This is going to be a difficult, if not impossible question to answer to everyone's satisfaction for precisely the reason you say it should be defined. It's bandied about so much, not only by the press, but by just about everyone,that I doubt there is a universally accepted definition.

There are, however, certain characteristics that could be listed that Fundamentalists share in general.  Even there, there is not universal agreement.  Not all "fundamentalists" agree with all tenets, and plenty of those tenets are shared by those who would not identify themselves as Fundamentalists.

I don't think we can throw a list of absolutely unique individual fundamentalist beliefs, as most of the beliefs are shared with non fundamentalists.

Rather, Fundamentalism appears to being defined as a recognizable combination of beliefs and traits.

I wouldn't normally just throw a list out there without backup, but this is a unique question, and the format of the question does lend itself to just presenting a list of traits that can fill in that blank.  So here goes:

Belief that the Bible is the divinely inspired, and therefore inerrant and infallible Word of God.
Belief in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura
A strong tendency toward Biblical Literalism
Reject the notion that fallible man has any authority over infallibe Scripture
Belief in salvation by grace through faith, and not of works. (Sola Fide)
Belief in a literal Hell
Evangelical in nature

The above three are held to to such a degree that we also, in general:
(In other words, the following are not definitive Fundamentalist qualities, but rather commonly held, but not universal beliefs based on the above three qualities.)

Have a general disdain for any extra-Biblical teachings.  We see them as man "adding to" the Scripture.

We don't discount all extra-Biblical teaching, however.  If the teaching can be backed up by applying Biblical principles, as in it's implied by the Scriptures, or in line with the teachings, we will generally accept it, or at least not denounce it.

The following may or may not be as commonly held, but in my observation:

We have a tendency to be Creationists, and in particular young-earth Creationists.  (Literal reading and rejection of fallible man's scientific understanding can override God's clear word.  Yeah, that's been debated ad-nausem on the site, but I'm not defending it here, just listing it.)

We have a tendency to prefer traditional Hymns like "Amazing Grace", "How Great Thou Art" to more contemporary Christian music.
And in general we see "Christian Rock" as an oxymoron.

At least in the U.S.A., we tend to be conservative in our politics.
As a result of our belief in the strict interpretation of Scripture, the belief that Christ is the only way to avoid an eternity of suffering in Hell, we tend to come off as "pushy".  We refuse to shut up and stop witnessing, and annoy our loved ones, relatives, friends, and total strangers in our attempt to get them to see their need for salvation.

This earns us the labels as being pushy, rigid, legalistic, zealots, judgmental, and a whole host of synonyms. (Even though that's now how we see it.)


St Augustine says we do and I might as well quote him at length since its way way in the public domain:

Whether the Bodies of Women Shall Retain Their Own Sex in the Resurrection.
From the words, Till we all come to a perfect man, to the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ, Ephesians 4:13 and from the words, Conformed to the image of the Son of God, Romans 8:29 some conclude that women shall not rise women, but that all shall be men, because God made man only of earth, and woman of the man. For my part, they seem to be wiser who make no doubt that both sexes shall rise. For there shall be no lust, which is now the cause of confusion. For before they sinned, the man and the woman were naked, and were not ashamed. From those bodies, then, vice shall be withdrawn, while nature shall be preserved. And the sex of woman is not a vice, but nature. It shall then indeed be superior to carnal intercourse and child-bearing; nevertheless the female members shall remain adapted not to the old uses, but to a new beauty, which, so far from provoking lust, now extinct, shall excite praise to the wisdom and clemency of God, who both made what was not and delivered from corruption what He made. For at the beginning of the human race the woman was made of a rib taken from the side of the man while he slept; for it seemed fit that even then Christ and His Church should be foreshadowed in this event. For that sleep of the man was the death of Christ, whose side, as He hung lifeless upon the cross, was pierced with a spear, and there flowed from it blood and water, and these we know to be the sacraments by which the Church is built up. For Scripture used this very word, not saying He formed or framed, but built her up into a woman; Genesis 2:22 whence also the apostle speaks of the edification of the body of Christ, Ephesians 4:12 which is the Church. The woman, therefore, is a creature of God even as the man; but by her creation from man unity is commended; and the manner of her creation prefigured, as has been said, Christ and the Church. He, then, who created both sexes will restore both. Jesus Himself also, when asked by the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection, which of the seven brothers should have to wife the woman whom all in succession had taken to raise up seed to their brother, as the law enjoined, says, You do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. Matthew 22:29 And though it was a fit opportunity for His saying, She about whom you make inquiries shall herself be a man, and not a woman, He said nothing of the kind; but In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. Matthew 22:30 They shall be equal to the angels in immortality and happiness, not in flesh, nor in resurrection, which the angels did not need, because they could not die. The Lord then denied that there would be in the resurrection, not women, but marriages; and He uttered this denial in circumstances in which the question mooted would have been more easily and speedily solved by denying that the female sex would exist, if this had in truth been foreknown by Him. But, indeed, He even affirmed that the sex should exist by saying, They shall not be given in marriage, which can only apply to females; Neither shall they marry, which applies to males. There shall therefore be those who are in this world accustomed to marry and be given in marriage, only they shall there make no such marriages.
St. Augustine - City of God - Book 22 chapter 17

So, to summarize, yes there are sexes, no there's no sex because:

There's nothing wrong with being a woman
Jesus would have made it more clear when saying folks aren't married in Heaven.

Now, I'll bet your wondering if women have beards in heaven? Well that's another question, but somewhere in there I belive he even answers that.


What was Isaac Watts' theological background?

Quoth Wikipedia:

  Likewise, Isaac Watts held religious opinions that were more non-denominational or ecumenical than was at that time common for a Nonconformist; he had a greater interest in promoting education and scholarship than preaching for any particular ministry.

The general consensus is that Watts' father was a dissenter and that Watts followed suit. No denomination truly claim him as "one of their own". That said, his particular congregation was independent in 18th century UK. Now, while that does not necessarily mean that he was of Puritan stock, it means that he was far closer to that than, say, Presbyterian. And, FWIW, the Puritan church in the US predominantly became Congregationalists.

Realize that this edit is a bit old, but I can confirm O God Our Help and When I Survey are in at least one modern Catholic hymnal.


The Complete Jewish Bible you are looking at (notably, not a Jewish translation at all) is following the numbering scheme of the Masoretic Text where that text corresponds with 2:16-17. In most Christian English translations, this is labeled 2:14-15. (JPS Tanakh and Judaica Press Tanach also use the Masoretic numbering.)

The difference arises because the numbering system of the Masoretic Text ends Chapter 1 after verse 9, whereas in Christian translations it usually ends after verse 11. The shift in mood between 1:9 and 2:1 (MT; 1:9 and 1:10 in English) has been the subject of much commentary, and some consider 2:1 to be the beginning of a 'rhetorical unit,' making the numbering of the MT appealing. But that is beyond the scope of the question.


When were Joseph and Mary considered married?

Well, I am not going to say it was on January 23 in the year 4 BC. That much is sure!

The Catholic Church does however celebrate the a liturgical feast on the 23rd of January, known as the Espousals of the Blessed Virgin Mary or Marriage of the Virgin Mary (Desponsatio Beatae Mariae Virginis).

  A feast of the Latin Church. It is certain that a real matrimony was contracted by Joseph and Mary. Still Mary is called "espoused" to Joseph ("his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph", Matthew 1:18) because the matrimony was never consummated. The term spouse is applied to married people until their marriage is consummated (Colvenerius, Cal. Marian., 23 Jan.). - Espousals of the Blessed Virgin Mary

What is certain is that St. Joseph must have betrothed Mary prior to the Annunciation of the Angel Gabriel, that much is sure. However, since Mary and Joseph were dwelling together onlookers would assume the baby was conceived in wedlock. It seems that at this time in history only Our Lady and St. Joseph were aware of Jesus' divine origins.

  When the Archangel Gabriel visited Mary and declared unto her that she was called to be the Mother of God, as we see recorded in Luke 1, her response would become the cause of the spilling of a whole lot of ink over the centuries: “How shall this happen, since I know not man?”.

  For Catholics this is an indication of Mary’s vow of perpetual virginity. It’s really quite simple. If Mary and Joseph were just an ordinary couple embarking on a normal married life together, there would be no reason to ask the question. Mary would have known very well how it could be that the Angel was saying she would have a baby. As St. Augustine said it:

  Had she intended to know man, she would not have been amazed. Her amazement is a sign of the vow (Sermon 225, 2).

  But Protestants do not see it as quite so simple. Reformed Apologist James White gives us an example of the most common objection to our “Catholic” view of this text:

  Nothing about a vow is mentioned in Scripture. Mary’s response to the Angel was based upon the fact that it was obvious that the Angel was speaking about an immediate conception, and since Mary was at that time only engaged to Joseph, but not married, at that time she could not possibly conceive in a natural manner, since she did not “know a man” (Mary—Another Redeemer? p. 31.).

  Among the errors in just these two sentences there are two that stand out for our purpose here.

  Error #1: Mr. White claims Mary was engaged to St. Joseph.

  There was no such thing as engagement (as it is understood in modern Western culture) in ancient Israel. The text says Mary was “betrothed” or “espoused” (Gr.—emnesteumene), not engaged. Betrothal, in ancient Israel, would be akin to the ratification of a marriage (when a couple exchanges vows in the presence of an official witness of the Church) in Catholic theology. That ratified marriage is then consummated—in the normal course—on the couple’s wedding night. So when Luke 1:27 says Mary was betrothed, it means they were already married at the time of the annunciation. If this were an ordinary marriage, St. Joseph would then have had a husband’s right to the marriage bed—the consummation.

  This simple truth proves devastating to Mr. White’s (and the Protestant's) argument. If Joseph and Mary were married—and they were—and they were planning the normal course, Mary would have known full and well how she could and would have a baby. As St. Augustine said, the question reveals the fact that this was not just your average, ordinary marriage. They were not planning to consummate their union.

  Betrothed = Married?

  For those who are not convinced “betrothed” equals “married” for Mary and Joseph; fortunately, the Bible makes this quite clear. If we move forward in time from the “annunciation” of Luke 1 to Matthew 1 and St. Joseph’s discovery of Mary’s pregnancy, we find Matthew 1:18 clearly stating Mary and Joseph were still “betrothed.” Yet, when Joseph found out Mary was “with child,” he determined he would “send her away privately” (vs. 19). The Greek verb translated in the RSVCE to send away is apolusai, which means divorce. Why would Joseph have to divorce Mary if they were only engaged?

  Further, the Angel then tells Joseph:

  Do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit . . . When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife (vss. 20-24).

  Notice, Joseph took Mary “his wife,” indicating both St. Matthew and an archangel considered this couple married even though they were said to be “betrothed.” “Betrothed” is obviously much more than “engaged.”

  Moreover, months later we find Joseph and Mary travelling together to Bethlehem to be enrolled as a family according to the decree of Caesar Augustus, just before Jesus would be born. They were obviously married; yet, even then, they were still said to be “betrothed” (see Luke 2:5).

  So let's recap what have we have uncovered. First, Joseph had already taken his espoused “wife” into his home and was caring for her. Second, Scripture reveals him to be her legal husband and to have travelled with Mary to be enrolled with her as a lawfully wedded couple and family. Third, she was called St. Joseph’s “wife” by the angel of the Lord… and yet, they were still referred to as betrothed.

  Referring to Mary and Joseph as “engaged” in the face of all of this evidence would be like calling a modern couple at their wedding reception “engaged” because they have yet to consummate their marriage.

  Once the fact that Mary and Joseph were already married at the time of the annunciation is understood, Mary’s “How shall this happen…” comes more into focus. Think about it: If you were a woman who had just been married (your marriage was “ratified,” but not consummated) and someone at your reception said—or “prophesied”—that you were going to have a baby—that would not really be all that much of a surprise. That is the normal course of events. You marry, consummate the union, and babies come along. You certainly would not ask the question, “Gee, how is this going to happen?”  It is in this context of Mary having been betrothed, then, that her question does not make sense… unless, of course, you understand she had a vow of virginity. Then, it makes perfect sense.

  Error #2: Mr. White claimed, “…it was obvious that the angel was speaking about an immediate conception.” And, closely related to this, Mr. White then claimed Mary asked the question, "How shall this happen...?" because she knew "at that time she could not conceive in a natural manner?"

  Really? It was obvious?

  There is not a single word in this text or anywhere else in Scripture that indicates Mary knew her conception was going to be immediate and via supernatural means. That’s why she asked the question, "How shall this happen...?" It appears she did not know the answer. How could she? Why would it ever enter into her mind? There would be no way apart from a revelation from God that she could have known. And most importantly, according to the text, the angel did not reveal the fact that Mary would conceive immediately and supernaturally until after Mary asked the question.

  But let's suppose Mary was "engaged" as Mr. White claims. There would be even less reason to believe the conception would be immediate and somehow supernatural then there would be if Mary had a vow of virginity (though there’s really no reason to think this in either scenario). An "engaged" woman would have naturally assumed that when she and St. Joseph would later consummate their marriage, they could expect a very special surprise from God. They were going to conceive the Messiah. There would be no reason to think anything else. And there would be no reason to ask the question.

  One final thought: When Mary asked the question, "How shall this happen, since I do not know man," the verb to be (Gr.-estai) is in the future tense. There is nothing here that would indicate she was thinking of the immediate. The future tense here most likely refers to… the future. The question was not how she could conceive immediately. The question was how she could conceive ever. The angel answered that question for her. - When Were Joseph and Mary Married?

Marriage of the Virgin by Raphael

  There are many old paintings and other works of art which portray St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary standing before a Jewish priest. Some of these are said to be depictions of their betrothal ceremony, while others are of the actual wedding. There are generally few differences in the depictions of the two ceremonies, and most of these works' titles (or, at least the English translations of their titles) indicate that they are of the wedding. - The Wedding of Joseph and Mary

Saint Joseph with the Flowering Rod, by Juspe de Ribera, early 1630s

  Some statues of Joseph depict his staff as topped with flowers, recalling the non-canonical Protoevangelion's account of how Mary's spouse was chosen by collecting the walking sticks of widowers in Palestine, and Joseph's alone bursting into flower, thus identifying him as divinely chosen. The Golden Legend, which derives its account from the much older Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, tells a similar story, although it notes that all marriageable men of the Davidic line and not only widowers were ordered by the High Priest to present their rods at the Temple. Several Eastern Orthodox Nativity icons show Joseph tempted by the Devil (depicted as an old man with furled wings) to break off his betrothal, and how he resists that temptation. There are some paintings with him wearing a Jewish hat. - St. Joseph (Wikipedia)


What are the benefits of a red letter edition Bible?

For the Synoptic Gospels, it is more clear who is speaking immediately. It is just like why we have chapter and verse numbers -- they are easy references which were added later for clarity (I actually own a Bible which pre-dates the inclusion of verse numbers, it is very hard to find quotes in it).

In the Gospel of John, however, the words of Christ and the words of the narrator are so intermingled, that the red letters are somewhere between worthless and deceptive.


According to the RCC, is supporting abortion the same sin as having an abortion?

To be an accomplice to murder (e.g., selling a gun, abortion instruments, etc.) is not necessarily the same as actually murdering. There's a distinction between material and formal cooperation in sin (cf. this article for more info). Material cooperation supplies the means for committing the sin, and formal cooperation assists in the act directly (e.g., two hit-men shooting one person at the same time would be both formally cooperating in the murder). And there are distinctions within material cooperation: proximate and remote cooperation. For example, a nurse handing an abortionist an instrument during his murdering of a child would be proximate material cooperation (some may argue it's formal cooperation) in murder for the nurse (and certainly formal cooperation for the abortionist). A surgical company making instruments that could be used for other purposes than abortion would be a remote material cooperation in the sin of abortion.

Voting for pro-abortion politicians certainly makes one an accomplice in the murders that politician permits.

Also, in the case of abortion, being an accomplice to it and directly performing it are both excommunicable offenses.


Are there any Christians who only accept the gospels?

Perhaps there are/were others, but the 'Jesus Christians' are the closest sect I'm aware of that matched your description (they are of relatively recent history - beginning in the early 1980s until officially disbanding in 2010: although their website is still being maintained and updated, so perhaps reports of their demise are premature). While not completely denying the inspiration of other scriptures, they placed much lesser value on them than the words of Jesus.

One of the striking consequences of their distinctive beliefs was the emphasis they place on 'living by faith' by not taking on salaried employment, and believing this is the normative pattern for all true followers of Christ and additionally the positive promotion of celibacy (marriage not forbidden, but classed as an inferior option).

Overall, I would describe them as a bit like Protestant Franciscan friars except for not recognising any authority beyond the words of Jesus and their groups interpretation of them and being highly sectarian (at least the two Jesus missionaries I encountered in 2005 gave me that impression).


Is the LDS's view of Trinity/Godhead considered monotheistic or polytheistic?

There is more to polytheism than simply believing in multiple divine beings.  One of the hallmarks of polytheism is multiple gods, each with their own domain and their own agenda.

To use a culturally familiar example, in the Greek pantheon, Zeus was the father of the gods, god of the sky and thunder and lightning. Hera was his consort, and she was constantly squabbling with him because he was constantly cheating on her with mortals. From one such indiscretion sprang a great hero who Zeus named Herakles (aka Hercules), meaning the glory of Hera, to try to appease her wrath. (It didn't work. She hated him.)  Meanwhile, they had Ares (God of War,) Hades (God of the Dead,) Poseidon (God of the Oceans,) Aphrodite (Goddess of Love and Beauty,) Athena (Goddess of Wisdom,) and several others.  And they were constantly fighting with each other, either directly or by proxy through meddling in the affairs of mortals.  Similar social interactions are seen in polytheistic systems all over the world, throughout history.

By contrast, Latter-Day Saints believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are each individual divine beings, each with different roles in administering God's plan, but their "domain" is all of creation, and they act in perfect harmony and agreement.  Together, they are our (single) God, in much the same way as various forms of governing councils work and act together here on Earth.  (And the more harmonious such governing bodies are, the more efficiently their agenda tends to be accomplished.)

The fact that we say that each of the three is a God (a divine being) and that together, they are one God (the ruling body of Creation) is more a failing of the language than a bad description, much like the way a man could say "I love my wife" and "I love chocolate" and mean two different things by the word "love".


What is an overview of arguments given by churches that allow women to plait their hair to support that practice? (1 Peter 3:1-6)

3:1 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives,

This is one of the most misunderstood lines in the Bible, which in its first glance is a clear expression of misogyny. It isn't. This is to actually teach the women to be creative in their ways to pitch to their husbands the beauty of Jesus' word. Society during Biblical times are truthfully, so limiting to women that any overt attempt for women to Christianize their husband would be seen as emasculating. The women, thus, need to be subtle.

2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.

Simply, actions speak louder than words. A naggy woman preaching the Word of God is more off-putting than a quiet woman showing a Christian lifestyle, don't you think?

3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes.

This is actually feministic, as it says that women, who tend to be insecure about their looks more than men, have to stop validating their appeal from society's unrealistic expectations of beauty, especially men's sexual desires.

4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight.

Again, subtlety and integrity of character as a measure of beauty.

5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands,
6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

That again, being lower than a man in the food chain may be an oppressive condition, but it can be used as leverage, especially in showing that the Christian way of life is superior to any other lifestyle.
A smart eagle does not show her claws.


Why does an omnipotent God allow evil to flourish on his earth?

Free Will is a Necessity for Love. Evil is a Necessity for Nothing.

God’s original creation was perfect. It included free will and did not include evil1.  Why would God create free will?  Because true love is impossible without it.  God could be said to have created the capacity for evil, but that is not the same as creating evil.  What the omnipotent God has always sought from us is love.  That is the only goal.  That evil could exist for a time is a byproduct of God’s created order, but it was never inherent in creation. Evil exists because we rebelled against God.

Could an Omnipotent God have a Purpose for Evil?

The crux of your complaint has to do with the consequences of someone else’s (evil) choices. Why does the all-powerful God allow innocent people to suffer the consequences of someone else’s choices?

In general, the unpleasant consequences for our rebellious choices is meant to help us by steering us away from those choices. How could the suffering of innocent people be justified? Perhaps we would not understand the very destructive, permeating nature of our sin if we did not observe the tragedy it foists upon others. We like to pretend that our sins only hurt us, but that is lie we tell ourselves in an attempt to make our sin seem less bad. Our sin affects people around us: people who depend on us, people who love us, people who expect us not to crash into them when they’re driving on the same road as us, etc.

The pain caused by the consequences of sin has the potential to teach us something important. Rather than imagining God to be vindictive in his punishment, it makes more sense to consider that if he loves us, he will want us to turn from our sin, and will use pain to get our attention. Ravi Zacharias tells a story of a girl who was born without the ability to feel pain. Her life is in constant jeopardy because pain is the means by which a normal human body tells you something is wrong. She feels none, and so she has no way of sensing the peril she is in and reacting to it. Our pain is unpleasant, but it is vitally important to our own well-being—even if the pain is because of someone else’s choices.

Could an Omnipotent God Use Suffering, Too?

This is not explicitly in the question, but it is in your remarks.

The corruption that our sin brought into the world means that pain and suffering are simple realities that will never go away in this life. What purpose could an omnipotent god have for allowing undeserved suffering?

Ever since the fall, the world has been corrupted. God’s perfect creation has been defaced and spoiled, and only in death/destruction will that ever change. The pain that we must endure in this life is certainly meant to produce in us a longing for that perfect world that we willingly abandoned.2

Jesus distilled the meaning of eternal life as “knowing God.” (Jn 17:3) This is the entire purpose of our existence. It was in the beginning, and still is, though now we have made it more difficult. The injustice we feel when witnessing or experiencing suffering should lead us to want something better, and the only satisfying object of that desire is God himself. Suffering has this purpose, at least. The death of a loved one should make us long for a companion who will not die. Loneliness and rejection should make us yearn for a friend who loves us and will not leave or reject us. The very things that we need are those things that mortal, fallible human beings cannot guarantee us, but God can provide those things.

The Omnipotent God did not design us for any greater purpose than loving him. While he has the power to prevent pain and suffering, he chooses not do so at least some of the time. Rather, he uses pain and suffering to help us understand the truth, because he loves us and wants us to love him.

1 What about Satan? Was he created evil? The fact that God condemns Satan for his choices at least suggests that he was not. We are not plainly told much of Satan’s origins, but the simplest explanation that makes sense of the facts we have is that he chose to rebel against God. The original assertion stands: God’s original creation did not include evil.

2 What about innocent children? Why do they suffer never having had a chance to make such choices? Some might argue that children are never wholly innocent, only ignorant, of their sin. The weight behind the question is about having to live with this pain, and being alive means having an opportunity to grow. The death of children is devastatingly sad, but it is not the topic of this question.


Converting to Judaism or Islam vs Trinitarian or Uniterian

There is no consensus among Christians on this question.  Assuming that the conversion is genuine and permanent, rather than momentary weakness, the three main schools of thought that apply to this issue are:

Conditional Security

According to this view, Christians can lose their salvation.  Thus, a Christian who converted to another religion would be seen to have lost his salvation, if he had it in the first place.  Christians who hold this view, such as Arminians, would answer "No".

Perseverance of the Saints

Another school of thought is that Christians cannot lose their salvation, and that true believers will persevere till the end.  According to this view, although true believers may fall and stumble temporarily, they will never fall away permanently.  A supposed Christian who permanently converted would be seen as having never been a genuine Christian in the first place.  Like the first view, Christians who hold this view would answer "No".

Free Grace Theology

Free Grace Theology is a view in which Christians cannot lose their salvation, and may fall away permanently.  This view teaches that the saved may or may not become disciples, and may or may not undergo the process of sanctification.  Christians may believe in Christ at one point, and subsequently forsake any identity with Christianity.  Christians who hold this view would answer "Yes".


Did 17th century Reformed Christians reject textual criticism?

Chapter 1 Section VIII of the Westminster Confession states that it is both the Hebrew (O.T.) and the Greek (N.T.) texts in their original languages that the Westminster Divines said were “immediately inspired of God”, being authentic and “kept pure in all ages by God’s singular care and providence.”  Christians were to translate them “into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they came”. However, there is a need to give a historical time-line, for clarity of thought about textual criticism, after which we may return to what the Westminster Divines meant in Section VIII.

You have already mentioned the role of Robert Estienne, who (in 1550) made marginal notes from various Greek manuscripts of the N.T., and some readings from the Complutensian Polyglot. The Wikipedia link is useful for such details, and it notes that “The third edition became for many scholars, especially in England, the normative text of the Greek New Testament. It maintained this position until 1880.”

The Westminster divines met from 1643 to 1648, which was shortly before the development of what later became known as “The Enlightenment” period which, in turn, gave rise to Deism.  It became

  “a view of religious knowledge that placed common principles of human
  reason and common religious ideas of humanity at the center and judged
  all claims to special revelation by them. The Deists thought this new,
  rational approach to religion most consistent with the basic impulses
  both of Protestantism and the new philosophy and science of the
  Enlightenment…
  Deism was an effort to demonstrate Christianity to be
  the highest and best expression of a purely natural religion of
  reason… Once blasphemy laws were no longer enforced in England and
  North America, most Deists openly denied such doctrines [as the deity
  of Jesus Christ and the Trinity]…
  At the most basic level, then,
  Deism’s distinctive nature among Protestant movements in theology had
  to do with its view of religious authority.  All the other Protestant
  theologies were theologies of Word and Spirit.  Luther, Calvin,
  Zwingli, Cranmer, Hooker and the Anabaptists all emphasized the
  dialectic of Word and Spirit as the true Christian authority for faith
  and practice.  The Word of God, especially as expressed in Holy
  Scripture, was seen as the objective, infallible special revelation of
  God delivered through the agency of the Holy Spirit by a supernatural
  operation known as inspiration.  But the Word without the Spirit
  illuminating it to readers’ minds and hearts would remain a ‘dead
  letter,’ and so the Holy Spirit is also crucial to Christian
  authority.  All the major first-generation Protestant Reformers agreed
  that the Holy Spirit does not deliver new doctrinal truths after the
  completion of Scripture but does illumine it to readers of faith and
  impress its truth on them through the testimonium internum Spiritus
  Sancti – “the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.” 1

The Westminster Divines were 2nd generation Reformers, heirs to that original stance on the vital role of how the Holy Spirit preserved the authority and meaning of the original manuscripts of the entire Bible, though the original ‘Autographs’ from the 1st century were long lost.  Although John Wesley upheld the authority of Scripture, by the late 1700s

  “many of his more liberal heirs had developed the ‘Wesleyan
  Quadrilateral,’ treating reason, tradition, and experience as sources
  of revelation alongside Scripture.” 2

By the early 1800s, that, the Enlightenment, and Deism gave rise to “Textual Criticism” which sought to look at ancient Greek texts from a purely academic point of view. New Greek manuscripts had been discovered and, by the 1880s, they had been considered superior to some that the Reformers used. A new pedigree of Greek biblical texts were then promoted, which form the basis of all modern translations of the N.T.

To show that the Westminster Divines would have had no truck with such later developments, here is another quote:

  “Reformation theology applies the magisterial-ministerial distinction
  when it speaks about the authority of the Word over the subordinate
  authority of the church, reason, tradition, and experience. The church
  has received a legitimate authority from Christ to reach consensual
  interpretations of God’s Word through its representative assemblies
  (as in the councils that led to the formation of the ecumenical creeds
  as well as the confessions, catechisms, and church orders of
  particular bodies).  Nevertheless, this authority is always relative
  to and dependent upon the sovereign (magisterial) authority of God’s
  revealed word.  Like the church, reason and experience and culture are
  servants through which we apprehend God’s Word, but we are never
  masters of it.” 3

Because Textual Criticism of the 1800s divorced the role of the Holy Spirit from the integrity of biblical manuscript copies and placed human reason and experience as the touchstone of authenticity, we can be sure that, had those variant manuscripts discovered in the 1800s been found in the era of the Westminster Divines, they would never have considered them the way scholars of the 1800s did. The Westminster Divines did, however, appreciate and use the work of Robert Estienne, for he did major spade-work in the early stages of getting back to the Greek text, instead of the Latin text of his day. The Reformers knew the worth of translating from the Greek text for the N.T.  As the Wiki link states:

  “Editio Regia (Royal edition) is the third and the most important
  edition of the Greek New Testament of Robert Estienne (1503-1559). It
  is one of the most important printed editions of the Greek New
  Testament in history, the Textus Receptus.”

That is the pedigree of texts used by the Reformers, the Westminster Divines, and right up until the 1880s when modern Textual Criticism broke with the principles of evaluating the Scriptures that they held so dear, resulting in a new pedigree of texts.

In conclusion, here is what a commentary on the Westminster Confession, ch. 1 section VIII states as to how they viewed the role of the Holy Spirit in ensuring the integrity of copies of the Autographs:

  “We do not now possess the document so inspired of God as to be
  perfect in every way.  Making use of this fact, Modernists (who
  disbelieve the original perfection of the text of scripture) have long
  argued that Reformed Christians have no infallible Bible to which they
  may appeal…
  This brings us to the matter of God’s ‘singular care and
  providence’ by which He has ‘kept pure in all ages’ this original
  text, so that we now actually possess it in ‘authentical’ form.  And
  let us begin by giving an illustration from modern life to show that
  an original document may be destroyed, without the text of that
  document being lost.  Suppose you were to write a will.  Then suppose
  you were to have a photographic copy of that will made.  If the
  original were then destroyed, the photographic copy would still
  preserve the text of that will exactly the same as the original
  itself.  The text of the copy would differ in no way whatever from the
  original, and so it would possess exactly the same ‘truth’ and meaning
  as the original.  Now of course photography was not invented until
  long after the original copy had been worn out or lost.  How then
  could the original text of the Word of God be preserved?  The answer
  is that God preserved it by His own remarkable care and providence…
  Remember, too, that in a day when there were no printing presses and
  only a few precious copies of the Bible, the people had to memorize
  much more than we do today.  Thus it was that especially in the
  Greek-speaking Church, from the very beginning, the Greek New
  Testament had living witnesses who helped reduce the errors of copiers
  to an exceedingly small amount.  Then, when the Reformation came, God
  in His providence had enabled mankind to discover mechanical means of
  printing.  Because of this, the text of Scripture could be reproduced
  in thousands of copies without progressive deterioration in accuracy.
    …(We may point out in closing our discussion of this section that God
  has similarly preserved the text of the Old Testament – through
  manuscript witnesses, and through the careful oversight of
  Hebrew-speaking Jews, who by their familiarity with the text of the
  Old Testament in their own language, quickly detected accidental
  errors in copy-work.)” 4

1  The Story of Christian Theology pp 520-1, Roger E. Olson (Apollos 1999)
2  Pilgrim Theology p69, Michael Horton (Zondervan 2011)
3  Ibid. p68
4  The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes pp15-17, G.I. Williamson (Presbyterian &
    Reformed Publishing Co, 1964)
Link to the Westminster Confession chapter on Holy Scripture: :  https://www.presbyterian.org.au/index.php/index-for-wcf/chapter-1-holy-scripture
Link to information on Robert Estienne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editio_Regia


What is the difference between "called" and "chosen"?

The general consensus from the commentaries I've seen on this, as well as the teachings of my Church, taking all of Matthew 22 in context is that the invitation for salvation is open to all, yet few actually choose to come to salvation.

How this fits in with irresistible grace, or pre-destination is not clear to me. Our denomination does not believe in irresistible grace. (We hold some Calvinist views, but not all).  It's possible that the reason I'm only finding commentaries that support the idea of resistible grace is because my sources are biased, but the commentaries I've found seem to be united on this verse, with the possible exception of the Barnes' Notes on the Bible. (Second commentary quoted below).

  Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (Emphasis mine)

  Many are called, etc. - This verse is wanting in one of Colbert's
  MSS., marked 33 in Griesbach. See the note on Matthew 20:16. Many are
  called by the preaching of the Gospel into the outward communion of
  the Church of Christ; but few, comparatively, are chosen to dwell with
  God in glory, because they do not come to the master of the feast for
  a marriage garment - for that holiness without which none can see the
  Lord. This is an allusion to the Roman custom of raising their
  militia; all were mustered, but only those were chosen to serve, who
  were found proper. See the note on Matthew 20:16. Reader! examine thy
  soul, and make sure work for eternity!

  Barnes' Notes on the Bible

  Many are called, but few are chosen - Our Saviour often uses this
  expression. It was probably proverbial. The Jews had been called, but
  few of them had been chosen to life. The great mass of the nation was
  wicked, and they showed by their lives that they were not chosen to
  salvation. The Gentiles also were invited to be saved, Isaiah 45:22.
  Nation after nation has been called; but few, few have yet showed that
  they were real Christians, the elect of God. It is also true that many
  who are in the church may prove to be without the wedding garment, and
  show at last that they were not the chosen of God. This remark in the
  14th verse is the inference from the "whole parable," and not of the
  part about the man without the wedding garment. It does not mean,
  therefore, that the great mass in the church are simply called and not
  chosen, or are hypocrites; but the great mass in "the human family,"
  in the time of Christ, who had been "called," had rejected the mercy
  of God.

  Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

  22:1-14 The provision made for perishing souls in the gospel, is
  represented by a royal feast made by a king, with eastern liberality,
  on the marriage of his son. Our merciful God has not only provided
  food, but a royal feast, for the perishing souls of his rebellious
  creatures. There is enough and to spare, of every thing that can add
  to our present comfort and everlasting happiness, in the salvation of
  his Son Jesus Christ. The guests first invited were the Jews. When the
  prophets of the Old Testament prevailed not, nor John the Baptist, nor
  Christ himself, who told them the kingdom of God was at hand, the
  apostles and ministers of the gospel were sent, after Christ's
  resurrection, to tell them it was come, and to persuade them to accept
  the offer. The reason why sinners come not to Christ and salvation by
  him, is, not because they cannot, but because they will not.

  [snip]

  The FourFold Gospel

  For many are called, but few chosen. Many guests are invited, but few
  are accepted; because some neglect and despise the invitation,
  andothers cast dishonor upon the one who invites, by the self-willed
  andirreverent way in which they accept his invitation. In this parable
  thefirst parties invited represent the Jews; the city of murderers
  isJerusalem; the persons called from the highways are the Gentiles;
  theentrance of the king is the coming of the Lord to final judgment;
  andthe man without the wedding-garment is anyone who will be found in
  thechurch without a suitable character. The character of Christ is
  ourwedding-garment, and all the regenerated must wear it ( John 3:5
  Ephesians 4:24 ; Galatians 3:27 ; Colossians 3:10 ; Revelation 19:8
  Revelation 19:9 ).


What was the hour of the Annunciation?

There is nothing in Holy Scriptures that will be of any help here. But perhaps we could start with Dom Guéranger and tradition:

  A tradition, which has come down from the apostolic ages, tells us that the great mystery of the Incarnation was achieved on the twenty-fifth day of March. [St. Augustine,  De Trinitate.  Lib. iv. cap. v.] It was at the hour of midnight, when the most holy Virgin was alone and absorbed in prayer, that the Archangel Gabriel appeared before her, and asked her, in the name of the blessed Trinity, to consent to become the Mother of God. Let us assist, in spirit, at this wonderful interview between the angel and the Virgin: and, at the same time, let us think of that other interview which took place between Eve and the serpent. A holy bishop and martyr of the second century, Saint Irenaeus, who had received the tradition from the very disciples of the apostles, shows us that Nazareth is the counterpart of Eden. [Adv. haereses. Lib. v. cap. xix.] - MARCH 25 – THE ANNUNCIATION OF THE EVER BLESSED VIRGIN ~ Dom Prosper Gueranger


Is virginity more meritorious than marriage, according to St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7?

Short answer - No.
If you are just looking at what Paul is saying, then more 'meritorious' is an incorrect choice of words to describe his encouragement towards choosing celibacy ahead of marriage.  His language that either state comes as a "gift from the Lord" (verse 7) is very much against the sense of either condition attracting any merit.
Bearing in mind that Paul prefaces his instructions in this area with the acknowledgement that he has "no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy" (verse 25 NIV), a more appropriate word to characterize his reasons for his instruction derivable from verses 26 and 29 ("Because of the present crisis..."/"...the time is short") is expediency.
ie. Paul argues that in view of the present circumstances (the prevalance of persecution now and increasing with the expected approach of the Lord's return), celibacy is more expedient for the avoidance of unnecessary suffering than the state of marriage.
Additional weight (via application of the 'scripture interprets scripture' hermeneutic) to a rejection of using 'merit' in the sense proferred, is found by examining another passage of scripture that is commonly interpreted as dealing with this issue:

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” - Matthew 19:10-12 NIV (emphasis added)

Although, some 'choose' the celibate life for the sake of the kingdom, verse 11 states explicitly that they can only do this because it has 'been given' to them to do so - ie. it is a grace gift and therefore the choice or state should not be considered through the lens of merit.


Are Jesus and Lazarus the only people raised from the dead?

No. In 1 Kings 17, Elijah the Tishbite, the Prophet, raised the son of the widow of Zaraphath

Some time later the son of the woman who owned the house became ill. He grew worse and worse, and finally stopped breathing. She said to Elijah, “What do you have against me, man of God? Did you come to remind me of my sin and kill my son?”
“Give me your son,” Elijah replied. He took him from her arms, carried him to the upper room where he was staying, and laid him on his bed. Then he cried out to the Lord, “Lord my God, have you brought tragedy even on this widow I am staying with, by causing her son to die?” Then he stretched himself out on the boy three times and cried out to the Lord, “Lord my God, let this boy’s life return to him!”
The Lord heard Elijah’s cry, and the boy’s life returned to him, and he lived. Elijah picked up the child and carried him down from the room into the house. He gave him to his mother and said, “Look, your son is alive!”

In 2 Kings 4, 32-35, Elisha raised the son of the Shunammite,

When Eli′sha came into the house, he saw the child lying dead on his bed. So he went in and shut the door upon the two of them, and prayed to the Lord. Then he went up and lay upon the child, putting his mouth upon his mouth, his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands; and as he stretched himself upon him, the flesh of the child became warm. Then he got up again, and walked once to and fro in the house, and went up, and stretched himself upon him; the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes.

and in Mark 5, 22-24a, 35-43

Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Ja′irus by name; and seeing him, he fell at his feet, and besought him, saying, “My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well, and live.” And he went with him.

35 While he was still speaking, there came from the ruler’s house some who said, “Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the Teacher any further?” But ignoring[a] what they said, Jesus said to the ruler of the synagogue, “Do not fear, only believe.” And he allowed no one to follow him except Peter and James and John the brother of James. When they came to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, he saw a tumult, and people weeping and wailing loudly. And when he had entered, he said to them, “Why do you make a tumult and weep? The child is not dead but sleeping.” And they laughed at him. But he put them all outside, and took the child’s father and mother and those who were with him, and went in where the child was. Taking her by the hand he said to her, “Tal′itha cu′mi”; which means, “Little girl, I say to you, arise.” And immediately the girl got up and walked (she was twelve years of age), and they were immediately overcome with amazement. And he strictly charged them that no one should know this, and told them to give her something to eat.

Jesus raised the daughter of Jairus.


Jeremiah felt your pain. In chapter 20, he cries out against God, blaming God that he had to deliver these messages of woe. He goes so far as to accuse God of deceiving him:

  You have deceived me, Yahweh, and I let myself be deceived, you are stronger than I and have overpowered me. I have become a laughingstock the whole day, the whole of it mocks me. Every time I speak, cry out “Violence!” and “Destruction!” shout,
  (then) the word of Yahweh becomes for me a reproach and derision the whole day;

That said, Jeremiah understands that he will still be compelled to preach :

  and (every time) I think, “I shall not remember it or speak any more in his name,” (then) it is in my heart,(it is) like burning fire,(like) pressure in my bones,
  and I am tired of holding (it) in,
  and cannot «bear».

Likewise, Jonah resisted the word of the Lord- and of course he ran. Moses, when he was given the word of the lord basically responded, "here I am, send my brother Aaron!"

(Indeed, it always makes me laugh when people say the church is just a big conspiracy for some men to gain power over others. I think about how much power any of the prophets ever had, and ask why would anyone have sought that out? Paul was beheaded, Peter was crucified upside down - of the 12 apostles, only John died a natural death. Even later, from Perpetua to Assissi to Bonhoeffer, the faith is not a means of gain!) What you are feeling, when you don't want to have the call of God isn't weird - in fact it is quite rational. But, you love God. And trust me, love is rarely rational. If you are married, you probably remember some of the weird things you felt compelled to do for her too. It's the same thing, only more worth it.

I say all of this to tell you that you are not the first to love God but not want to deliver his message. It is a terrifying responsibility, and it is not atypical to not desire it. From a worldly standpoint, it will neither win you friends, nor always even let you influence people.

But take heart, for as Jesus said in Matthew 5:11-12:

  Blessed are you when men shall persecute you and revile you and speak all manner of evil against you for my name sake, for so treated they the prophets who were before you"

Instead just remember what he says to the good ones in Matthew 25:

  Well done, thou good and faithful servant.


Why is denial of the primacy of the bishop of Rome considered a Schism, not a Heresy?

According to Canon law, it is technically both:

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him. - Code of Canon Law

However, an arguable effect of JOINT CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX DECLARATION
OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI
AND THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH ATHENAGORAS I is that it is no longer appropriate to affix the label "heretic" across the schismatic divide:

...in common agreement, declare that:
...
B. They likewise regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion. [emphasis added]


Introduction to Catholicism, Protestantism, Presbyterianism, Anglican and Eastern Christian for kids

I don't think children read comic books anymore, but 60 years ago I'd have understood it if it were described in terms of "alternate" universes, something like this:

Earth-0: the original apostolic biblical Christianity
Earth-1: the Roman Church
Earth-2: the Eastern Church
Earth-3: the Protestant Churches
Earth-3.1: the Anglican Church
Earth-3.2: the Presbyterian Church
Earth-3.?: …
Earth-4: the Mormon Church
Earth-5: the Jehovah's Witnesses
…

Some event causes a divergence and splits off a separate world.
The people in each world have truths that would be considered false in many of the other worlds.

One world knows that the Flash is really Jay Garrick, while another knows it is Barry Allen.
One world knows that Mary was born without sin and is now in heaven listening to our prayers, while another knows that Mary was an ordinary woman who is now dead and buried.

The child will understand the concept of groups of people believing things that completely contradict what other groups believe, without having to feel that any of them are "wrong".
What each group believes can then be taught and studied objectively for what it is, not for whether it is "true".


What in Deuteronomy implies that God gave those laws through Moses and not directly?

If I'm understanding you, you are wondering about how some laws in the Old Testament differ, since Jesus seems to upend some, yet uphold others. And you also asked about how to know if they are binding. This answer hopefully will provide clarity to those points.

In the New Testament a distinction is made between commandments and the statutes (letter) of the Law (the Old Testament / Torah). Commandments are moral principles, personal and inter-personal. Statutes are practical ordinances dealing with possessions and actions.

The greek word for "commandments" was ἐντολῶν "entolon" (Concordance). And the word for "the Law" (the collection of laws in the Torah / Pentateuch) was τὸν νόμον "ton nomon" (Concordance). (In other places, νόμον alone could mean laws, rules, or principles in general, and not the entirety of the Pentateuch Law, depending on context). And finally, the greek words for individual laws are usually translated "statutes", "ordinances", or "decrees".

Here is an example that shows the conceptual difference between the commandments and the Law -- that not all statutes in the Law are commandments:

  "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping God's commandments is what matters." (1 Corinthians 7:19)

In this sentence, you see that, while circumcision was an ordinance of the Law, it was not considered a commandment. So not all laws in the Law are commandments.

Jesus also spoke of commandments, saying things like "whoever upholds these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:19), and "you know the commandments -- you shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery.." (Mark 10:19)

The general principle is that God's commandments should be obeyed, whereas the statutes and laws in the Torah are not applicable anymore.

Here is a principle for how to determine the applicability of the Old Testament laws, and whether they are binding today:

All of the Pentateuch was given by God through Moses. But to whom? God specifically addresses the recipients in the beginning of many chapters -- the People of Israel. So none of the Pentateuch was given to non-Israelites.

  Then the LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying, "Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ...
  (Leviticus 1:1-2)

So in essence, God said, "Israelites, do these things." In saying this, he does not instruct anyone else besides the Israelites to do what he says.

But, God speaks truth among those statutes. He sometimes says "Israelites, do this, because this principle is true". Since God cannot lie, this means that "this principle" is true for all people. Even when he does not state his reasoning, we can meditate and wonder why he gave the laws as he did.

So since those laws were not spoken to us non-Israelites, then by default none of them are binding to us. Jesus bound the commandments to us, telling us to do them, but the rest of the Law remains not binding. But there is still much value and truth to be gained from reading and pondering the Old Testament laws.


What are the 'things' offered to idols? In days of old, the leaders of different communities would make for themselves statues of creatures, then to obtain obedience from the general population, they would threaten that the creature would kill them or devour them if they did not work as expected. To continue with the illusion, feasts were assembled and pagan priests would do what they could to make it appear that the statue was eating. Or sacrifices where made, to make the illusion appear that the statue killed someone.

Acts 15:29 NKJV

  that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

The main point is that by eating of the things offered to idols, you would stand as a affidavit witnessing that the events of the illusion where true. They obviously are not true. So standing in any form of position to help conclude this illusion was real was supporting a lie.

Acts 15:20 NKJV

  but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.

Now knowing above, If I where to abstain from eating the meat, but was part of the ceremony , and made some elaborate display for them like presenting the knife, or playing a trumpet. This still all would fall under helping to conclude this illusion was real and supporting a lie.

To understand How was this understood by the Apostles I assume it was given to them by God's Holy Spirit either supernaturally, or as a common truth.

Acts 15:23

  They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings.

To understand how their followers perceived it. I guess here, but I would assume that they have witnessed such gatherings and displays due to the location. I do not know at this moment about what idols where being sacrificed to in Antioch, Syria, or Cilicia. I feel it safe to say though that the command would have been elaborated on if not to be naturally understood by the audience of that time.

This 'rule' is based on the Second Commandment of the Ten Commandments the Old Testament law. According to the Hebrew OT: Westminster Leningrad Codex, Hebrew OT: WLC (Consonants Only), and also the Septuagint.

Exodus 20:4-6 NKJV

  “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

Can Sunday be a religious day for Christians if it was already a religious day offered to the pagan sun god? Yes. Not for the purpose of raising the pagan sun god to honor. Yet God explains through Paul.

In Hebrews 3:7-11 we are directed to understand Psalm 95:7–11.

Psalm 95:7–11 NKJV

  For He is our God, And we are the people of His pasture, And the sheep of His hand. Today, if you will hear His voice: 8 “Do not harden your hearts, as in the rebellion,
  As in the day of trial in the wilderness, 9 When your fathers tested Me; They tried Me, though they saw My work. 10 For forty years I was grieved with that generation,
  And said, ‘It is a people who go astray in their hearts, And they do not know My ways.’
  11 So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest.’”

So in the fullness of Hebrews Chapter 3 he concludes that the rest was no longer available to them because of their unbelief.

Hebrews 3:19 NKJV

  So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

Then in Hebrews Chapter 4 he points out that a new day has been created to enter into rest.

Hebrews 4:7 NKJV

  again He designates a certain day, saying in David, “Today,” after such a long time, as it has been said: “Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.”

The need for this is pointed out

Hebrews 4:8 NKJV

  For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day.

Going back to point out that the day was to continuously be today.

Hebrews 3:13 NKJV

  but exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

Therefore here is logic. If today you enter into his rest, and continually enter into his rest for every today. Then all the Sabbath days would then be covered, so the fulfillment of the duty to honor the seventh day would always be completed. Also since when today happens also to be a Sunday. That day is also considered a "Today". Therefore the festival may continue for any day that becomes today!

So then know in case this is your situation. If you do happen to know a Pagan Sun Worshiper I say be careful not to include yourself in any of the duties, or offer respect that supports any illusion. But instead love them and show them the perfect way. Amen.


Did Jesus appear post-resurrection to twelve apostles?

While Matthias was not an apostle at the time that Jesus appeared to the other eleven apostles, the Scriptures do indicate that Matthias was a disciple during Jesus' ministry.

According to Peter’s words (Ac 1:21, 22), Matthias had been a follower of Christ throughout Jesus’ three-and-a-half-year ministry, had been closely associated with the apostles, and was quite likely one of the 70 disciples or evangelists whom Jesus sent out to preach. (Lu 10:1) After his selection, he was “reckoned along with the eleven apostles” by the congregation (Ac 1:26), and when the book of Acts immediately thereafter speaks of “the apostles” or “the twelve,” Matthias was included.—Ac 2:37, 43; 4:33, 36; 5:12, 29; 6:2, 6; 8:1, 14; see PAUL. [article "Matthias" printed in "Insight on the Scriptures" by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania]

So, Paul was recognizing Matthias as an apostle even though his appointment to that position had not be made yet.
(While not an answer from the Catholic perspective, this does give an answer from the Bible itself.)


What Protestant arguments exist for the perpetual virginity of Mary?

There is no clear biblical evidence for the non-Virginity of Mary.

The Bible never says he had full blooded brothers and sisters.  I don't want to delve into translations which I don't understand (Aramaic words for niece, cousin, nephew, etc...), but it is clear that Jesus does however call many people his brothers, and exhorts us all to call others our brothers and sisters, who are clearly not siblings.
The Bible says Jesus was Mary's 'firstborn' son, but firstborn could be a title given to son's offered to the temple.  Then there's the use of the word 'until', in reference to Mary and Joseph's relations.  But, if I claim to lover and serve the Lord until my dying day, I certainly hope to do so after my dying day!

But there is an inkling of evidence for her not having any other children - although if you accept the brothers in (1.) as being other living sons of Joseph, it confuses the argument.

When Jesus is dying on the Cross (in John's gospel), He instructs His beloved disciple and he takes to take Mary into his house.  If she truly had other sons, that would be moot point for the other sons would have been there to take care of her.

Note, this is not an argument in relation to the doctrine that Mary was still materially a virgin after birth.  That requires adherence to the Dogma.

Virginity itself is not altogether uncommon in human history (Vestal Virgins, Jewish Virgins). Having a Child while remaining a virgin, is a singular event worthy of our Creator and Redeemer.


Is it known which seminary or seminaries produced the majority of Catholic priests who were accused of sexual abuse in the USA?
I remember when this sexual abuse scandal first hit the Church. At that time, I was living in the USA and asked several higher ranking churchmen where the majority of abusive priests were coming from? The only answer I got was St. John’s Seminary!

Any examination of the sexual abuse crisis afflicting the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles leads inevitably to a bell-towered campus in the rolling hills of Camarillo: St. John’s Seminary.
The 66-year-old institution has trained hundreds of clerics for the archdiocese and smaller jurisdictions across Southern California and beyond. It is the alma mater of Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, Diocese of Orange Bishop Tod Brown and other prominent prelates. Former San Francisco Archbishop William Levada, now the Vatican’s chief enforcer of doctrine, taught at the school.
But St. John’s, the only seminary operated by the archdiocese, also has produced a disproportionate number of alleged sexual abusers as it prepared men for a life of ministry and celibacy, records show.
About 10% of St. John’s graduates reported to have been ordained in the Los Angeles Archdiocese since 1950 -- 65 of roughly 625 -- have been accused of molesting minors, according to a review of ordination announcements, lawsuits, published reports and the archdiocese’s 2004 list of alleged abusers. In two classes -- 1966 and 1972 -- a third of the graduates were later accused of molestation.
The St. John’s figures are much higher than the nationwide rate of alleged molesters in the American priesthood, as calculated by a church-commissioned survey. The John Jay College of Criminal Justice study found that 4% of priests and deacons between 1950 and 2002 have been accused of abuse.
“The numbers get scary,” said Patrick Wall, a former monk who works for an Orange County law firm that represents alleged abuse victims suing the church, including about 100 who have accused St. John’s graduates. “I don’t think it’s coincidental.”
Archdiocese officials deny that the seminary was in any way responsible.
Spokesman Tod Tamberg blamed intense publicity over sexual abuse in the church for the higher rate of accusations involving St. John’s graduates, and noted that a California law temporarily lifting the statute of limitations for molestation lawsuits brought a flood of allegations against Los Angeles priests.
But J. Michael Hennigan, a lawyer for the archdiocese, conceded that exaggerated claims alone cannot account for the large numbers of alleged abusers in some graduating classes.
“There were a couple of years at that seminary where lightning struck,” Hennigan said. “I doubt we’ll ever figure out why.”
Spokesman Tod Tamberg blamed intense publicity over sexual abuse in the church for the higher rate of accusations involving St. John’s graduates, and noted that a California law temporarily lifting the statute of limitations for molestation lawsuits brought a flood of allegations against Los Angeles priests.
Several former students recall a licentious atmosphere at St. John’s that might have accommodated a range of sexual behavior, especially in the years before the 1990s.
The John Jay survey determined that the quarter-century from 1960 through 1984 was particularly troublesome for alleged abuse by clerics nationwide. At St. John’s, about 15% of priests who graduated during that period and served in the Los Angeles Archdiocese were accused of sexual abuse, records show.
Some of the allegations have resulted in criminal convictions or civil settlements. Most are unresolved. The accusations lodged in civil complaints have not been formally denied because the suits are the subject of a court mediation, Hennigan said.
Typically, the suits focus on incidents that allegedly occurred after a priest left the seminary. But in a 2003 suit, Esther Miller alleges that a seminarian sexually abused her at St. John’s in the mid-1970s. - Trail of Abuse Leads to Seminary

It has to be equally true that St. John’s Seminary is not an isolated circumstance of producing a certain number of sexually abusive priests, but it is on top of the list.
Bad eggs will be found here and there, but the tentacles of St. John’s Seminary students are far reaching.


According to the Catholic Church, does Jesus condemn those who don't believe?

People are not condemned, judged, or punished because they do not have faith in Jesus. They are condemned because of the evil acts they have committed during their life on Earth. They are saved from punishment by faith in Jesus, and (depending on your view on justification by faith alone or with works) by those works of righteousness that spring from that faith. Lack of faith leads to lack of forgiveness and justification, but that forgiveness and justification is only needed because of the sins already committed. As an analogy, the governor of a state by statute may pardon a criminal on death row. If he does not pardon the criminal, and the state has capital punishment, you could say that the governor condemned him to die, but it is really the crimes that the person committed that really condemned them.

Matthew 12:

  36 I tell you that on the day of judgment people will have to account
  for every careless word they speak. 37 For by your words you will
  be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”

John 3:16

  “For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son,
  so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal
  life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world that He might
  condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18
  Anyone who believes in Him is not condemned, but anyone who does not
  believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name
  of the One and Only Son of God.

  19 “This, then, is the judgment: The light has come into the world,
  and people loved darkness rather than the light because their deeds
  were evil. 20 For everyone who practices wicked things hates the light
  and avoids it, so that his deeds may not be exposed. 21 But anyone
  who lives by the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be
  shown to be accomplished by God.”

John 7 shows the clearest connection between faith and forgiveness, where a sinful woman demonstrates her faith through her loving act of anointing Jesus:

  36 Then one of the Pharisees invited Him to eat with him. He entered
  the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table. 37 And a woman in the
  town who was a sinner found out that Jesus was reclining at the table
  in the Pharisee’s house. She brought an alabaster jar of fragrant oil
  38 and stood behind Him at His feet, weeping, and began to wash His
  feet with her tears. She wiped His feet with the hair of her head,
  kissing them and anointing them with the fragrant oil.

  39 When the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he said to himself,
  “This man, if He were a prophet, would know who and what kind of woman
  this is who is touching Him—she’s a sinner!”

  40 Jesus replied to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.”

  “Teacher,” he said, “say it.”

  41 “A creditor had two debtors. One owed 500 denarii, and the other
  50. 42 Since they could not pay it back, he graciously forgave them both. So, which of them will love him more?”

  43 Simon answered, “I suppose the one he forgave more.”

  “You have judged correctly,” He told him. 44 Turning to the woman, He
  said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave
  Me no water for My feet, but she, with her tears, has washed My feet
  and wiped them with her hair. 45 You gave Me no kiss, but she hasn’t
  stopped kissing My feet since I came in. 46 You didn’t anoint My head
  with olive oil, but she has anointed My feet with fragrant oil. 47
  Therefore I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven; that’s why[n]
  she loved much. But the one who is forgiven little, loves little.” 48
  Then He said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”

  49 Those who were at the table with Him began to say among themselves,
  “Who is this man who even forgives sins?”

  50 And He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.”


What is the basis for the claim that the entire New Testament can be reconstructed apart from original and copied manuscripts?

The claim is false...

Strictly speaking, the claim is easily proven false by searching a scripture index of the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.  While this particular index seems imperfect, it does show that many verses (particularly from the shorter letters) are not quoted or even referenced.

We can also take advantage of the Philip Schaff translations of the Fathers, which are available online and use the KJV for scripture quotations.  John 3:16 turns up in a full-text search as does 1 John 3:16.  However, we wouldn't have any record of 3 John 3.  (Sadly the letter ends at verse 14 so I can't be consistent in my survey.)

There is a complete index of Biblical texts of the 10-volume Ante-Nicene Fathers, which shows a single verse from John's third epistle (3 John 11), which is found in volume IV, page 63.  Here, Tertullian writes that when it comes to marriage, we should not follow the examples of David and Solomon (who married many women), but to "follow the better things" (Joseph,  Moses, and Aaron who married just once).   But the quote fits just as well with 1 Peter 3:11 or Psalm 37:27 as it does with 3 John 11.

... but much of the Bible was quoted.

On the other hand, we find the early church did quote the New Testament extensively.  Augustine, for instance, gave extensive lectures on the Gospel of John and the First Epistle of John, which were written down.  They serve as a very comprehensive commentary on the two books from which we can extract nearly the entire text (in Latin).  Even better, he preached the text in order, so we can follow along.  His other expository sermons on the gospels probably cover most of the text of those books.

Additionally, allusions to the New Testament permeates the earliest Christian writing (both Orthodox and Gnostic).  The index of New Testament references in  Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus shows they (as a group) were familiar with nearly every canonical work.  Not all of these are direct quotes, but demonstrate close familiarity with the texts.

Summary

One of the central principles of the Historical Method is the more independent sources that are available, the more confidence we have in the truth of a historical claim.  When it comes to the text of the New Testament, there is already a remarkable number of manuscript copies.  With the exception of variations, we know what the text said.  While we have no need of the early fathers to be confident in the content of the New Testament, their quotations of it give us information about its canonicity.


Why is the Notre Dame Cathedral not a Major Basilica?

There are only 4 Major Basilica's and they're all in Rome.  They all have feast days celebrating their dedications (Which might be one less saint to celebrate).  They have a special blessing associated with a pilgrimage to each of them (and others, in Rome).  Rosaries depicting the 4 major basilicas would be obselete.

A better question might be, why isn't it a Minor Basilica.


Is spirituality different than superstition?

The strictly empirical worldview seems reductionistic to thoughtful Christians (not to mention many atheists etc.) because, in their view, it fails to adequately account for phenomena such as love, beauty, reason, morality, the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics," and the like. Moreover, empiricism as a worldview seems to fail on its own terms because it is open to explanations for observable phenomena such as a multiverse and potentially undetectable forms of matter that are themselves not open to empirical investigation.

If we thus take spiritual to be non-material or non-empirical, then superstition is merely that subset of non-material things that you think are not real. But that's being a bit coy, because Christians believe there exists, not just non-material "stuff," but also non-material personal agents -- indeed the personal agent -- who interact with the material world in various ways.

Why do we believe such things? Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues that one reason we do is because of a built-in sensus divinitatis (SD), a natural faculty common to all humans that leads us to the divine. If God made us, it seems reasonable that he would instill in us a faculty to draw us to himself. Like the other faculties (sight, hearing, reason, imagination, the affections, etc.), however, the SD operates at varying levels of quality among different persons. An errant SD may lead one to become what Calvin calls a "factory of idols," seeking the spiritual in ways where it cannot be truly found -- superstition, if you will.

Moreover, it stands to reason that if God did make the world, there would be some clues in it that would point in his direction. Christians believe they can and have recognized such clues in the order, design, and telos of the world and of mankind itself. But make no mistake -- there is no neutral ground here. All facts must be interpreted, and evidence or data itself cannot act as a neutral arbiter between the interpretations (as non-Christian Stanley Fish says, "evidence is never independent and is only evidence within the precincts of a particular theory"). Thus, there is no airtight proof or evidence for God or spiritual reality that will convince all reasonable people, but a cumulative case of clues can be mounted for those with eyes to see it, as it were. (See Tim Keller, The Reason for God, chapters 8 and 9.)

Christians do not believe they have the power to "define" or delimit what is real, as your question seems to imply. We seek only to acknowledge what is real in the world where we find ourselves. As finite beings, we may not be equipped to fully explore all that exists. Hence there may be some realities we cannot explore effectively with the tools at our disposal, but we could still learn about these realities indirectly from someone who knows them directly. Hence we find ourselves seeking divine revelation to know something about non-empirical realities, and virtually all Christians believe that the person, work, and teaching of Jesus and the Bible hold such revelation to one degree or another and reveal God and his character and nature.

The three previous paragraphs, intrepid readers may note, align with John Frame's triperspectival approach laid out in his Doctrine of Knowledge of God and represent the existential, situational, and normative perspectives, respectively. Each of these is mutually interdependent, informing and being informed by the others.

Two other writers worthy of note here are particle physicist-turned-priest John Polkinhorne, who has compared and contrasted how science and theology pursue truth in their respective domains, and chemist-turned-philosopher of science Michael Polanyi, who described "tacit knowledge" (that we know more than we can tell or prove).

As a footnote: Beyond more philosophical musings like the above, which can sometimes be too abstract, I might recommend C. S. Lewis' Space Trilogy for an imaginative telling of a Christian view of reality. In it, the material world, for instance, has a maximum speed of the speed of light, whereas the spiritual world's minimum is the speed of light, and the spiritual beings interact with the material world only loosely, passing through conventional matter as we do through a fog.


What was the origin of repeated confession of fault during the Act of Contrition?

The number 3 has many meanings in the Christian/Catholic tradition, and some orthodox faiths repeat many parts of the liturgy three times. It is often honoring the three persons of the Trinity, but here it is more likely harkening back to scripture, as the liturgy does often. It also worth noting that the Confeitor prayer is also simply part of Tradition (since about the 11th century in its modern form).

This blog post sums it up nicely:

  In the revised 2011 English translation of the Mass, the threefold
  refrain reappeared, and we are once again encouraged to symbolically
  strike our breasts each time we acknowledge our fault.

  Why was this restored? And why do we, at the beginning of the prayer,
  not only admit that we have sinned, but that we have greatly sinned?

  The first reason is that the Catholic Mass is thoroughly biblical. So
  let’s start by noting what a threefold repetition means in the Jewish
  mentality. In Hebrew, you can’t add endings to words to express
  superlatives or emphasis. There is no “big, bigger, biggest” in the
  language of the Old Testament. So how do you get the idea across that
  something is the best, worst, or extremely important? By repeating it
  three times. When Isaiah had a vision of the Lord attended by angels,
  they cried out, “Holy, Holy, Holy!” which we repeat at every Mass.
  Peter’s denied Jesus three times. The Lord later asked Peter, “Do you
  love me?” (John 21:15–17) not once, but three times.

  Therefore, a threefold admission of our fault is a biblical way to
  emphasize what is said at the start of the prayer—that we have
  “greatly” sinned. Sin is not just a casual affair, an inconsequential
  blunder like failing to dot an i or cross a t. Sin is a most serious
  matter. God has given us everything, even sacrificing his only Son for
  us. He deserves all our love, as we say in the act of contrition.

  We are commanded to love him with all of our heart, soul, mind, and
  strength. When we fail to do so by neglecting our duty or by doing
  something that hurts others, ourselves, and God’s honor, it is
  grievous. As we become aware of what we’ve done or failed to do, the
  proper response is contrition, the kind of sorrow that leads not to
  despair but to change.

  But why the striking of our breasts as we recall our fault? Is being
  Catholic all about beating ourselves up? For the answer, we again need
  to turn to the Scriptures. In Luke 18:9-14, we meet a very pious
  Pharisee who congratulates God on being so fortunate as to have such a
  worthy servant as himself. There is also a publican, a tax collector,
  who strikes his breast as he comes before the Lord saying, “Lord, be
  merciful to me, a sinner.”

  By striking our breast, we distance ourselves from the Pharisee and
  stand, or rather bow, with the publican, acknowledging our
  unworthiness before the awesome majesty and perfect holiness of the
  living God. It is not about self-hatred but about humility. And
  humility means getting in touch with reality. As we begin the liturgy,
  we pause to recall that we don’t deserve to be there. We are all
  publicans and prodigals whom a loving Father embraces and welcomes not
  because of our virtues but in spite of our sins.


What is this icon that Putin touches/kisses at monument of St.Vladimir?

According to the news, https://foma.ru/na-1030-letie-kreshheniya-rusi-v-kremle-vpervyie-sovershili-liturgiyu-pod-otkryityim-nebom.html a shrine with the part of relics of St. Vladimir from the Christ the Savior church in Moscow was brought in before the Liturgy in Kremlin so I guess then it was carried to the monument of St. Vladimir where Putin venerated it.


Did King James really have his name put into the Bible?

As a matter of fact, it appears from two etymological entries (in Etymonline.com) that "James" comes not from "Joshua" but from "Jacob":

  masc. proper name, name of two of Christ's disciples, late 12c. Middle English vernacular form of Late Latin Jacomus (source of Old French James, Spanish Jaime, Italian Giacomo), altered from Latin Jacobus (see Jacob).

(entry James)

The entry on Jacob adds:

  masc. proper name, name of Old Testament patriarch, son of Isaac and Rebecca and father of the founders of the twelve tribes, from Late Latin Iacobus, from Greek Iakobos, from Hebrew Ya'aqobh, literally "one that takes by the heel" (Gen. xxviii:12), a derivative of 'aqebh "heel."

Looking at the beginning of the letter of James, I see:

  Ἰάκωβος Θεοῦ καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ Διασπορᾷ χαίρειν.

that is (transliterated):

  Iakobos Theou kai Kyriou Iesou Christou doulos tais dodeka phylais tais en te Diaspora khairein

  Iakobos a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings.

It therefore seems that King James did not put his name into the Bible; he simply happened to have (accounting for transformations) the same name as the (nominal) author of the letter.


Is chastity only expressed in virginity?

Virginity is the highest degree of chastity/purity, as St. Thomas Aquinas shows in Summa Theologica II-II q. 152 a. 3 "Whether virginity is a virtue?" ad 5:

  Conjugal chastity is deserving of praise merely because it abstains from unlawful pleasures: hence no excellence attaches to it above that of chastity in general [communem castitatem].
  Widowhood, however, adds something to chastity in general; but it does not attain to that which is perfect in this matter, namely to entire freedom from venereal pleasure;
  virginity alone achieves this.

  Wherefore virginity alone is accounted a virtue above chastity [in general],* even as magnificence is reckoned above liberality.

*[what he said above: communem castitatem / "chastity in general"]

So, here's the ranking of "freedom from venereal pleasure" (descending order):

virginity
chaste widowhood
chaste marriage / "chastity in general"

It's interesting to note that the Dominican friar Laurent d'Orléans, O.P., in his Somme le roi, whom French king Philip III commissioned in 1279 (not long after St. Thomas's death in 1274), devised a sevenfold ranking of chastity:

The chastity of

non-consecrated virgins
unmarried repentant non-virgins
marrieds
widows
consecrated virgins
ordained priests
the religious (monks, nuns)


What is significant about the title of "Son of David" that was attributed to Jesus?

David, of course, was the second King of Israel (later just Judah) who had descendants also upon the throne. We see that Jesus was indeed descended in direct lineage from David through many generations. In some cases in the Bible, "son of" is used to refer to descendants rather than literal sons. Thus, Jesus could be called a "son of David".

But because of the prophecy to David in 2 Samuel 7:16,

  And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.

the Jewish people were looking for a King that would rule without end, many of course thinking that he would set up an earthly kingdom. Clearly this refers to David's descendants.

John 7:42 says that:

  Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David's descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?

Referring to 2 Samuel 7 (the line from which he will come) and Micah 5:2 (specifically naming Bethlehem as his birthplace).

Jesus, of course was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Psalm 110:1

  A Psalm of David 1 The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.” (emphasis mine)

As we see in Mark 12:35-37, Jesus clearly states that this refers to him.

But perhaps most significantly and clearly is the prophecy in Isaiah 9:6-7:

  “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.”

There is little doubt that the Jewish authorities of the day missed this prophecy, clearly stating that a son is given...name is mighty God...upon the throne of David. In short, his title of "son of David" was the declaration that he was the promised Messiah, and God himself.

Source 1, Source 2, Source 3


What is the Biblical basis for "Do Least Harm" or "Do Greatest Good"?

What you're asking about is called "Situational Ethics"

Many people arguing for situational ethics use Matthew 12:1-8 as an example.  Key verses from that.

Matt 12:3-6 (NIV)

  3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry?

  4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests.

  5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent?

  6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here.

In this case, it shows that in some situations, we need to apply the laws with consideration.

The idea of situational ethics is that we should do whatever results in the greatest amount of love.  That idea comes from Matthew 22:35-40 where Jesus says that the second greatest command is to love your neighbor as yourself.

For more reading, Here is a long article.


What does it mean that the Virgin was assumed "in body" in Heaven?

Yes, this refers to Mary's material, human body.  The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was assumed into heaven, body and soul.

For an explanation of the reasons behind this teaching, you would do well to read the decree "Munificentissimus Deus" of Pope Pius XII, in which he officially defined this dogma of the assumption.  The "punch line" is "by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."  This is from section 44 of the decree, so you can see that a lot of explanation preceded it.

The whole decree is available on the Vatican web site, at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html (in English).  I should probably mention explicitly that, although this decree dates from 1950, the Church celebrated the feast of the assumption for many centuries before that. As far as I know, the Eastern Orthodox churches agree with this teaching, but protestants do not.


Does the Eastern Orthodox Church eat leavened or unleavened bread during the Eucharist?

Yes. The Eastern Orthodox Church uses leavened bread.

  Leavened bread has always been used in the Eastern Church.
  In fact, at one point in time, a great controversy raged over the fact
  that in the Eastern Church leavened bread was used, while in the
  Christian West unleavened bread was the norm. (Orthodox Church in America)

  The Orthodox Church uses leavened bread for, according to the Gospel
  of Saint John, Last Supper and Passion, took place during the evening,
  night and day time of Passover Day, therefore leavened bread was eaten
  in Last Supper. (Orthodox Wiki)

The words used to describe the bread of the Last Supper (and Christ's commandment to do as he had done) are the basis for this.

  If we look at the word for the bread used at the Last Supper is
  artos, the Greek generic term for bread that almost always...though
  not necessarily always referred to every day leavened break. The Greek
  term that specifically means unleavened bread is azymes. This gap is
  cleared up if we look at the earliest Aramaic translations of the
  Gospels (third century or earlier), the word they use to translate
  bread at the Last Supper is not generic, but specifically means
  leavened bread. (Orthodox Christianity, emphases mine)


How could God hold Adam and Eve accountable for sinning when they didn't know evil?

James 4:17 states "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." (NIV)

Adam and Eve knew what they should and shouldn't do.  God made it very simple: "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." (Gen 2:17 NIV)  It was clear that they were to avoid that tree.  As James 4:17 states, they knew what to do and didn't do it and became sinners as a result.


How does C.S Lewis come to the conclusion that Jesus is God?

why do we come to say that he is God simply like that if he could also be a lunatic or something worse?

Lewis, at this point in the book, is arguing against a specific view of Jesus - namely that he was a wise man, a good man, a great teacher - but not God! It's a widely held view among people who haven't looked closely at the Gospels, and it's a convenient one for people who want to acknowledge Jesus as an ideal, but either don't want to accept the supernatural or acknowledge Jesus as their Lord . So Lewis isn't looking to refute the "lunatic" or "fiend" viewpoints in that section. Neither is he looking to produce a "mathematical" proof.
So the point of the section of the book is that only three views of Jesus are reasonable. Which one you choose is left to other parts of the book, and the reader's own investigations.
As he says:

It seems to me obvious that he is neither a lunatic or a fiend.

He has read up about Jesus, both the stories of his life and what others have thought of him, and come to the conclusion that "lunatic" and "devil" are both off the table. Most people, even those who don't believe Jesus is God, would probably agree.


What should I tell my children about Santa?

Perhaps the question really is, "Should I lie to my children?" or "Should I lie?"  The answer to both of those is, of course, "No."

Certainly it is culturally normative to tell children about Santa.  However, right and wrong in Christianity are not determined by how acceptable it is to a culture.

My parents told me the gifts were from them, and I appreciated them for it--not some mythical being.  Christmas for devout Christians is a remembrance of Jesus and not the celebration of fairy tales.


Absent the original golden plates, which translation of the Book of Mormon is considered to be the "official" version?

The latest edition of the Book of Mormon can be considered the official version. When translating the Book of Mormon into another language:

  The two or three people who are selected as translators team up with others in doing the work. They have Church headquarters supervisors, local reviewers, a lexicon for reference,6 translation guides, computer programs, and ecclesiastical support that extends all the way to the First Presidency. ... This doesn’t mean that a translation is perfect when first completed. Often, time and further reviews by those studying the scriptures suggest improvements in grammar and vocabulary or find typesetting or spelling mistakes. Rarely, changes are made in the explication of doctrine. When these are made, they are made under the guidance of the First Presidency.

See the articles Scripture Translation into the Language of the Heart or Every Man in His Own Language for further details on the translation process.

6 The lexicon defines every word in the English scriptures so translators can better understand the meaning of the words. Often, words have more than one meaning, so translators must depend on context, inspiration, and teamwork to identify the right solution. Occasionally, questions about meaning are resolved only by the First Presidency.