How does one reconcile Sola Fide with the parable of the talents?

Sola Fide answers "how do you get saved."

The parable of the talents addresses, what is my reward, once I am saved.

Even the most Calvinistic sole ride adherent still believes that you should work for the kingdom. Whether or not you get to heaven may not be in your control, but how well you have pleased the Master once you are there most certainly is.

The beauty of the parable of the talents is not that we can earn anything- indeed, it would be assumed that the Master could handle his own assets best of all. Rather, that we as servants of the most high have the privilege of participating in the work of Christ is pretty cool. True gratitude for the ability to do anything is evidenced by labor for the Kingdom. And again, that God would allow us to join Him in what we do is supposed to "spur us on to good works."

Does God need us? No more than a dad needs a toddler. Does anything we do make him love us more or less? NOt at all.

But God likes us and let's us try. How cool is that?


These sorts of questions are always difficult to answer as they often require an understanding of God's sovereignty which in many ways is incomprehensible. What a wise being with infinite wisdom, knowledge of all and unlimited power can orchestrate, manipulate, foresee and advert etc. is impossible for us to ponder. In this sense virtually any external event may be used for some higher good as part of the divine 'emergency recovery operations' of a fallen world, even a global catastrophe like a global flood can have its purpose. Yet none of this is 'God's will' in the sense that we benefit from knowing if it is, or not.

However I think your specific question can side step the regular difficulties as you seem to be asking about God's direct will which can be determined to some degree. This is 'God's will' in the sense that he wants us to know it and that knowledge would be beneficial to us. Well from this standpoint his will is that we do not sin.  This really is God's will in the main sense.  We often get lost thinking philosophically about his hidden will, but we only need to concern ourselves with his clear will.  His will is that we love God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourselves, and these we can only do by faith in Christ as the atoning sacrifice for our sin.

So the question to ask is did an event come about by sin, or by love.  In whatever sense global warming has or will come about by greed it would not be God's will.  If it partially comes about because of attempts to secure shelter, safety and general prosperity for the poor, by faith in Christ it is God's will.

Unfortunately when we limit God's will to this clear scope most everything that happens in the world every day is not God's direct will.  It therefore makes the question less relevant as the answer is almost always no.

God's will will be followed in heaven.  Until then to whatever degree we rely on the death of Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and so in gratitude to his grace love and delight in God and become generous and kind to our neighbor, being also gracious to them by enjoying them in any way we can while publishing Christ's dying love, we are growing more and more in line with God's will.  But even then everything we do, wether eating or drinking has mixed motives in it, so part of our loyalty to our boss may be God's will and part fleshly and not his will.

You see it is all about the heart so we will only know in heaven what was God's will and what was not because our hearts are deceitful.  Most likely whatever seemed most like God's will on earth, as viewed by the world, we may find was not. It is by faith we see his will and by faith that we do it.


What is the biblical basis to either consider tattoos acceptable or not?

The prohibition against tattoos comes from Leviticus 19:28 (ESV):

  You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo
  yourselves: I am the Lord.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses have anyone recognized as a "prophet", or what kind of titles do they use?

Do you use any other titles ("Reverend"/"Prophet"/"Elder"/etc.) when referring to those who are currently, or have been in the past, in high standing in your organization?

"Brother" and "Sister" are the only titles we use if we're referring to a specific person. There are some "job titles" though, which refer to the responsibilities that person has. We don't use their "job title" unless we need to clarify their role to the person we're speaking to.

For example:

Governing Body member - one of the brothers who meets to discuss organizational changes and refinements in the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Bethelite - A brother or sister who works full-time at a Bethel facility or remotely.
Circuit Overseer - the brother who visits and cares for about 20 congregations within a specific region along with his wife. He also appoints elders and ministerial servants.
Elder - A brother who cares for the needs of those in the congregation and handles judicial matters along with the other elders in the congregation. They can give talks at meetings.
Ministerial Servant - A brother who assists the congregation and the elders and also gives talks at the congregation meetings.
Pioneer - A brother or sister who works in the ministry full-time with a goal of at least 70 hours per month.

For more information, there's "Should Christians Use Religious Titles?"

  Do you consider anybody currently alive, or anyone who has been on earth since Jesus, to be a prophet (someone put in position by God to foretell future events)?

There were some prophets in the first-century congregations after Jesus ascended to heaven (1 Corithians 12:28), but nobody within Jehovah's Witnesses has ever prophesied. Following the completion of the Bible, there was no more need for prophets, as the scriptures make us "fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16, 17)

  Do you consider any current or past JWs to have been infallible?

No. Infallibility belongs only to Jehovah God. Even Satan, a perfect angel, was evidently not infallible. Likewise, the apostles sinned at times. The Governing Body is also not infallible. Only through holy spirit can ones be protected from error, because holy spirit comes from God.

  Do you have any books or other writings that are considered sacred or infallible (excluding the Bible)?

No. Infalibility is once again reserved only for God's Word, the Bible. The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses have been known to change over time, and our publications have never claimed infallibility. The Bible is our only source of truth.


Did Jesus die on the cross crucified or was he hung to death from a tree?

The Greek word translated as "cross" is σταυρός (Strong's G4716 - stauros). It is used exclusively (17 times) in the Gospels to refer to the method by which Jesus was killed, and in almost all other instances, except:

  The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
  -- Acts 5:30 (KJV)

  And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
  -- Acts 10:39 (KJV)

Both record Peter's words. The first, when he testified concerning Jesus before the Jewish leaders, "whom YE slew"; and the second just before the Holy Spirit fell upon all the Gentile believers. On the second occasion, Peter says, "whom THEY slew", but it is a generic "they" because there is nothing in his speech that identifies who the "they" are. However, his audience knew.

It is clear from this that Peter wanted to advertise the fact that those responsible for precipitating Jesus' death, had done a despicable thing.
The "despicable thing" Peter was referring to is explained by Paul, when he says:

  Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
  -- Galatians 3:13 (KJV)

Paul joins Peter in alluding to the same despicable method of dying, by pointing out that the manner of Jesus' death made him accursed -- "despised and rejected" as it was given by the prophet (Isaiah 53
:3).
In 1 Peter 2:24, Peter again uses this expression:

  Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

  27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him. ...
  29And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
  -- Acts 13:27,29 (KJV)

Like Peter, Paul is drawing attention to the despicable nature of what the perpetrators, "they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers", had done.

If this were the only record of Paul concerning how Jesus was killed, then there might be some doubt, but since he uses cross σταυρός on all but one occasion throughout his epistles (10 times), from his testimony the matter is clearly settled -- Jesus was killed on a cross.

Conclusion

Jesus was killed on a cross -- a cross is not a tree, but is made from a tree -- and for the purpose of opening the eyes of the perpetrators, to the despicable nature of what they had done to a man "who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him", Peter, and Paul (twice from twelve references) have depicted it as being hung "on a tree", which all who were familiar with the Torah would have understood as an accursed way to be put to death (Deuteronomy 21:23).


Why is globalization the mark of the beast?

Good questions I think we can glean two questions here

what is globalization and 2 - is it the mark of the beast

The Bible says

  "Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If
  anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his
  forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of
  the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of
  His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the
  presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb."
  Revelation 14:9-10

Here I think anyone can agree that if anyone receives this mark, whatever it is, they would be lost, for that is what the Bible says.  So based on what that pastor was saying if you receive globalization, you would be lost, eternally separated from God.  Based on Revelation 14:9-10 it is clear that whoever receives this mark would be separated from God, but that begs the question, what separates us from God, Biblically?  The Bible gives us the answer when it says

  "Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened, That it cannot save; Nor
  His ear heavy, That it cannot hear. But your iniquities have separated
  you from your God; And your sins have hidden His face from you, So
  that He will not hear." (Isaiah 59:1-2)

There is one thing that separates us from God, sin.  Therefore to receive this mark of the beast must be a sin.  That begs the question what is sin as defined not by man but by the Bible?  The Bible gives us a definition when it says

  Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the
  transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4)

The mark of the beast, is something that separates us from God, it is a sin, and sin is defined as breaking one of God's ten commandments, which are still binding up Christians (see Matthew 5:17-20).  Is globalization itself a sin, that would earn us a spot in hell?  Perhaps more realistically what the pastor meant to say was that globalization is preparing the way for the mark of the beast for it is written

  He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to
  receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads,  and that no
  one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the
  beast, or the number of his name. (Revelation 13:16-17)

So there will be a worldwide commandment regarding worship, which breaks one of God's commandments that will be enforced using the economy (no buying or selling).  Do we know of a law like that now?  No.  But globalization is preparing the way for a law like that.  For a more in-depth study and to know exactly who the beast is and what is his mark may I recommend this great Christian website - http://www.666truth.org/ .  God bless!

Regarding your questions in the comments, it can be confusing because so many people break the 10 commandments constantly, but for those who love Jesus it should not be so for Jesus said "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." (John 14:21)  In fact while we know that those who receive the mark of the beast break one of God's commandments during a time of economic persecution, right after the warning about the mark of the beast the next verse says

  "Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the
  commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." (Revelation 14:12)

This brings us hope, for while it will appear that the whole world will follow the beast, John saw a small class "who have the victory over the beast, over his image and over his mark and over the number of his name, standing on the sea of glass, having harps of God." (Revelation 15:2)  Could it be that John saw you?  You can be one of those individuals, redeemed and saved from sin by the power of the blood of Jesus Christ.  All the promises of the word of God are yours.

  "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that
  by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped
  the corruption that is in the world through lust." (2 Peter 1:4)

I have no hesitancy in telling you that in order to obtain the immortal inheritance and the eternal substance, you must be overcomers in this probationary life. Everything that blots and stains the soul must be removed, must be cleansed from the heart. We must know what it means to be a partaker of the divine nature, having escaped the corruptions that are in the world through lust. Are you willing to wage war against the lusts of the flesh? Are you ready to battle against the enemy of God and man? Satan is determined to enslave every soul if he can; for he is playing a desperate game to win the souls of men from Christ and eternal life. Will you permit him to steal from you the graces of the Spirit of God, and plant in you his own corrupt nature? or will you accept the great provision of salvation, and through the merits of the Infinite Sacrifice made in your behalf, become a partaker of the divine nature? God has given His only-begotten Son, that through His shame, suffering, and death, you might have glory, honor, and immortality.

Satan claims this world as his own, but Christ has redeemed it through His sacrifice.  Revelation 13 tells us that during the final crisis Satan will attempt to get every individual on the planet to break the commandments of God at the same time.  Some may ask which commandment would Satan attempt to force individuals to break?  The Bible gives us a clue when it says

  "If anyone worships the beast and his image" (Revelation 14:9)

Satan will give a counterfeit commandment regarding worship.  If you look at the 10 commandments, the first four commandments, thou shall have no other gods before me, no idols, do not take the name of the Lord in vain, remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, these four commandments deal with worship.  The last six, honor your father and your mother, you shall not murder, commit adultery, steal, bear false witness and covet, these deal with our relationship between men. Therefore the mark of the beast must deal with one of the first four commandments.  There is much more to share, but I have to go to work at the moment, this resource has more information - http://www.666truth.org/history/666-and-the-mark.aspx

May the Lord bless you as you follow Him!


What is the meaning and origin of bridal veils in Christian weddings?

Tertullian.sayeth

Let virgins alone be veiled, and this when they are coming to be married, and not till they have recognised their destined husband
De Corona

Owing to a  lack of exact biblical instructions for the performing of rite of matrimony found on the Bible. One of the instructions clearly found in the Bible is that after a marriage is settled, it is good that a woman should cease to be a virgin. So she can take off her veil.
Mr. Tertullian goes on to explain how reason can and should play a role in keeping traditions not found in the law.

tradition has given the fashion in question to custom, to find subsequently (its authorization in) the apostle's sanction, from the true interpretation of reason. This instances, therefore, will make it sufficiently plain that you can vindicate the keeping of even unwritten tradition established by custom; the proper witness for tradition when demonstrated by long-continued observance
ibid

so, this answer is probably lacking in the pre-Christian historicity, (although he makes mention of Rebecca and Susannah) but it is probably foundational for most of Christendom, and the logic applies to much more than just wearing bridal veils.


What is the current stance of the Catholic Church regarding the legality of non-Catholic religions?

it would seem that Pius IX orders that all religions bar Catholicism are to be declared illegal by the State.

States are to prevent false religions from publicly spreading their errors, but the false sects can be tolerated. Unlike Islam, Catholicism does not permit States to force-convert its citizens to Catholicism.

In fact, in medieval Christendom when the State recognized the Church as the true religion, Jews were permitted to raise their children in Judaism as long as they did not spread their errors and heresies publicly in society. It is also forbidden to baptize children of unbelievers against their will.

The main point of Pope Pius IX's statements is that States are able to recognize Catholicism as the true religion and are obliged, for the sake of the common good, to suppress false sects and prevent them from spreading their dangerous errors and heresies.

The contradiction you mention between pre- and post-Vatican II teachings on Church-State relations is one reason the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and other groups think that Vatican II taught error and was therefore an invalid council. For example, read ch. 11 "Religious Liberty" of the SSPX's founder Abp. Marcel Lefebvre's Open Letter to Confused Catholics.

Compare what I number below in the Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanæ (7 Dec. 1965):

  This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom [1]. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly [2], whether alone or in association with others, within due limits [3].
  …
  This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right [2].

to my corresponding numbers in Pope Pius IX's encyclical Quanta Cura:

  For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require [3]." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity" [cf. his Mirari Vos],2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society [1]; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly [2] to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."4

and to his Syllabus of Errors, which condemned the following:

  Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. [1]—Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

  …

  X. ERRORS HAVING REFERENCE TO MODERN LIBERALISM

  In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.—Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.
  Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise [2] of their own peculiar worship.—Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.
  Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty [1] of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.—Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.
  The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.—Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.

(Taken from here, which is nicely color-coded; unfortunately, StackExchange markdown doesn't support colors.)

Despite the SSPX asking for doctrinal clarity, the post-Vatican II magisterium has yet to clarify exactly how Dignitatis Humanæ is in continuity with 19th century popes' magisterial statements. In fact, Cdl. Ratzinger said the Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes is a "counter-Syllabus" of Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors. Since the Church's ordinary and universal magisterium is infallible (i.e., cannot error), it follows that the Vatican II document on this issue is not magisterial.

A dangerous consequence of Dignitatis Humanæ was that States with constitutions that recognized the Catholic Church as the true religion (e.g., Spain) felt compelled to change their constitutions to view all religions equally.

cf. also these encyclicals condemning modern errors


What are the differences between Roman Catholic and Irish Catholic?

Irish Catholic is just a cultural distinction.

There is an Anglican Church of Ireland which might consider itself truly Irish-Catholic in the sense that on England they'd call themselves Anglo-Catholic. But, that's not what people mean when they say Irish Catholic, they mean Roman Catholic or as Catholics prefer to say, Catholic.

There are other countries/regions where having Catholic after the name is actually indicative of being another Rite of the church.  Assyrian Catholic, Ethiopian Catholic etc... They are still in communion (subscribing to the same teachings) with the Church in Rome.

American Catholic, on the other hand, is a schismatic group that is not in communion with the Church in Rome.


What in Christian faith lies behind subject of science?

By the word science I understand it as a discipline of studying the physical world, or possible metaphysical world (like the mind) expressed in observable physics. Then by these objective observations, experiments, which must be repeatable, draw logical deductions and inferences. These in turn lead to more study, testing, conclusions until a body of knowledge and beliefs are developed which explain large portions of observed phenomena in the material world.

In what sense does Christian faith fall under this discipline? I would say in a few ways and sense.

First, in analyzing the scriptures and determining which translation is the most accurate of the original is according to a scientific discipline.  This naturally brings our faith in some sense under science because the scriptures determine what our faith is.

Secondly, though to a much lesser extent the study of history, where texts outside of scripture are evaluated for trustworthiness by scientific comparison to other know facts of history, influences what many Christians believe.  This historical science provides context for how many scriptures might be properly interpreted.

Third, in the same way that philosophy can follow rules about what is logical, what is a fallacy, etc. Christian theology based on its premises can is some sense become more disciplined and rigorous to ensure the thought patters or not illogical and that biblical texts and assumed beliefs are not developed under dishonest forms of reasoning. From this standpoint religious beliefs can spout from observed phenomena, such as for every good design, there is high probability that there is an architect or designer.

However, with all these aspects where Christian faith is influenced or in some sense brought under science, it is probably truer to say that it is brought under science only from the standpoint that it respects reason in whatever valid shape one might find it.

When turning to the scripture itself, science is considered, as a lower form of knowledge and biblical faith is a higher and more certain form of knowledge. In other words the knowledge that we can obtain from observing what is not seen, is greater than what we can achieve from what is seen:

  Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)

The scripture treats knowledge that comes from God through the Bible as a light.  It means this in a literal sense, whereby the knowledge we might obtain by light, or the sight which we can obtain, is not possible but by faith.  Therefore to simply things, the Bible describes a scientist without faith as more or less a man who is literally blind to higher forms of knowledge. He can see the physical world but not the spiritual.  No matter how hard he tries to ‘see’ he can’t because he has no ‘light’.

Naturally the result is that such a blind mind concludes the gospel is just foolishness because he can’t see it:

  The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14)

The Greek root of the word ‘discerned’ means to investigate, or appraise. In this sense those without faith are not able to judge, evaluate, or discern the meaning of what is certain and true about God because it seems foolish from beginning to end, having no light which alone comes from faith in the gospel.

Conclusion: There are aspects where Christian faith is under science, these occur where physical and logical elements overlap or influence Christian thinking. Christian faith by nature puts itself above reason and science, and what can be seen with the eye altogether, for it fixes itself upon God, who is above all things whatsoever.


How to pronounce references in the Bible?

Second Maccabees seven one and twenty through thirty-one.

Or to be more explicit:

  Second Maccabees chapter seven, verses one and twenty through thirty-one.


Is there any Scriptural support for claims about Jesus appearing to Muslims in dreams and visions?

Nowhere in the Bible will you read of any prophecy about Jesus appearing to Muslims in dreams and visions.  Perhaps that’s because Islam (and Muslims) did not exist till the 7th century.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#History
The first-hand evidence you provided of Jesus appearing to Muslims in dreams and visions is overwhelming and undeniable.  There can be no dispute that such miraculous events happen today.  It is also worth mentioning that such dreams and visions are not exclusive to Muslims.  But if you want parallels or prophecies of this from the Bible, then you must realise that the words Muslim, Mohammed or Islam are not to be found in either the Old or the New Testaments.
Acts 2:17 quotes a prophesy from Joel 2:28, which says this:

In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people.  Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.

The prophecy in Joel does not say that people would have visions of Jesus, because Jesus had not yet appeared in the flesh.   In the past people had visions of God and since the incarnation people are now having visions of Jesus.  The key point of this particular prophecy which pertains to the last days is “ALL people”, which embraces Muslims.
The Old Testament records visions and dreams given to a variety of people.   The Lord spoke directly to Job out of a storm in order to chasten him (Job 40:6).  Eliphaz the Temanite (one of Job’s comforters) had a most fearful dream in the night, and a word was brought to him:

A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end.  It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A form stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice: Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?  (Job 4:12-17)

Dreams and visions were given to Joseph and Pharaoh (Genesis 37 and 41) and to Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel chapters 2 and 4).  They all came from God, usually as warnings.  These days, God communicates to us through his Son (Hebrews 1:1-2), sometimes through dreams and visions.


What is the Christological difference between the early Church fathers and the Arians?

First of all, there was no Arianism prior to Arius because Arianism started with Arius.Arius began to teach a new teaching. He taught that the Logos had a beginning of existence.Although some scholars like Alexander Vasiliev refers to Lucian as the Arius before Arius.This merely shows that Lucian hold onto a proto-Arianism (source).

Arius was condemned while Justin, Theophilus, Dionysius, and pre-Nicene Fathers were considered Orthodox because the former denied consubstantiality (oneness in essence) of the Father and the Son while the latter supported it.

In Dialogue with Trypho Ch. 128 , Justin Martyr said: “this power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father" and  “begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided,”

The Alexandrian Dionysius used the term "same substance," but refused to rely on it theologically because the word was not used in any biblical text (source).

Theophilus of Antioch spoke of the Logos as begotten from the substance (ousia) of the Father (source).

Athenagoras ( A.D. 177) wrote:

  "We acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassable
  [i.e., not subject to suffering], incomprehensible, illimitable … by
  whom the universe has been created through his Logos … We acknowledge
  also a Son of God. Nor let anyone think it ridiculous that God should
  have a Son … the Son of God is the Logos of the Father. If … it occurs
  to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that
  he is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into
  existence, for from the beginning God, who is the eternal mind, had
  theLogos in himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos. (Plea
  for the Christians ch. 10)

Some of the pre-nicene fathers were subordinationists yet they still adhere to Jesus as "God of God." Gregory Thaumaturgus, Irenaeus, Athenagoras and others taught that the Son is eternally begotten from the Father not created from nothing. On the other hand, Arius introduced a completely alien thought to the church by teaching that the Logos had a beginning of existence, created from nothing.


Was regular weekly fasting a widespread, formal tradition in the early Church?

As far as we can tell, Christian twice-weekly fasting was based on Jewish twice-weekly fasting. Given the later tension between Jews and Christians, this makes an early adoption date likely.

Further evidence comes from the Didache (dating probably to the first century):

  Your fasts should not be with the hypocrites, for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays. You should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays. (8.1)

This passage seems to indicate that a formal twice-weekly fast was the norm—a practice which appears to be analogous to (but distinct from) the Jewish practice.


How much variation is in the Hebrew language of the Old Testament?

Overview of Hebrew history
Although not specifically asked for, it is profitable to start with a brief overview of the history of the Hebrew language.  For more details on the subject, see A History of the Hebrew Language by A. Sáenz-Badillo (from which the following information comes).
Hebrew is a member of the Semitic language family, a group of about 70 languages historically spoken in Northeast Africa and the Middle East.  According to the field of Linguistics, the Semitic languages derive from a single mother language, labelled as Proto-Semitic.  Although unattested from archaeology, linguists have largely reconstructed the language and believe it was spoken throughout the region from 3500-3000 BC.
Around 3000 BC, the oldest Semitic language, Akkadian split off in the east.  The northwestern (which includes Hebrew) and southern branches split around 2000 BC.  The Canaanite languages in the north then diverged from Arabic in the central region.  In the far north, the cultural center of Damascus eventually enabled the local dialect, Aramaic, to become the lingua franca of the north.  The lack of a major political center to the west meant that none of the other Canaanite dialects achieved dominance.  Thus each area had its own language, although they were mostly mutually intelligible.  (Biblical Hebrew shares ~80% words in common with nearby languages such as Phoenician and Ugaritic.)
It is hard to say exactly when Hebrew became a distinct language.  The oldest accepted inscription dates from 1000 BC, but the archaeological record for the second millennium BC is pretty sparse in the area, so it could have diverged earlier than that.  The oldest form of Hebrew is generally labelled proto-Hebrew or Archaic Biblical Hebrew (ABH).  Conventional wisdom is that this form is represented in the Bible in only a few poetic passages.
The form of Hebrew used from ~950 BC until the start of the Babylonian exile in 586 BC is known as Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH), Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH), or Early Biblical Hebrew (EBH).  During this period, the language shows minimal outside influence.  For example, there are few attested loanwords.  This form of Hebrew is certainly found in the Bible, although there are disagreements about just how much of the Old Testament is written in EBH.  (More on this in later sections.)
The period from the Babylonian exile until about Alexander conquered Judah in 332 BC saw the use of what is known as Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH).  This period shows influence from Persian and to a lesser degree Aramaic.  The majority of the Old Testament is usually assigned to this period. (Again, see below for a critique of this position and further details.)
Hebrew from 332 BC until the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD is labeled Dead-Sea-Scroll Hebrew, so named because it is primarily attested to from the Dead Sea Scrolls.  This period saw heavy influence from Aramaic and some influence from Greek.
The final period of Ancient Hebrew is known as Mishnaic Hebrew and lasts until the 2nd or 3rd century AD, when the language ceased to exist as a spoken language.  Hebrew remained a scholarly language, however, leading to Medieval Hebrew.  Finally, a resurgence in interest in the language in the 19th century led to the creation of Modern Hebrew which again became a living language, culminating in the (re-)creation of the Israeli state in 1948.
It should be noted that the above distinctions and especially the start/end dates are for convenience - people obviously did not just stop speaking a language one day.  Language change is a slow process that is only observable in retrospect.
Difficulties of dating the Old Testament
Having now outlined different periods of Hebrew, one might think it would now be easy to get a rough idea when a book was written.  One would be wrong, as there are several significant difficulties in dating based on linguistics. Among them, Craig Davis (Dating the Old Testament) lists:

The corpus to compare from is extremely small.  In particular, the entirety of the extra-Biblical pre-exhilic text amounts to a couple pages worth.  This makes it very difficult to say how much variation is from different authorial styles and genres and how much is from language change.

It is possible that later writers purposely imitated the style of the older, accepted texts.

There is solid evidence that it was acceptable for scribes to update the text, at minimum in regards to spelling and possibly also word choice and grammar, for a period of time.

Our understanding of the language's history has been derived primarily from the estimated (on other grounds) dates of Biblical books, making linguistic arguments "confirming" such dates in danger of exhibiting circular reasoning.

To this Gary Rendsburg ("Late Biblical Hebrew and the Date of 'P'"), based on the work of Joshua Blau, adds:

The difference between different Biblical texts is unexpectedly slight.  That is, the language is largely uniform despite surely spanning at least several hundred years.

Proposed differences
To simplify things a bit, scholars generally divide the Old Testament into just two categories: Early Biblical Hebrew and Late Biblical Hebrew.  In 1976, Robert Polzin (Late Biblical Hebrew) attempted to systematically define the differences between EBH and LBH by comparing Chronicles with Kings & Samuel.  The approach has some merit: Chronicles being significantly more recent than Kings/Samuel is one of the few relative dates that don't rely on presuppositions and\or the reliability/historicity of internal evidence (Chronicles is certainly dependent on Kings/Samuel).  It also has a significant weakness: Chronicles copies wholesale from Kings in places and also says it is utilizing other sources, so it is hard to say how much of the language is contemporary and how much comes from sources.
Anyway, Polzin's work attracted a significant amount of attention, so it is worth looking at his conclusions.  He proposes 19 differences in LBH as compared to EBH based on his study.
A. Differences not from Aramaic influence:

Radically reduced use of 'et with pronominal suffix.
Increased use of 'et before noun in the nominative case: 'et emphatic.
Expression of possession by prospective pronominal suffix with a following noun, or lə plus noun, or sel plus noun.
Collectives are construed as plurals almost without exception.
A preference for plural forms of words and phrases which the earlier
languages uses in the singular.
The use of an infinitive absolute in immediate connection with a finite verb of the same stem is almost completely lacking in the Chronicler; the infinitive absolute used as a command is not found at all in Chronicles.
The Chronicler's use of the infinitive construct with bə, and kə; as Segal (l927) points out, the later books of the OT show less frequent use of the infinitive construct with bə and kə even in the cases when LBH does use the introductory infinitive with bə, and kə, the usage is different from earlier constructions.
Repetition of a singular word = Latin quivis (to express distributive).
The Chronicler shows a merging (i.e., a tendency to replace) the third feminine plural suffix with the third masculine plural suffix.
The first person singular imperfect with -ah (the lengthened imperfect or cohortative) is found but once in the Chronicler's language.
The use of wayhi greatly recedes in Chronicles and in the younger language.
In appositional relationship the Chronicler prefers to place the substantive before the numeral and almost always puts it in the plural; this is contrary to the older practice of putting the number first.
The Chronicler shows an increased use of the infinitive construct with lə.

B. Differences from Aramaic influence:

In citing material and its weight or measure, the Chronicler often has the order, material weighed or measured + its weight or measure (+ number).
lə is used often as a mark of the accusative.
In min 'from', the nun is often not assimilated before a noun without an article.
The Chronicler uses the emphatic lə before the last element of a list.
In an attributive usage, rabbim is twice placed before the substantive.
The use of 'ad lə, [for 'up to', 'until'].

Few, if any, scholars have accepted all the criteria as being valid markers of EBH vs LBH, as opposed to authorial style (or nothing at all).  However, many have accepted at least some of them.  For example, Rendsburg finds A1, A5, B2, & B3 to be correct; A2, A4, A6, A11, A13, & B5 to be unconvincing and/or likely to be from authorial style; A7 & A8 to be mixed (true for some expressions, invalid for others); and A3, A9, A10, A12, B1, & B4 to be completely invalid.  (For a more detailed statistical analysis of Polzin's conclusions, see "Dating Second Zechariah: A
Linguistic Reexamination.")
Subsequent researchers (Avi Hurvitz is a leader in this area) have come up with other markers by broadening the number of texts for comparison in each category.  Unfortunately, using more texts to form hypotheses leaves less texts to test the hypotheses generated and creates more danger of conclusions thus being entirely circular.
More recent work
The 2003 volume Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (ed. Ian Young) attempted to provide an overview of current scholarship by presenting essays from people with a variety of views on Biblical Hebrew.  In the process, the work reignited debate in the field about how valid the existing paradigm really was.
The first half of the the work presents the views of those who support the "standard" chronological framework.  These essays primarily focus on loanwords and "Aramaicisms" to support the critical view of most of the Old Testament being dated late.  At least one contributor, Frank Polak, does make an argument on grammar, but it isn't the dominant tactic.  This suggests to me that efforts to define clear, grammatical difference between EBH and LBH, like those outlined in the previous section, have largely failed to produce persuasive evidence.
The second half of the work presents essays by scholars who challenge the "standard" chronological framework.  These authors don't find any substantial difference between Biblical texts (in contrast with, for example, noticeable differences between the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls).  They variously argue that this means that EBH continued to be used in literary circles in the post-exhilic times or that the language changes of the period were primarily phonetic and thus not reflected in the written text.
Further work by Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts) has proposed a new idea: the so-called EBH and LBH variations don't represent different time periods, but rather dialectal variants that co-existed throughout the Biblical period.  A chief tenant of their argument is that texts typically labelled as LBH almost universally contain some so-called EBH elements, a fact that supporters of the chronological framework readily admit but attribute to intentional "archaicizing" or "patriarchal coloring".
They challenge whether the accepted LBH features actually mean anything or are just the result of statistical anomalies.  Given a small corpus and a predetermination that certain texts are late/early, there are bound to be some features that occur much more often in one set than the other, even if there is no real difference in the language used.  They note that conclusions about dating are often circular arguments. For example, Job is supposed to be a late work, so the small amount of late elements in it proves the author was trying to imitate earlier styles but failed to do so completely, while Kings is supposed to be an early work, so the small amount of late elements it in must be from later scribal changes.  (Their analysis shows that every book of the Old Testament contains at least some so-called LBH features.)
Young et al. suggest such data is more easily explained by multiple dialects of Hebrew being in active use rather than by authors imitating old grammar.  From there, they strongly challenge the idea that the amount of loanwords in a text is a reliable indication of date.  For example, they show that many works universally dated late have few or no loanwords.  They also challenge how reliably one can really determine loanwords from Persian, noting that certain words in early texts could be considered loanwords based on having the same form, but are rejected as such because borrowing is considered impossible for the time period.  (They also say that dating by Aramaicisms is already out-of-style, so spend little time on it.)
Naturally, the work of Young et al. has been challenged by those who hold other views.  For example, the 2012 compilation Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew is largely a response to Young's critiques, featuring essay that seek to defend the chronological framework with more vigorous methodology.  The dialects hypothesis certainly has not displaced the chronology framework, but the work has had a noticeable effect.  Specifically, researchers are generally more cautious about drawing conclusions on linguistic evidence.  For example, Robert Holmstedt (who supports the chronological framework) writes:

In a nutshell, while we [Holmstedt and John Cook] agree with the weaker hypothesis that texts cannot be dated absolutely by linguistic means, we disagree with the stronger hypotheses is that no dating at all is possible and argue that the relative dating of features, and the texts in which they cluster, is possible if the analysis is carried out with a sound linguistic and philological methodology. ("Biblical Hebrew Diachrony (continued, again)")

A very recent work, Early Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, and Linguistic Variability takes yet another approach, seeking to explain the observed differences in style via sociolinguistics.  Author Dong-Hyuk Kim concludes that while to texts to exhibit changes that appear to be time-dependent, it is virtually impossible to use those clues to date a given work because it is impossible to say whether a given author was an early or late adopter of a particular feature.
In summary, I think it is fair to say that the question of how much linguistic difference between books of the Old Testament reflects language change is an open question with no strong consensus one way or another.
Conclusion
To directly answer the question of "How much variation is in the Hebrew Language of the Old Testament?" the answer is not much (after controlling for genre differences - naturally poetry uses quite different syntax than prose.)  Biblical scholars have proposed dividing the Biblical language into two basic categories - Early (pre-exhilic) Biblical Hebrew and Late (post-exhilic) Biblical Hebrew.  A number of markers have been proposed, but there is a wide variation between scholars as to which constitute useful markers and which are false positives.  Nonetheless, for a while this distinction was generally accepted as valid.
More recently, the framework has come under attack on the basis of it being largely based on circular reasoning - text dates were largely decided before the markers were identified and those dates were used to search for the linguistic differences.  Furthermore, the small corpus makes any conclusions quite tentative.  Thus, there is significant doubt about the applicability of using linguistic clues to date the Old Testament.
That is not to say Hebrew did not evolve over the Biblical period - it certainly did.  But, the change was probably not very substantial and what change there was is not well reflected in the Bible because of a combination of literary Hebrew not matching spoken Hebrew, authors possibly using archaic forms on purpose, and scribes possibly updating texts over time.
Sources

"Biblical Hebrew Diachrony (continued, again)" (2011) by Robert Holmstedt

Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (2003) by Ian Young (ed.)

Dating the Old Testament (2007) by Craig Davis

Early Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, and Linguistic Variability (2013) by Dong-Hyuk Kim

A History of the Hebrew Language (1993) by A.Sáenz-Badillos

Late Biblical Hebrew (1976) by Robert Polzin

"Late Biblical Hebrew and the Date of 'P'" (1980) by Gary Rendsburg

Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (2009) by Ian Young, Robert Rezetko, and Martin Ehrensvaerd


Key Verses
If any one is in Christ, he is a new Creation. Behold, the old things have passed away, the new is come.

2 Cor 5:17

As far as the east is from the west,
   so far has he removed our transgressions from us
- Psalm 103:12

Interpretation
So, the whole basis of the Gospel is grace - the unmerited favor of God towards sinners.  Grace is the complete forgiveness of sin, and a core tenet of the Gospel is that God's grace is abundant.  Put simply, there is no sin that God cannot forgive. (I know, somebody's going to link to the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, but that's not where I'm going.)  In forgiving us, God's design is to make us a new creation.

Whether forgiveness means that the sin is forgotten or merely paid for is irrelevant to the original question - does God care about what we were? Not in the plainest sense, no.  Its water under the bridge, so to speak.

If God's design then is that we are transformed into a new creation, it would seem silly to assume that God would spend much time caring about where we begin. Put another way, God is sufficiently focused on what he will make of us that it seems silly for him to focus on what we were when we came to him.

Now, here's where I'm going to shift from God's motivation to what I suspect is the real thrust of the quote - If God is more concerned about what he would make of us, then once we come to him, any time we spend focused on what we were is distraction.  We feel guilt and shame, to be sure, but the awesome news that is the Good News is this - God has forgiven us.

I'm trying not to preach here, but the point is so basic I think it needs to be made: God has forgiven our sin. What we were is no longer relevant. (It may have consequences in the temporal - not arguing that, I'm just saying, God is making us new.)  The theological import of the admonition is 100% right on - God doesn't care where we came from, because he wants to remake us into his new creation anyway.

One last avenue of argument - Temporal Omnipresence

Most Christians (Process Theologians excepted) would, I believe, argue that God is not constrained by time. Given temporal omnipresence, then, God would simultaneously see the sinner and the new creation.  If God is outside of time, not part of the timestream if you will, then there is no past or present for God - all time happens at once.  If that is the case, then it isn't possibly to for God to care where you came from or where you are going, because its all present tense to him.  Being that God loves us, he must care for us as we are along.


What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity consisting of different persons?

General references to there being separate personages in the Godhead.
Luke 3:21-22 (Matthew 3:13-17 similar story/wording)

21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

John 14:16,26,28 (I=Jesus)

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

John 15:26 (I=Jesus)

26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Acts 7:55-56

55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

the Father is not the Son

Matthew 26:39,42 (he=Jesus) (Luke 22:42 same story/similiar wording)

39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.

John 17:6-23 - won't quote here since it's long, but it is Jesus praying to the Father
John 20:17

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

John 8:17-18

17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

Mark 13:32

32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

the Son is not the Holy Spirit

John 16:7 (I=Jesus)

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

the Holy Spirit is not the Father

See John 15:26 (above)


How does Jesus fulfill the Protoevangelium (First Gospel) in Genesis 3:15?

Gospel means "good news." Understood rightly, this bit of news to Adam and Eve was certainly good news. The snake - the epitome of sin - had tricked Adam and Eve. Because of the snake (and their own sinful actions, of course) they were being kicked out of the garden. By trying to become like God, they had become like the snake - sinful and evil.
But God promises to put enmity between them and the snake. He would pull them apart from their wretched connection to sin and death. How?
A savior. A promise. Importantly, not Adam. Adam and Eve weren't going to get themselves out of this mess. Their offspring would. An offspring who would be born through the humiliating and painful process that God had just described to Eve a few verses back (the curse of the pain of childbirth). An offspring who would be injured by the snake (crushed on the heel) but who would, ultimately, crush the head of the snake.
What makes this the first gospel is of course the gold mine of promise beneath the metaphorical literary layer. The offspring of Eve would destroy the snake who brought Adam and Eve to sin and death, and in doing so separate them from that sin and death. He would undergo pain in the process, but it would be a trivial wound (on the heel) versus the mortal blow on the head.
Jesus was Eve's offspring, naturally. He was born to a virgin, was the son of a carpenter, born in lowly Bethlehem, placed in a manger, and raised in despicable Nazareth. He was born in a state of humility.
He was despised. He was beaten. He was killed on a Roman cross, the death for traitors and murderers. He temporarily went through Hell for his people. Satan had indeed bruised his heel, but that death had paid for the sins of his people.
And when Christ rose from the dead on the third day, he conquered death. He conquered the very thing Satan had brought into the world and brought back Adam and Eve to himself.

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Cor. 15:22


According to reformed theology, are _all_ wealthy Christians required to give their wealth to the poor?

It's important to note that the Mark passage records Jesus telling one specific person to sell all his possessions and give to the poor.  Jesus did not give this command to all people in all times.

It is inappropriate to take everything Jesus ever said to any person and attempt to apply it to all people for all times.  If we did that, then all of us would be under obligation to go into Jerusalem to get a donkey, throw our nets on the other side of the boat, get out of the boat and walk on water, and fill jars with water in order to get wine.

Jesus' direct command to the rich young ruler applied to that person.  Jesus, in His omniscience, may have understood that this man's wealth would be an insurmountable obstacle to his faith.  We don't know for sure, of course.

Generosity, as you reference in 1 John 3:17, is, however, commanded of all of those who are rich in this world and who are following Jesus.

It should be noted that a man who is wealthy and continues to grow his wealth over time can actually give exceedingly more and care for more poor people than a wealthy man who gives everything he has at a single point in time.

For instance, a man with $1 million could give it all away at one moment in time and help a certain amount of people.  Another man with $1 million, earning a 10% return on his investments, could give 100% of the increase a year in perpetuity.  That's $100,000 a year.  Ten years later, he's given $1 million and can continue giving for another ten or twenty or thirty years or more.

The command is not to become poor, but to be generous.  Money is not the root of all evil--only the love of money.


Is there a Christian philosopher who has published a book challenging compatibilism from the point of view of hard determinism?

I'm not aware of any Christian philosophers who take a hard-line determinist point of view.  Of course, no one has read everyone, so I can't say for sure, but it seems like a Christian philosopher who ultimately holds no one except God morally accountable for their actions might be hard to come by.  I'm not saying that the position doesn't have any logical foundation, but the position seems to undermine the foundation of the Christian story, i.e. that people have real choices


In "The Ball and the Cross" where did McIan go wrong?

I imagine that two important principles would be violated if Mr. McIan's philosophy were taken to its logical extreme:

Free Will (and thereby the loss of Love)
Religious Liberty (or liberty of conscience)

1)  In a world were no evil could take place, even in principle, there would be no place for truly freely given Love: which is to say, there would be no place for Love.  By its very nature, Love needs to be freely given.  The same is true of Loyalty, Respect, Admiration, etc.  But if there is no free will, these cannot exist.

2)  Once Free Will has been instituted, then it is possible for people to be so utterly lost as to not not be able to see or recognize Truth.  Indeed, it may come to pass (as it often does), that a person may confuse a lesser truth with Truth, and if in addition such a person has a healthy understanding of the proper response to Truth, may cling fiercely to this lesser truth with everything in their being.  The Catholic Church has come to accept that such a person cannot be taken out of error by force or violence: that every person deserves a right to follow his conscience (so long as no serious danger comes to others) as part of his human dignity given them by God himself.  Why afford such a lofty place to conscience? Because it is in the depths of our conscience that we meet God himself.  To be denied the right to follow our conscience is to be denied the right to meet God.  Yes, it is possible that the conscience of many persons is ill-formed; or that when people think they are following their consciences they are actually following something else (such as their ego).  But the significance of conscience is so great that this is a risk that must be taken.  We must prod the consciences of men, certainly; we must try to inform their consciences too.  But we cannot force belief into man and remain of God.

Why would Mr. McIan's viewpoint changed upon meeting the Old Man?  Barring miraculous intervention, I would guess it had to do with the most humble demeanor of the Old Man.  In spite of the obvious mystical nature of the Old Man, he nonetheless allowed himself the indignity of being imprisoned, and gave himself into the hands of the evil-doers.  Kind of like Christ that way, I would say.  And his faith remained, despite the ill-treatment.

I think the Old Man served as an example of the approach we should have about teaching The Faith: breaking things can break persons, and thus force their actions, but not their beliefs.

I say this as a Catholic man who is afraid of breaking things lest he offends people.  But I do believe in self-defense, and if people are breaking my God's things, I may just have to defend them.


Is God ever said to be a "soul" in the Scriptures?

There's a lot of parts to your question.  It confuses theology proper with anthropology without explicitly showing the connection.  Additionally, you mention a Greek word, which seems to preclude the Old Testament.  Regardless, you might find this verse interesting which includes the word "נֶפֶשׁ/nephesh":

  Isa 42:1 -- Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations.

There are many other verses where the Lord speaks of having a soul.  It really comes down to whether or not you are willing to take them anthropomorphically.  Even your typical trichotomist would deny that God is composed of parts though there may some other sense in which our being is analogous with his.


Is the main battle of the enemy for the mind?

This answer focuses on the first question, of whether or not the enemy's focus is on the mind.  Perhaps two questions could be made out of this.
It would seem that the main battle of the enemy is on truth in order to deceive the mind.
The Father of Distortion
In the Fall of Mankind, Satan's first statement was to question the truth of the Word of God.  He completely misquotes God, who did not say "You shall not eat of any tree in the garden" as he suggests, but actually said, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden..." except one.  So, Satan distorts the Word of God in order to attack the character of God, making Him out to be prohibitive in nature when He is actually generous in nature.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”  Genesis 3:1 ESV
“You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”  Genesis 2:16-17 ESV

The Father of Lies
Next, Satan asserts that there is no consequence to sin, and even asserts that sin will be to their benefit.  This is a complete lie, of course.  The truth is that there most certainly would be a consequence to sin.

But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”  Genesis 3:4-5 ESV

The Deception of the Mind
After this, the woman's mind was completely deceived, and it was at that point that she sinned against God.

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.

Conclusion
So, Satan's tactic was to deceive the woman.  She believed that God was not as good as she had thought He was.  She believed that there would be no consequence to sin.  She believed that God was withholding something good from her, and that she would actually gain from sin.
Satan is also called "the father of lies" (John 8:44) and "the Deceiver" (Revelation 12:9).  So, distorting the truth in order to deceive the mind is certainly a primary focus of his.
That makes Jesus' prayer in John 17 all the more instructive, that we are sanctified by the truth, and the Word of God is truth.  (John 17:17)


Do any Christian groups sell all their possessions as it seems the Early Church did?

I don't know if there are any denominational-scale organizations that practice this, but there are certainly churches and other Christian organizations that practice this.

The Bruderhof may be a good example of this. My family lived in a Bruderhof community for a few months when I was growing up, as my father was doing some work (writing a book) for them.

Later, a Mennonite church I used to attend had previously lived like this, in community, requiring all members to donate all of their earnings to the church, which in turn provided the bare essentials for living (home, groceries, etc), and gave the rest away.

They eventually gave up that practice for legal and tax reasons, and reverted to individual ownership, but with a spirit of giving.

In both cases, the church/community owned shared property, and was responsible for providing for the needs of the church members. In the case of the Bruderhof, the church also owned land for growing crops, a furniture factory, and perhaps other businesses, which were then used to sell goods to the general public, and provide for the needs of the community.

I think it won't be hard to find examples of Christian communes living in a spirit of "complete giving" in various parts of the world.

A google search for "Intentional Christian Community" finds various resources on this type of living, and may help you further in your search.


Wesley and Whitfield were Englishmen, and staunch members of their national Church. Wesley spent two years in America. Whitfield made prolonged visits to America on seven occasions, and died during his last. Likely they could, if they had wished, have founded churches with a congregational polity, but nothing could have been further from their minds. Wesley was not a denominationalist, never mind a congregationalist.

Methodism was a movement and Society within the Church of England,  not a rival to it.Methodist meetings were never timed to coincide with services in the parish Church, and members were strongly urged to attend both, and certainly to take Holy Communion in the C of E. Methodist leaders, unless episcopally ordained in the Established Church, were known as lay preachers, and never presided at Communion.

Not only did Wesley believe schism was evil in itself, he believed it would be disastrous in practice. For Methodists to leave the Church would be "like throwing balls of wildfire", stir up bitterness, split Methodism, hinder preaching, consume and waste time and energy and deny people the chance to hear the gospel.

See http://anglicanhistory.org/wesley/reasons1760.html

and http://www.umcmission.org/Find-Resources/John-Wesley-Sermons/Sermon-75-On-Schism

It was developments in America which led to the Anglican Methodist split.

Firstly, the Church of England was never ubiquitous in America,  as it is in England.
Secondly the Oath to the King led many clergy to leave the U.S. for England, Canada over American Independence.
Thirdly was the fact that there were no bishops in America.  Episcopal Ordination involved travelling to London, whose bishop was responsible. After 1776 American citizens were not able to swear loyalty to the King, and the Bishop of London was unable to ordain them unless they did.

There were not enough priests/presbyters and no way to get more. According to Anglican/Methodist understanding Holy Communion could only happen with an episcopally ordained priest/presbyter. This was the Sacramental Crisis. Of course, the impasse was eventually resolved, but in the meantime John Wesley came up with his own solution.

Searching the Scriptures, and the Continental practices, he became convinced that it was not true that only a bishop could appoint a presbyter. Any presbyter could appoint others. He therefore appointed some for America,  and they began celebrating Holy Communion.

Methodism went on to become the largest denomination in the US.

Following Wesley's death in 1790, English Methodists decided to follow where America had led. The lay preachers, some, were ordained by the Methodist Connexion, without bishops, and celebrated the sacraments. Methodism had become a denomination.


Why is the line from Seth to Noah often called righteous?

In Noah's day, the whole world was found to be wicked at such an extreme level that God decided to destroy everything.  However, it was Noah who was found to be a righteous man, blameless among the people of his day.

  The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

9 These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God. Genesis 6:5-9 ESV

Noah's grandfather was Methuselah, whose name means "his death shall bring judgment".  According to the time of his death, he died the year of the flood--supposedly not from drowning but from natural causes.  His death brought judgment.

Noah's great grandfather--and Methuselah's father--was Enoch, who is noted as having "walked with God".  His walk with God was apparently so close that God took Him straight to heaven.

  When Enoch had lived 65 years, he fathered Methuselah. 22 Enoch walked with God after he fathered Methuselah 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Thus all the days of Enoch were 365 years. 24 Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.  Genesis 5:21-24 ESV

So, we know that Enoch was a very righteous man.  We also know that Noah was a very righteous man.  Thus, it seems that this was a righteous lineage, where the righteous fathers passed on to their children a deep reverence for God.

The evidence is not overwhelming, to be sure.  In fact, it's largely circumstantial.  Still, the conclusion is reasonable.


How did God's morality not change between OT and NT times?

The answer is actually pretty straightforward, but it is very difficult for people to accept.

1) God's values, desires, teachings, commandments and interactions with man were exactly the same in the Old Testament as the New Testament.

In the New Testament, we learn that God is love.  Jesus' "new commandment" is that we love one another.  But this really wasn't a "new" idea...
In the Old Testament we have this big, confusing Levitical Law.  But with a little study we can understand it.  One of the commandments is to love God, and another is to love your neighbor.  The rest of the commandments were actually based on these two, and love was the fulfillment of all of them.  Experts in the Old Testament law understood this.  The impossible commandments were intended to hammer it into our thick heads that we are "broken"; we are not loving people!  For instance, adultery is a very unloving action, and if our consciences were working right, that would be obvious.  As it is, we need a commandment to tell us not to treat people like that.
The idea that the Law was "just an Old Testament thing" is false.  The Law that was given in the Old Testament is just as important to understand today as it was back then.  It still teaches us about love, it is still impossible to live up to, we will still be judged by it (unless we are in Christ), and it is still a crucial element in teaching people about God.  (For example, see Matthew 5:17-19.)

2) This is very difficult for people to accept, but we are much more concerned about physical well-being than God is!  From God's perspective, the physical realm is kind of a lost cause.  God wants our focus to be on our spiritual well-being.  Everyone is going to die, because we all have sin!  God can use the timing of our death for His purposes, but death (in some form) is inevitable.  And yet, for some weird reason, when God decides a person's time on this wretched, broken planet is up, we accuse Him of evil for "taking their life."  I assure you - death was never part of God's perfect will.  Man is responsible for death.  But God can use the timing for His loving purposes.

Summary: So, often times we read the stories of the Old Testament and think God is a horrible, ruthless being who could not possibly be in agreement with the teachings of Jesus.  But the reality is, God is love, and everything He does comes from His loving nature.  We are just hopelessly ignorant and corrupt in our understanding of God, so we see the opposite of what is actually true.

Q&A: "What if God commanded you to kill someone?"  If God commands you to do something, it's probably a good idea to do it.  But the real question is, "Would God command you to kill someone?" and the answer is, "No."  We need to discern the voice of God by a proper understanding of Scripture, and it is clear from Scripture that this is not the way Christians are called to walk today.  So why were people in the Old Testament called to do these kinds of things?  Because the things that happened in the Old Testament were visual examples to help us understand spiritual realities.  Now that we have the examples, our job is to use those examples to teach people about spiritual realities.


Why is Jesus the Son called the Father in Isaiah 9:6?

And why is he called Counselor? These are adjectives used to describe/praise him. These are metaphorical descriptions.

He is also a brother and a son -

  Mat 12:48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49
  Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my
  brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my
  brother and sister and mother.”

He is both, the son of David and Lord of David -

  Mat 22:42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” “The
  son of David,” they replied. 43 He said to them, “How is it then that
  David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, 44 “‘The
  Lord said to my Lord:“Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies
  under your feet.”’

I think His description as an everlasting father is supposed to illustrate a point that He will watch over and protect His disciples whom he considers as His own children -

  John 14:18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Edit:
I would like to make an addition.

This question reveals one of the mistakes that non-trinitarians make. Attempting to define God in human terms and concepts.

The concept of father, mother, brother, sister did not exist before God invented the family unit. It would've been meaningless to call someone your brother before Adam and Eve had sons.

God who created these concepts, is not defined/limited by these. He is above these concepts and yet he is the perfect fulfillment of them. He is not the brother of anyone. Yet he is the perfect model/example of a good brother.

I am a sister. I had no choice, I was given this role. But He voluntarily takes upon these roles for our sakes, becoming our friend, counselor, brother, father, shepherd, and everything else it takes for the expression of His love towards us.


On what basis did Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith declare that God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit cannot indwell a believer?

On what basis did Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith deny that God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit cannot indwell a believer?

As others have pointed out in the comments, Joseph Smith did not say that the Holy Spirit cannot indwell a believer, only that the Father and the Son cannot.  Doctrine and Covenants 130:3 that you quoted says "the idea that the Father and the Son can dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false."  No mention is made here of the Holy Spirit.
With that established, your supposition

It is my opinion on this is since Smith and his followers believe that God has a body of flesh and bone and cannot be everywhere present at the same time therefore God cannot indwell a believer.

seems a reasonable explanation for why Joseph Smith would teach that the Father and the Son (both held by Joseph Smith to be embodied Beings) cannot dwell in a person's heart.
Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any other scripture that could be used as a basis for this, other than the passages (including Joseph Smith's own accounts of seeing the Father and the Son) stating further that the Father and the Son have bodies.  I would welcome any additional exposition people have to add to my answer.


Are there any complete tables that can accurately pinpoint the year of the flood?

If you're talking about the date of the Great Flood within the generational dating of the book of Genesis, there are many tables that show this. Here is one example:

(Note: Posting of this table does not imply agreement with all of its text.)

Though there are similar tables that continue the dating through the rest of the Old Testament to the time of Christ, connecting the Flood to our current calendar system, they are necessarily based on less solid genealogies and dates in the Bible, especially during the five or six centuries from the time of the Babylonian captivity to the time of Christ, in which there are major gaps in the biblical record. At that point the dating depends on extra-biblical historical sources providing possible dates for historical events recorded in the Bible.

Further, though we can date the Babylonian captivity fairly accurately from extra-biblical historical records (Babylonian, Persian, etc.) the biblical dating from the time of the Egyptian captivity to the time of the Babylonian captivity is nowhere near as clear-cut as it is from Adam to Joseph, making it difficult to pin down exactly how many years elapsed during that time period.

All of this is why there is not the level of agreement in biblical dating from the time of Joseph to Christ, and up to the present calendar system, that there is from the time of Adam to Joseph, even if we assume that the Bible provides an accurate and historical account of the events it describes.


Why was eating meat on Fridays forbidden in the Catholic Church for so many years?

From the USSCB:

  19. Changing circumstances, including economic, dietary, and social elements, have made some of our people feel that the renunciation of
  the eating of meat is not always and for everyone the most effective
  means of practicing penance. Meat was once an exceptional form of
  food; now it is commonplace.

  20. Accordingly, since the spirit of penance primarily suggests that we discipline ourselves in that which we enjoy most, to many in our
  day abstinence from meat no longer implies penance, while renunciation
  of other things would be more penitential.

I think the implication here is that meat, with the exception of fish, which was commonplace, was at the time of the Church Fathers an exceptional or "celebratory" form of food. Since we, at least in America, treat meat as more of a staple food, it's no longer so strongly associated with celebrations or feasts. That said, abstaining from it is still a worthy form of penance, is still encouraged, and is still required on Fridays during Lent.


So the latter day saints are saying that God planned for Adam and Eve to fall from grace and bringing sin into the world?

Yes, basically. The Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi chapter 2, explains this. The whole chapter is fantastic, and quite the sermon of one of the prophets to his sons, so I recommend reading the whole thing because it's hard to pull these verses out of context. Still, this is the best I can do and I think gets at the crux of your question:

  22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have
  fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all
  things which were created must have remained in the same state in
  which they were after they were created; and they must have remained
  forever, and had no end.

  23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have
  remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no
  misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

  24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who
  knoweth all things.

  25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

  26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem
  the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed
  from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil;
  to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the
  punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the
  commandments which God hath given.

I'm going to add Alma 42 as well, and do my best to choose the most relevant excerpt (although the whole chapter is important for this topic):

  11 And now remember, my son, if it were not for the plan of
  redemption, (laying it aside) as soon as they were dead their souls
  were miserable, being cut off from the presence of the Lord.

  12 And now, there was no means to reclaim men from this fallen state,
  which man had brought upon himself because of his own disobedience;

  13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not
  be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this
  probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were
  for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should
  destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be
  destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.

  14 And thus we see that all mankind were fallen, and they were in the
  grasp of justice; yea, the justice of God, which consigned them
  forever to be cut off from his presence.

  15 And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an
  atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins
  of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands
  of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God
  also.

  16 Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a
  punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be,
  affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also
  as the life of the soul.

  17 Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin
  if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a
  punishment?

  18 Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which
  brought remorse of conscience unto man.

  19 Now, if there was no law given—if a man murdered he should
  die—would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?

  20 And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be
  afraid to sin.

  21 And if there was no law given, if men sinned what could justice do,
  or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature?

  22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a
  repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise,
  justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law
  inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be
  destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

  23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and
  mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to
  pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead
  bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored
  into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to
  the law and justice.

  24 For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy
  claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent
  are saved.

  25 What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you,
  Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.

  26 And thus God bringeth about his great and eternal purposes, which
  were prepared from the foundation of the world. And thus cometh about
  the salvation and the redemption of men, and also their destruction
  and misery.

Sorry for the wall of text. But you asked a question where the answer is the whole Plan of Salvation, which has a lot of substance to it. These passages are saying that we were consigned to fall out of God's presence, to be tried and tempted, and learn from our own experience, and then to be able to prepare to meet God and become like Him, whereby we'd be redeemed from the fall and from our own sins through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, and to be brought back into His presence by the power of the resurrection. Without the Fall, none of that could have happened.

According to this theology, Jesus Christ was not a backup plan, He was always The Plan.


Are the ancient indulgences still valid, those decreed by the previous Popes?

The short answer is possibly but doubtful. Some are valid but not all.

The reason I say possibly but doubtful lies in fact whether the indulgence in question was partial or plenary and were the objects blessed by a priest or not as well as if the particular indulgence was requested to stay in force.

In Pope Paul VI's new rules for indulgences were published in his Indulgentiarum Doctrina he states the following:

  Transitional Norms

  These new norms regulating the acquisition of indulgences will become valid three months from the date of publication of this constitution in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

  Indulgences attached to the use of religious objects which are not mentioned above cease three months after the date of publication of this constitution in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

  The revisions mentioned in n. 14 and n. 15 must be submitted to the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary within a year. Two years after the date of this constitution, indulgences which have not been confirmed will become null and void.

  We will that these statutes and prescriptions of ours be established now and remain in force for the future notwithstanding, if it is necessary so to state, the constitutions and apostolic directives published by our predecessors or any other prescriptions even if they might be worthy of special mention or should otherwise require partial repeal.

  Given at Rome at St. Peter's on January 1, the octave of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, 1967, the fourth year of Our Pontificate.

Norms 14 and 15 are as follows:

  n. 14 — The lists and summaries of indulgences special to religious orders, congregations, societies of those living in community without vows, secular institutes and the pious associations of faithful are to be revised as soon as possible in such a way that plenary indulgences may be acquired only on particular days established by the Holy See acting on the recommendation of the Superior General, or in the case of pious associations, of the local Ordinary.

  n. 15 — A plenary indulgence applicable only to the dead can be acquired in all churches and public oratories—and in semipublic oratories by those who have the right to use them — on November 2.

The present list of indulgences can be found in Pope John Paul II's Enchiridion Indulgentiarum of July 16, 1999.

I know that some of those ancient indulgences are still good, but which ones I am unaware of. I will look for a possible list to add to this response.

Some Franciscans still wear their rosaries on their belts. I am guessing that this particular indulgence is still valid. Historically they had a stone in the place of the Crucifix as they thought it was not appropriate to have a crucifix dangling near the ground.

  What does the Catholic Church say?  Here it becomes less clear-cut:

  Pope Innocent XI, 1679: To those who openly wear the rosary out of devotion and to set a good example: a hundred days’ indulgence — confirmed by our Holy Father Pope Innocent XI on 31st July 1679, and received and made public by the Archbishop of Paris on 25th September of the same year.

  Canon Law: ‘Sacred objects, set aside for divine worship by dedication or blessing, are to be treated with reverence. They are not to be made over to secular or inappropriate use, even though they may belong to private persons.’

  Catholic Answers: Essentially, sacramentals such as rosaries must be treated with respect, particularly if they have been blessed. Reverence is the attitude of awe or respect that is most often given to sacred things. By its very definition, it is an interior disposition that usually cannot be determined by onlookers by appearances alone. A person may be wearing a rosary as a statement of faith, to keep it handy for praying throughout the day, or to avoid losing it. Those reasons would be indicative of reverence and would not interfere with the canon’s directive that sacramentals must be treated reverently.

Obviously, if this indulgence does still exist it would now listed as a partial indulgence.

Seeing the historical nature of wearing a rosary, I would be incline to say that it still exists, but will confirm when possible. Nevertheless the rosary must be blessed by a priest or bishop.

  Artistic evidence in the later 1600s suggests that it is in that period that the wearing of the Rosary, now on the belt, finally became a “universal” custom. It is very difficult to trace the introduction of customs, but artistic representations are usually a good indication, and it is in the 1660s and 1670s, that artists first begin to portray Dominican saints wearing a Rosary. A good example from this period is the painting to the right by the Spanish late-Baroque painter Claudio Coello (1642–93), which shows St. Dominic wearing the Fifteen-Decade Dominican Rosary. I do not claim that this is the earliest example of this iconography, only the earliest I have found. If a reader knows of a dated earlier example, I would be happy to add it to this post.

  Dominicans wearing rosaries and cappelli romani (Roman hats)

  It is interesting that the same artist knew that St. Rose of Lima (1586–1617) would have worn her Rosary around her neck, as that was the practice among Dominicans in Peru during her time. This, even though he has all the rest of her dress incorrect, painting her in the habit of a cloistered nun, rather than in the Tertiary habit she would have worn, with a white veil, no scapular, white tunic, and black mantle.

  The Dominican Habit and the Holy Rosary

Helpful sources:

The rosary — should you be wearing it?


Who has the authority to change the wording of the Lord's Prayer in the Catholic Church in the United States?

To answer your three questions concisely:

• Can the pope mandate such a change, worldwide?

He can, based on what was done with the significant changes to the English language versions of the Liturgy in 2011.  Be aware that it usually takes a lot of staff effort by the various bishops, cardinals, et al in the Vatican.

  In 2002, Saint John Paul II introduced a new edition of the Missale
  Romanum (editio typica tertia, the "third typical edition" [since the
  Second Vatican Council]) for use in the Church. Soon after, the
  complex work of translating the text into English began.

  As the Church in the United States introduced the new edition of the
  Missal in late 2011, so too did much of the English-speaking world.

Most changes like this involve consultation as a preliminary step.  One thing I've noticed about the Catholic Church is that the movement rate of change is "slow" to "slower."

• Can the pope mandate a specific change in wording to all English versions, regardless of country?

The answer to that is the same as the first question, which brings us to ...

• Barring a direct mandate from the pope, who would take action to modify the wording for the United States?  A group within the US, or a broader group?

The group who need to be on board with and implement any change is the USCCB: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.  It is hard to envision the USCCB acting in such a way without first getting instructions or guidance from the Pope.

It is well to recall that the organization chart for the Catholic Church is pretty flat: the pope is at the top, and the next rung down is "all of the Catholic Bishops in the world." (Over 2000 last I checked).


Did God really create the world in six days?

Accepting the creation tale as literal 6 days, here are some facts.

The Hebrew calendar is a  lunisolar calendar, meaning that months are based on lunar months, but years are based on solar years. A day in Hebrew calendar is counted from sunset to the next sunset. Sunset is the starting point for a new day but night time is considered as the transition period between the two days , therefore, morning (sunrise) is mostly called as the start of a day.

  Genesis 1:1-5 (NIV)  In the beginning God created the heavens and the
  earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the
  surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the
  waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
  God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the
  darkness. God called the light “day” and the darkness he called
  “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first
  day.

As we see in Genesis 1:3-5, light was the first thing that God created, which means that the sun was the first creation. This made it possible to start counting the time based on the sun. That is why the creation of the sun (light) was marked as the first day, and literally, the first day on this earth. Here we have to remember that the earth itself was already there but it was without light. The creation of light could also mean that the sun was already there but was not visible from earth. Therefore, the moment there was light on the surface of the earth, the counting of time based on the sun was also started. On the first day, the sun might not be clearly visible yet from the earth but the sunlight could penetrate the atmosphere and it was possible to start counting the days based on evening and morning. God is not controlled by any time measurement but since the book of Genesis was written for human and since it is about the creation of this world, it is more likely that human time measurement was used for narrating the creation story.

  Genesis 1:31 (NIV) God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.
  And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

After creating the sun, God continued to create land, animals and lastly, human. God finished his work on the sixth day, which is here again counted based on evening and morning.

If we take the scripture literally as it is, then we can say that God created the world in six days.


What is this symbol (cross with P loop atop)?

Actually, this symbol is a "tau-rho," not a "chi-rho." Instead of being a shortened form of the word "Christ" (Χριστος), generally speaking the Tao-Rho is thought to be a shortened form of the words "cross" and "crucify" (σταυρος, σταυροω). Larry Hurtado has speculated that it may also be the first pictoral representation of Jesus on a cross (the loop of the "P" is the head). See Hurtado's The Earliest Christian Artifacts pp. 135ff, he calls it a "staurogram."