no longer exists as a potential state for souls or "place".

[3.a] http://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben12/b12bdeus.htm

[3.b] http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/B12BDEUS.HTM


What keyboard hymnals do beginner piano accompanists use to learn the Catholic Mass?

See the

Brebeuf Hymnal Organ Accompaniment (3-Volume Set)by Nicolas Viel Publications

for Corpus Christi Watershed's Saint Jean de Brébeuf Hymnal.
The Church Music Association of America (CMAA)'s forum might be able to offer other suggestions (or perhaps they already have; do a search).


I think almost all branches of Christianity* agree that both heaven and hell are places specifically created by God. The justification for this is pretty simple: all things outside the being of God himself were created by God. There are no other eternally existing beings, things or places, and all the extant beings, things and places are explicitly identified as having been created by God:

  Colossians 1:16 (ESV)
  16  For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

The exact meaning and scope of each of these items is sometimes debated, but it's generally agreed that this covers everything. Including heaven and hell.

In the case of heaven in particular we have another indication that it is a place created by God:

  John 14:3 (ESV)
  3  And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.

Likewise for hell we have an indication that it is a place prepared for a purpose:

  Matthew 25:41 (ESV)
  41  “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

TL;DR: God created heaven and hell.

* The exceptions are of course a couple sects that don't believe hell even exists and a couple that postulate about it being a sort of less-than-fully-real place not created as hell per-se but that becomes that through acts of either man or the devil.


How does the Catholic Church interpret "you are gods" in John 10:34?

The Catholic Haydock Commentary, which collects the Fathers' and other Catholic scriptural scholars' commentaries, says for John 10:34:

  Ver. 34. This is addressed to princes established to govern the people of God. They are the image of God on earth by the authority they exercise, and which they have received from Him. --- Is it not written in your law, (under which were also comprehended the Psalms) I have said: you are Gods? &c. Christ here stops the mouths of the Jews, by an argument which they could not answer, that sometimes they were called Gods, who acted by God's authority. I have said: you are Gods. (Psalm lxxxi. 6.) But then he immediately declares, that it is not in this sense only that he is God. 1st, Because he has been sanctified by the Father, which St. Augustine and others understand of that infinite sanctification, which he has necessarily by always proceeding from the Father. Others expound it of a greater sanctity and fulness of grace above all other saints, given to him, even as he was man. But 2ndly, he adds at the same time, and confirms what he had often told them, that he was the Son of God, sent into the world: that his works shew that he was in the Father, and the Father in him. by this they saw that he was far from recalling or contradicting what he had said before. And therefore (ver. 30.[39.?]) they sought to apprehend him, and put him to death for blasphemy. (Witham) --- Eloim, which name of God was so called from judging, and may be interpreted judges. (Menochius)


What happened to the two trees in the Garden of Eden?

I assumed that everyone knows what happened to Torah, so here is the answer more simply put. This is the teaching of Judaism, but surely is important to Christianity. The Christian OT is taken from Judaism.

The tree of Life in the Garden of Eden, is a metaphor for the Torah in Judaism - which after all is where the Tree of Life comes from. In Torah, the Tree of Life is God's blueprint for his creation, and in Orthodox Judaism it existed prior to the creation. God is seen as the Architect working from His blueprint, Torah.

“And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.” Genesis 3:22, 23, KJV.

God gave Torah to Moses at Sinai. Torah has been handed down to the present day, and is in every synagogue (that can afford it.) And it is in the Christian OT (the Hebrew version, not the Greek, of course, since the Hebrews consider that to be in error.)

So, the tree of life is alive and well. I have a Jewish Book containing the five books of Moses (plus) and  whose cover title is ETZ HAYIM which means Tree of Life.


What was the charge levied against Jesus in the courts?

For the civil trial, Luke's account gives the most detail about the charges, Luke 23:2 (NIV):

  And they began to accuse him, saying "We have found this man subverting our nation.  He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king."

and Luke 23:5 (NIV):

  But they insisted, "He stirs up the people all over Judea by his teaching.  He started in Galilee and has come all the way here."

The "subverting our nation" charge may be a religious charge, in which Pilate is, of course, not concerned except with how it interferes with ruling the region.  The statement in Luke 23:5 seems to be the religious leaders pointing out that this is causing trouble about which the Romans should be concerned.  Anyone that could draw crowds of thousands of people in relatively remote places would naturally be a concern for established authorities, especially given the Jewish history of rebellion (e.g., see Esther 3:8--even after the Babylonian scattering, they were recognized as being non-conformists--and Ezra 4:12-16, speaking of Jerusalem as historically a rebellious city).

The payment of taxes charge is clearly a false charge.  Jesus' famous "render unto Caesar" statement (Matt. 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25) makes that clear.

On the charge of being King of the Jews, Jesus states that this charge is effectively true (Matt. 27:11, Mark 15:2, Luke 23:3, John 18:37), but his statement recorded in John 18:36 points out that he is not a threat to Roman rule in the traditional political/military sense:

  Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world.  If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews.  But now my kingdom is from another place." (John 18:36, NIV)

As Affable Geek points out, Pilate knew that Jesus was not guilty but chose political expediency over truth (after all, "What is truth?").


Is there a different way (without spoon) to receive Holy Communion in the Orthodox Church?

Well, technically, yes. If you are very sick and can't stand from your bed, you can invite a priest to give you Communion personally, so you'll be the only person to Commune this day. However, lying to the priest to receive Communion is pretty bad idea.
So, as Abbanoob said in the comments, you'd better rethink your concerns about this, maybe talking to the priest himself.


Why is the funeral/burial several days after death?

There is nothing in the Code of Canon Law which requires a wait of any particular time after a death for a funeral to take place. (My father was buried two days after his death; so were my wife's parents. In all cases the delays were simply due to the need to coordinate with the priest and the funeral home.)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does briefly allude to the idea that the community may celebrate "the anniversary of a death, or the seventh or thirtieth day after death" (paragraph 1687); I've never seen such a celebration.

The Ordo Exsequiarum (Order of Funerals, the book which contains the Catholic rites surrounding funerals) may have something further to say on this; unfortunately, it is not a text to which I have access.


Where can I find a free Russian Bible other than the Russian Synodal Translation?

I found a browsable Bible in Russian:
http://allbible.info/bible/modern/


To break apart families or bring them together?

There's an interesting comment on the link between those last verses of the prophet Malachi (written some 400 years before Jesus was born) and the words of Jesus you quote (written circa A.D. 50 to 70) in the New International Study Bible 1987 edition.  It says regarding Malachi 4:6 the following.

  "According to Lk 1:17 John the Baptist sought to accomplish this..."

It makes the link to chapter 3 verse 1 where God promises to send his messenger who will prepare the way before him. Then, suddenly, the Lord being sought by Israel would come as messenger of the covenant. The footnote says,

  "This is fulfilled in John the Baptist (see Mt 11:10; Mk 1:2; Lk
  1:76)."

If this interpretation is accepted, we can follow through on it to see how there is no contradiction between these old testament and new testament (covenant) texts. They are consistent.

John the Baptist was born before Jesus and prepared the way for Jesus' ministry. John urged the Israelites to repent and to be baptised in readiness for the Messiah. This had a uniting effect in Israel. It created a sense of expectation and hope, so that when Jesus did start his ministry, people were alert to that and responded quickly. Jesus himself said that John the Baptist was the one about whom it was written, 'I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.' That's in Matthew 11:2 - 19.

Shortly before then, Jesus sent out the twelve disciples with that warning about families being split due to him. He quoted from Micah 7:6 which showed family disintegration at a time of judgement from God. When Jesus came and quoted that text, he was not present in judgement - "For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it" - John 12:47. However, even while he remained on earth, he caused division because people had to take a stance regarding his astonishing claims. He could not be dismissed indifferently. People were either for him, or against him, and that caused divisions, in families too. Even his own family, at one point, thought he had gone mad and came to try to take him away! See Mark 3:20 - 22.

So, while a positive response to the claims of Christ brings peace to those ones, others who object to his claims will be sharply divided against believers. This can cause division in families. Equally, families who believe in Jesus are united.

As Malachi ended his prophetic writing with warning of a curse, so the last book of the new testament ends with a warning about consequences for not taking God's prophets and prophetic word seriously. We have to decide where we stand on such issues, and those who decide to trust in Jesus often find any unbelieving family members against them.


Do any independent sources exist mentioning Jesus' miracles performed and the people He performed them on?

Eusebius in the third century wrote against Celsus's second century attack on Christianity (which only survives today in quotations from Eusebius). Celsus claims Jesus performed miracles by sorcery. He seems to accept that Jesus did perform miracles, he just disputes the source of Jesus' power.

The Talmud also calls Him a sorcerer: "The master said: Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray." (Sanhedrin 107b)

I don't know how early (or late) the dates are on the Talmudic references, so I don't know if they're affirming that He did perform miracles based on reliable testimony (that they actually know He did) or if it's just a reaction to the Christians' claim, in which case they chose to accept the testimony of the Christians concerning His acts but they deny that He is divine.

If we accept Jesus' resurrection as one of His miracles, there is a bit more. The Gospel of the Hebrews mentions it (second century work, I believe; not certain we can claim it's an independent source) and Justin Martyr (second century) in his Dialogue with Trypho wrote that the Jewish leaders were still claiming the disciples stole the body in his day (which means they affirmed the tomb was empty).


To the Calvinist, what does it mean that in the beginning God already has His object of wrath?

Firstly, the use of "And what if" at the start of the sentence is a rhetorical device. It is not asking a question, thus making Paul unsure as to whether this is or is not the case. Rather, it follows on from his other rhetorical questions, e.g. "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?"

John Calvin addresses this in his commentary on Romans (emphasis mine):

  A second answer, by which he briefly shows, that though the counsel
  of God is in fact incomprehensible, yet his unblamable justice shines
  forth no less in the perdition of the reprobate than in the salvation
  of the elect. He does not indeed give a reason for divine election, so
  as to assign a cause why this man is chosen and that man rejected; for
  it was not meet that the things contained in the secret counsel of God
  should be subjected to the judgment of men; and, besides, this mystery
  is inexplicable. He therefore keeps us from curiously examining those
  things which exceed human comprehension. He yet shows, that as far as
  God’s predestination manifests itself, it appears perfectly just.

  The particles, εἰ δὲ, used by Paul, I take to mean, And what if? so
  that the whole sentence is a question; and thus the sense will be more
  evident: and there is here an ellipsis, when we are to consider this
  as being understood, — “Who then can charge him with unrighteousness,
  or arraign him?” for here appears nothing but the most perfect course
  of justice.

Secondly, the objects of His wrath do not become the objects of His wrath AFTER their creation, because it says He prepares them. Taking into account also the context of Jacob and Esau being loved/hated before their birth, it is not a case of them being born, doing deeds, and then becoming objects of wrath. They are objects of wrath prepared for destruction from before their birth.

In Calvin's commentary on Romans, he also says the following:

  But if we wish fully to understand Paul, almost every word must be
  examined. He then argues thus, — There are vessels prepared for
  destruction, that is, given up and appointed to destruction: they are
  also vessels of wrath, that is, made and formed for this end, that
  they may be examples of God’s vengeance and displeasure. If the Lord
  bears patiently for a time with these, not destroying them at the
  first moment, but deferring the judgment prepared for them, and this
  in order to set forth the decisions of his severity, that others may
  be terrified by so dreadful examples, and also to make known his
  power, to exhibit which he makes them in various ways to serve; and,
  further, that the amplitude of his mercy towards the elect may hence
  be more fully known and more brightly shine forth; — what is there
  worthy of being reprehended in this dispensation? But that he is
  silent as to the reason, why they are vessels appointed to
  destruction, is no matter of wonder. He indeed takes it as granted,
  according to what has been already said, that the reason is hid in the
  secret and inexplorable counsel of God; whose justice it behoves us
  rather to adore than to scrutinize.

From this we can understand that God does intend from the beginning to destroy those He has elected to be vessels of wrath, but He doesn't destroy them immediately. Rather, His wrath is deferred until the Day of Judgment.

Thirdly, your second question asks "Does God wants His objects of wrath to repent or not?" While this could be perhaps more thoroughly addressed, essentially He does not intend for His objects of wrath to ever repent. There is a general sense in which His will is for all men to repent, but His effective will is clear here; there are those chosen who will never repent, because God creates them such that they will never repent. We know that the gospel is for all men from various parts of the Bible, but we also know from various parts of the Bible that God has chosen those who will be saved and those who will not be saved.


What does "Throwing Pearls to Swine" (Matt 7:6) mean?

In Proverbs 9.8, 26:1-11 (and many more), the Bible talks about the fool. A fool is characterized as unteachable, therefore unwise in this passage.

The passage tells us that there is no sense to invest into the unteachable. There is only one things you might do: discipline the fool. But still, that does not benefit the fool, but the teachable that watches and takes it to heart.

I always interpreted the dogs and the swines as the unteachable, the fools (for one because of Proverbs 26:11). The holy things and pearls are the pieces of wisdom and truth taken from the word, and certainly include the Gospel.

There is a clear distinction between sinners and fools. Sinners might be teachable, and fools might at a time even have accepted Christ, but are not willing to go deeper and be taught further.

On the other side we are not to judge people. Yet we need to be wise. Proverbs 9:8 tells us that rebuking a fool will have him hate you. That is by no means what we want. Thus, if we find somebody to be unteachable, we stop teaching him. But we certainly do not stop praying for the person.


Is there any historical evidence of Early Church Christians denying the divinity of Jesus during the 1st and 2nd centuries AD?

In the first two centuries CE:
Adoptionism, reflected in canonical epistles, the earliest of which pre-date the writing of the gospels. The letters of Paul the Apostle, for example, do not mention a virgin birth of Christ. Paul describes Jesus as "born of a woman, born under the law" and "as to his human nature was a descendant of David" in the Epistle to the Galatians and the Epistle to the Romans.
Ebionism during the first 2 centuries CE - A majority of the Ebionites rejected as heresies the proto-orthodox Christian beliefs in Jesus's divinity and virgin birth.
Cerinthus in the late first and early second century. He lived in Asia Minor and was deemed heretical by early church fathers (e.g., Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 1.26.1; Hippolytus of Rome, Refutation 7.21; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.28–35, 7.25.3). According to these sources, Cerinthus denied the virgin birth, taught that Jesus was a normal human who was exceedingly wise, and that he was empowered by the Christ-spirit upon his baptism.
Gnosticism - the oldest Christian critiques of gnosticism dat from the early 2nd century CE, so it must have been in existence before that, though we have few documents. Most scholars place the origin of Gnosticism around the first century CE. In particular, Marcion preached that the benevolent God of the Gospel who sent Jesus Christ into the world as the savior was the true Supreme Being, different and opposed to the malevolent demiurge or creator god, identified with the Hebrew God of the Old Testament.
Theodotus claimed that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit as a non-divine man, and though later "adopted" by God upon baptism (that is to say, he became the Christ), was not himself God until after his resurrection


What place do ritual and ceremony have in the church today? (Liturgical POV)

I would suggest that all ritual in general did not pass away simply because the edicts of the old law was fulfilled. There is a lot that Tradition speaks to in terms of ritual use within the context of the Church as evidenced by what we know early Christians did, however, since you asked for a biblical reason, I might point you to the passages surrounding the Last Supper as it is the basis for the very essence of almost all liturgy in all catholic rites (whether Roman Catholic or Orthodox). In particular, we see Jesus not only institute this, but actually issue a command to observe this ritual in Luke 22:17-20.

We have to be careful not to dillute the religion of Christianity into a philosophy by only looking at the acceptance of particular truths. In the scriptures, Jesus establishes a church, practices and commands particular ritual, and gives truths. If we ignore the first two facts of the previous sentence, then we fundamentally change Christianity into something that it's really not.

For a more in-depth liturgical POV (Roman Catholic), the following link might provide to be useful:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html