The Catholic Church still teaches the Ten Commandments. See the Catechism: Part Three, Section Two is enormous1. However, there is a helpful summary:

2075 "What good deed must I do, to have eternal life?" — "If you would enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:16–17).
2076 By his life and by his preaching Jesus attested to the permanent validity of the Decalogue.
2077 The gift of the Decalogue is bestowed from within the covenant concluded by God with his people. God's commandments take on their true meaning in and through this covenant.
2078 In fidelity to Scripture and in conformity with Jesus' example, the tradition of the Church has always acknowledged the primordial importance and significance of the Decalogue.
2079 The Decalogue forms an organic unity in which each "word" or "commandment" refers to all the others taken together. To transgress one commandment is to infringe the whole Law (cf Jas 2:10-11).
2080 The Decalogue contains a privileged expression of the natural law. It is made known to us by divine revelation and by human reason.
2081 The Ten Commandments, in their fundamental content, state grave obligations. However, obedience to these precepts also implies obligations in matter which is, in itself, light.
2082 What God commands he makes possible by his grace.

1 "Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much." [Link]


How do these parables explain time in Heaven?

Keep in mind that there is a difference between a parable and an allegory. In an allegory, there is a very close correspondence between each point of the story and the situation the author wishes to explain. If, for example, the story you point out from Luke were an allegory, then not only would the owner of the vineyard represent someone specific, but the vine dresser would represent someone else, the vineyard would represent someone or something very specific, the three years would, the manure would, and so on. I don't think that's the case for this story. Instead, the point of the story is simply that God has patience with those who do not follow him, but that this patience is not unlimited (perhaps because it will cease on Judgment Day, or on the person's death).

Similarly, as with all parables, the other ones you point out are intended to focus on a specific point; the story does not require that every single one of its elements refers to some specific real entity.

Thus, the question of whether there is time in Heaven or not is not addressed by the parables—they use images of time to get a point across, and the point is largely about what our behavior in time ought to be, not how God is affected by time.


Is "the ends justify the means" compatible with Christianity?

The idea that "the ends justify the means" admits that there is something inherently wrong with "the means".  Indeed, it admits that "the means" are actually unjustified by themselves.  The claim, then, is that although "the means" are unjustifiable in themselves, that a particular outcome that is achieved by them results in the justification of the unjustified.

Christianity certainly does not have any basis for this idea, and it doesn't need any.  I know of a particular religion that believes it's alright for its followers to lie in a conversation with someone of another religion if lying helps them win the argument.  Christianity, however, does not need to do this, because Christianity believes that truth is on its side.  That's a key point, because Truth invites questioning, whereas lies and falsehoods do not.

God calls us to do what is righteous and then trust Him for the results.


What is the Biblical basis for the idea that the Holy Spirit will sometimes choose not to lead?

If we look at Pauls life, he had a call to preach the Gospel. But I think it's safe to say that within that call he had a big freedom. He used the brain God had given him to plan his journeys:

Acts 20:13-16:

  We went on ahead to the ship and sailed for Assos, where we were going
  to take Paul aboard. He had made this arrangement because he was going
  there on foot. When he met us at Assos, we took him aboard and went
  on to Mitylene. The next day we set sail from there and arrived off
  Chios. The day after that we crossed over to Samos, and on the
  following day arrived at Miletus. Paul had decided to sail past
  Ephesus to avoid spending time in the province of Asia, for he was in
  a hurry to reach Jerusalem, if possible, by the day of Pentecost.

But there where other situations when the Holy Spirit intervened in Pauls plan.

Acts 16:6-9:

  Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and
  Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word
  in the province of Asia. When they came to the border of Mysia, they
  tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them
  to. So they passed by Mysia and went down to Troas. During the
  night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging
  him, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.”

I would argue that this also applies to us. God has a great plan for all of our lives. But that doesn't mean that he always care about all the details. Some people like repairing cars, so they make the decision to work with that. But within that context, the Holy Spirit leads them to speak to customers for example. But for other people God intervenes in their plan and call them to do something else.

But maybe I read to much out of these texts ;)


Where did Swedenborg believe man originate from?

Although Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) had a distinguished career as a scientist during his younger and middle years of adulthood, in his mid-fifties he ceased his scientific work and turned to spiritual subjects instead. His theological works, published between 1749 and 1771, in the later period of his life, are devoted almost entirely to Bible interpretation, theology, and accounts of his experiences in the spiritual world. His occasional references to scientific ideas function mostly as illustrations of the spiritual concepts he is presenting.

And in general, the science in his theological works is no more advanced than the best science of his day, together with some of his own speculations on scientific subjects.

In the 18th century when Swedenborg wrote and published his theological works:

Darwin had not yet proposed the theory of evolution of species.
Modern pseudoscientific theories of alien origins of humans on earth did not yet exist.
The Creation stories of Genesis were still the dominant source of belief about human origins.

Swedenborg, then, did not have access to contemporary evolution and alien origin theories for how humans came to be.

And during his theological period Swedenborg rejected traditional literal interpretations of the early chapters of Genesis, stating instead that the Creation stories of Genesis were written in a purely symbolic style. Specifically relevant to the current question, he said that there were no individual human beings named Adam and Eve, but that those early figures in the Bible are symbolic of whole early communities human beings.

As to how humans did originate physically, Swedenborg said very little. In fact, there is only one passing reference in his theological writings to how the various species on earth originated. It comes in a conversation that Swedenborg reported having with an angel:

  God is absolute love and absolute wisdom. His love includes an infinite number of feelings. His wisdom includes an infinite number of perceptions. The correspondences of those feelings and perceptions are all the things that appear on earth. This is where the birds and animals come from. This is where the trees and shrubs come from. This is where the grains and crops come from. This is where the plants and grasses come from. . . . The difference is that in our world God creates things of this kind in a moment to match the feelings of angels, while in your world things like this were originally created in a similar way but there was a provision for their perennial renewal from generation to generation; and so creation goes on. (True Christianity #78:3)

In other words, the angel is saying, in the material world God originally created the species instantaneously as an expression of some corresponding element of the nature of God or of some element of the inhabitants of the spiritual world, but that on earth God gave the species the ability to reproduce themselves from then onward.

This is in accord with a common theory of the day with regard to how animals came into existence: spontaneous generation. Earlier in his theological works, in Divine Love and Wisdom #340–344, Swedenborg supported the theory of spontaneous generation in a discussion of where maggots and noxious insects come from.

Apparently, then, Swedenborg believed that originally God created each species directly, giving it the ability to reproduce itself and continue its species by that means, and that in some cases spiritual influences could still directly create smaller living creatures as an expression of particular good or evil thoughts and desires.

Spontaneous generation has since been thoroughly disproved through numerous scientific experiments. And the theory of evolution has long since displaced from scientific thought the idea that humans were originally created instantaneously by God. This has caused cognitive dissonance for some Swedenborgians who are loath to accept that Swedenborg could have been mistaken on these subjects. However, most Swedenborgians today believe that Swedenborg's statements on scientific subjects come more from Swedenborg's own mind and knowledge than from any divine inspiration. Most Swedenborgians today are content to accept the conclusions of science about evolution and other natural phenomena.

As for the fact that it was an angel who stated that God created the species on earth instantaneously, this is likely due to the fact (in Swedenborg's theology) that angels do not think materially, but spiritually, and therefore do not have any special insight into matters of natural science. Angels are apparently dependent upon humans arriving in the spiritual world from earth for any scientific information or theories they may have about the workings of the physical universe.

In short, the angel in this conversation was probably just reflecting a theory about the origins of humans and other species that was current on earth at a time before Darwin had proposed the theory of evolution.

TL;DR: Swedenborg apparently believed that humans were originally created directly by God, and given the ability to reproduce themselves from there. However, most Swedenborgians today accept the theory of evolution as the means by which the human species physically originated on this earth.


In Matthew 23:35, who was “Zacharias son of Barachias”?

Greek Text

ὅπως ἔλθῃ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς πᾶν αἷμα δίκαιον ἐκχυνόμενον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος Ἅβελ τοῦ δικαίου ἕως τοῦ αἵματος Ζαχαρίου υἱοῦ Βαραχίου ὃν ἐφονεύσατε μεταξὺ τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου TR, 1550

Textual Variants
According to Constantin Tischendorf’s critical apparatus, the Codex Sinaiticus omits υἱοῦ Βαραχίου, but there are earlier witnesses who cite it, such as Irenaeus (~130-202 A.D.) and Origen (~182-254 A.D.).
Analysis of Names
The name Ζαχαρίου υἱοῦ Βαραχίου is entirely declined in the genitive case. The nominative form of Ζαχαρίου is Ζαχαρίας, which is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name זְכַרְיָה (Zekharyah)/ זְכַרְיָהוּ (Zekharyahu).1 As for the name Βαραχίου, its nominative form is Βαραχίας, which is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name בֶּרֶכְיָה (Berekhyah)/בֶּרֶכְיָהוּ (Berekhyahu).2 Therefore, in the Hebrew Tanakh, we would be looking for an individual named זְכַרְיָה בֶּן בֶּרֶכְיָה (Zekharyah ben Berekhyah), or in the Greek Septuagint, Ζαχαρίας υἱοῦ Βαραχίου.
Common Belief
It is commonly believed that the person killed in Matt. 23:35 is misidentified by either the Lord Jesus Christ or the evangelist, or perhaps even a later scribe. Rather than Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, some believe the actual person who was killed was Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada (זְכַרְיָה בֶּן יְהוֹיָדָע), as this is the only Zechariah whose death matches the one mentioned in Matt. 23:35. For example, in 2 Chr. 24:20-22, it is written,

20 And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, he hath also forsaken you. 21 And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of the LORD. 22 Thus Joash the king remembered not the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him, but slew his son. And when he died, he said, The LORD look upon it, and require it. KJV, 1769

This individual’s name was Zekharyah (זְכַרְיָה), and he was killed (stoned) in the “house of Yahveh” (בֵּית יַהְוֶה) another name for the Temple (cp. 1 Kings 6:1). The difficulty with this belief is that this Zechariah (Zekharyah) was the son of Jehoiada (Yehoyada), not Berechiah (Berekhyah), therefore it doesn’t appear to be the same person.
Option 1: Zechariah, the Father of John the Baptist
An alternative belief is that the Zechariah in Matt. 23:35 is the father of John the Baptist (cp. Luke 1:5).3 While the gospels never mention Zechariah’s father’s name, nor mention Zechariah being murdered in the Temple, some base their belief in this theory on a passage in the Gospel of James.4

But at the hour of the salutation the priests went away, and Zacharias did not come forth to meet them with a blessing, according to his custom. And the priests stood waiting for Zacharias to salute him at the prayer, and to glorify the Most High. And he still delaying, they were all afraid. But one of them ventured to go in, and he saw clotted blood beside the altar; and he heard a voice saying: Zacharias has been murdered, and his blood shall not be wiped up until his avenger come. And hearing this saying, he was afraid, and went out and told it to the priests. And they ventured in, and saw what had happened; and the fretwork of the temple made a wailing noise, and they rent their clothes from the top even to the bottom. And they found not his body, but they found his blood turned into stone. And they were afraid, and went out and reported to the people that Zacharias had been murdered. And all the tribes of the people heard, and mourned, and lamented for him three days and three nights. And after the three days, the priests consulted as to whom they should put in his place; and the lot fell upon Simeon. For it was he who had been warned by the Holy Spirit that he should not see death until he should see the Christ in the flesh. Translation by Roberts-Donaldson

Of course, the difficulty with this belief is the book itself is not canonical and essentially amounts to hearsay, although I believe the Greek Orthodox Church (and perhaps others) accepts the account therein.
Option 2: Zechariah, son of Baruch, in Josephus’ Wars of the Jews
Others believe that the person mentioned in Matt. 23:35 is “Zechariah, son of Baruch.” The Jewish historian Josephus mentions him in his Wars of the Jews.5

334 And now these zealots and Idumeans were quite weary of barely killing men, so they had the impudence of setting up fictitious tribunals and judicatures for that purpose; 335 and as they intended to have Zacharias, the son of Baruch, one of the most eminent of the citizens, slain,—so what provoked them against him was, that hatred of wickedness and love of liberty which were so eminent in him: he was also a rich man, so that by taking him off, they did not only hope to seize his effects, but also to get rid of a man that had great power to destroy them. 336 So they called together, by a public proclamation, seventy of the principal men of the populace, for a show, as if they were real judges, while they had no proper authority. Before these was Zacharias accused of a design to betray their polity to the Romans, and having traitorously sent to Vespasian for that purpose. 337 Now there appeared no proof or sign of what he was accused; but they affirmed themselves that they were well persuaded that so it was, and desired that such their affirmation might be taken for sufficient evidence. 338 Now when Zacharias clearly saw that there was no way remaining for his escape from them, as having been treacherously called before them, and then put in prison, but not with any intention of a legal trial, he took great liberty of speech in that despair of life he was under. Accordingly he stood up, and laughed a their pretended accusation, and in a few words confuted the crimes laid to his charge; 339 after which he turned his speech to his accusers, and went over distinctly all their transgressions of the law, and made heavy lamentations upon the confusion they had brought public affairs to: 340 in the meantime the zealots grew tumultuous, and had much ado to abstain from drawing their swords, although they designed to preserve the appearance and show of judicature to the end. They were also desirous, on other accounts, to try the judges, whether they would be mindful of what was just at their own peril. 341 Now the seventy judges brought in their verdict, that the person accused was not guilty,—as choosing rather to die themselves with him, than to have his death laid at their doors; 342 hereupon there rose a great clamor of the zealots upon his acquittal, and they all had indignation at the judges, for not understanding that the authority that was given them was but in jest. 343 So two of the boldest of them fell upon Zacharias in the middle of the temple, and slew him; and as he fell down dead they bantered him, and said, “Thou hast also our verdict, and this will prove a more sure acquittal to thee than the other.” They also threw him down out of the temple immediately into the valley beneath it. Translation by William Whiston

The difficulty with this belief is that the Lord Jesus Christ likely spoke those words (which the evangelist Matthew later wrote in his gospel) around 30 A.D., give or take a few years. Referring to Zechariah son of Berechiah, the Lord Jesus Christ told the Jews, “...whom you killed...” (ὃν ἐφονεύσατε), past tense, referring to an event which had already happened. On the other hand, the Zechariah the son of Baruch mentioned by Josephus would have been killed approximately 35 years after the Lord Jesus Christ died. One last note is that the Greek name of the person mentioned above is Ζαχαρίας υἱὸς Βάρεις, which doesn’t exactly match the name of the person in Matt. 23:35 (i.e., Βαραχίου).
Option 3: Common Belief is the Authentic Meaning
So we return to Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada (זְכַרְיָה בֶּן יְהוֹיָדָע), whose death was described in 2 Chr. 24:20-22. In the LXX, his father’s name is written (in the genitive) as Ιωδαε (2 Chr. 24:20). But, in Matt. 23:35, the father of Zechariah is written as Βαραχίου.
In the Targum of Lam. 2:20, it is written,

See, O’ Yahveh, and observe from heaven against whom you have turned. Thus is it right for the daughters of Israel to eat the fruit of their wombs due to starvation, the lovely boys wrapped in fine linen? The Attribute of Justice replied and thus said, “Is it right to kill priest and prophet in the temple of Yahveh, as when you killed Zechariah son of Iddo, the high priest and faithful prophet in the temple of Yahveh on the Day of Atonement because he admonished you not to do evil before Yahveh?”
חזי יהוה ותהי מסתכל מן שמיא למן אסתקיפתא כדנן אם חזי לבנתא דישראל למיכל פירי בטניהון עולימיא רגיגתא דהוו מלפפין בסדינין דמילתין ענת מידת דינא וכן אמרת אם חזי למקטל בבית מוקדשא דיהוה כהנא ונבייא כמה דקטלתון ית זכריה בר עדו כהנא רבא ונבייא מהימן בבית מוקדשא דיהוה ביומא דכפוריא על דאוכח יתכון דלא תעבדון דביש קדם יהוה

Now, one might think that this “Zechariah son of Iddo” (זכריה בר עדו) is the prophet Zechariah in Zec. 1:1. The Targum states that the people killed this high priest and prophet Zechariah son of Iddo on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). In his commentary on 2 Chr. 24:20 (recall that this is the verse that refers to Zechariah son of Jehoiada) Rashi wrote,

above the people - Higher than the people, in order to make his voice heard. In Lamentations Rabba (Eikha Rabbati), it is interpreted as meaning that he relied on himself; he was a prince higher than all the people, a prophet and a priest, and it was Yom Kippur, and he was the king’s son-in-law, and he was not afraid to say the prophecy. Concerning this incident, it was stated (Lam. 2:20): “shall priest and prophet be slain in the sanctuary of Yahveh?”
מעל לעם - גבוה מכל העם כדי להשמיע קולו, ובאיכה רבתי דורש סמך על עצמו שהיה שר גבוה מכל העם נביא וכהן וביום הכפורים וחתן המלך ולא נתיירא מלומר נבואה ועל זה נאמר (איכה ב') אם יהרג במקדש ה' כהן ונביא ובמותו אמר ירא ה' וידרוש כי לא הרגוני אלא שאמרתי שליחותו של מקום ומאחר שנהרגתי עליו מן הדין והגון וכדי הוא שידרוש דמי וכן היה כי מיד נדרש דמו כי לתקופת השנה וגו

So, it seems that maybe “Zechariah son of Iddo” could be another name for Zechariah son of Jehoiada. The prophet Zechariah (Zec. 1:1) was not the son-in-law of a king, but Zechariah son of Jehoiada certainly was (2 Chr. 22:11). This does not mean the prophet Zechariah (in the book of Zechariah) is Zechariah son of Jehoiada. They obviously lived in different times; so, this isn’t a possibility. Rather, there was obviously a tradition that Zechariah son of Jehoiada (זְכַרְיָה בֶּן יְהוֹיָדָע) was also named Zechariah son of Iddo (זְכַרְיָה בֶּן עִדֹּו).
Now we turn to Isa. 8:2, in which it is written,

And I shall take faithful witnesses to witness for Me, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.

Coincidentally, in the LXX, this “Zechariah son of Jeberechiah” has the same name as the Zechariah in Matt. 23:35.6
John Lightfoot wrote,7

the difficulty under our hand is resolved, as I imagine, very clearly: and I suppose that Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah in Isaiah is the very same with our Zacharias the son of Jehoiada; and that the sense of Isaiah comes to this: in that and the foregoing chapter there is a discourse of the future destruction of Damascus, Samaria, and Judea. For a confirmation of the truth of this prophecy, God makes use of a double testimony: first, he commands the prophet Isaiah to write, over and over again, in a great volume, from the beginning to the end, “To hasten the spoil, he hastened the prey”: and this volume should be an undoubted testimony to them, that God would certainly bring on and hasten the forementioned spoiling and destruction. “And moreover (saith God), I will raise up to myself two faithful martyrs,” (or witnesses,) who shall testify and seal the same thing with their words and with their blood, namely, Uriah the priest, who shall hereafter be crowned with martyrdom for this very thing, Jeremiah 26:20,23, and Zechariah the son of Barachiah, or Jehoiada, who is lately already crowned: he [Zechariah], the first martyr under the first Temple; this [Uriah], the last. Hear, thou Jew, who taxest Matthew in this place: your own authors assert, that Uriah the priest is to be understood by that Uriah who was killed by Jehoiakim; and that truly. We also assert, that Zechariah the son of Jehoiadah is to be understood by Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah; and that Matthew and Christ do not at all innovate in this name of Barachias, but did only pronounce the same things concerning the father of the martyr Zacharias, which God himself had pronounced before them by the prophet Isaiah.

John Lightfoot subsequently includes answers to questions which he pre-empts on account of his interpretation and resolution of the verse. The reader is encouraged to read further on p. 307-308.

References
Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Trans. Whiston, William. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987.
Lightfoot, John. Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae (Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations). Trans. Gandell, Robert. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1859.
Footnotes
1 cp. 2 Kings 15:8 LXX, where the Hebrew name זְכַרְיָהוּ (Zekharyahu) is translated into Greek as Ζαχαριας (Zacharias). To note, this is not the same individual mentioned in Matt. 23:35. It is only meant to demonstrate the Hebrew name of the person in Matt. 23:35, as it will obviously be necessary to investigate the Hebrew Tanakh and find such a person by the same name.
2 cp. 2 Chr. 28:12 LXX, where the Hebrew name בֶּרֶכְיָהוּ (Berekhyahu) is translated into Greek as Βαραχιας (Barachias). Again, this is only meant to demonstrate the Hebrew name of the person in Matt. 23:35, not to imply that they are the same person.
3 While the King James Version spells his name as “Zacharias,” the Greek name is Ζαχαρίας, the same name found in Matt. 23:35. It’s unfortunate, but sometimes the translators who produced the King James Version had a habit of transliterating the same Greek name differently into English for different individuals.
4 §24. Also known as the Protoevaneglium of James or the Infancy Gospel of James. This apocryphal book is dated to about 145 A.D.
5 Book 4, Ch. 5, §4, or Book 4, §334-343.
6 The LXX has Ζαχαριαν υἱὸν Βαραχιου, which of course, Ζαχαριαν is the accusative declension of Ζαχαριας.
7 p. 306-207


On what basis should Christians oppose child marriage?

Indeed, AFAIK the Bible doesn't make any overt statements on this subject. It is, however, usually accepted that Mary was around 14 when giving birth, and was married at that time. In many ways it is perhaps fortunate that the Bible doesn't wax lyrical on the subject; your description of child marriage as a "horrible custom" sounds largely a product of culture (or dare I even say, "moral relativism"?). There is obviously also an issue of comparison, with radically different life expectancy and life-style (education in particular, and a harsher life, leading to a shorter childhood), historically at an age of around 14 (not the younger 9 that you cite) the majority of females would be fertile (or rapidly approaching fertility), about as educated as they were ever going to get, and with limited years ahead.

Islam, of course, has a glitch here in that it needs to accommodate the marriage of Aisha (often taken to be around 9) with the view of Muhammad as the ideal Muslim, which makes it rather hard for Islam to make a statement that such marriage is inherently wrong. However, even in Christianity (and OT in particular), the fact is that many (not all) of the laws around marriage are more about property laws (with the wife being the property) than of human rights-of / decency-towards the wife.

This leads me to conclude that we aren't going to get much direct and literal guidance from the Bible on this subject, and must resort to other arguments. Perhaps arguments such as these, or from unicef.


Is it wrong to say Jesus is the God of the Old Testament?

Let's separate out the different issues:

  Is it wrong to say that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament?

No, it is correct to refer to Jesus as the God of the Old Testament, just as it is right to refer to the Father and Spirit as the God of the Old Testament. One instance of this can be seen in Isaiah 6 where Isaiah sees Yahweh, and in John chapter 12, John references this passage and says it refers to Jesus (John 12:41):

  Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.

From this text, many Christian theologians believe that the theophanies of the Old Testament (theophanies are instances where God appears) are in fact Jesus, and not the Father or the Spirit.

Now to the next issue:

  From what I understand, Jesus existed eternally correct? And Jesus is God and didn't come into being when he was sent on Earth.

Yes, Jesus eternally exists as God (see John 1:1). However, He did not take upon Himself a human nature until His incarnation. For a fuller treatment of this subject (the pre-existence of Jesus), see the book "The Forgotten Trinity" by Dr. James White.

And next:

  There was a group called the marcionites that argued that there are 2 Gods because the God of the OT and the NT are just too different like

Yep, they did argue that. But the Christian church argued back vociferously, pointing out that God is consistent in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. In both the Old and New Testaments, for example, God is seen to be making judgement against sin (in the judgements in the Old Testament, and the book of Revelation), and also showing mercy and grace (seen in the book of Jonah most clearly in the Old Testament and in the clear proclamation of the forgiveness of sins in the New).


Did Voltaire actually say "If you want to kill Christianity, you must abolish Sunday"?

There is no doubt the quote is widely attributed to him.  Several sources I checked give him credit:

https://quotefancy.com/quote/929487/Voltaire-If-you-want-to-kill-Christianity-you-must-abolish-Sunday
"Sunday: The Foundation of Personal and Family Peace."  https://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/sunday-the-foundation-of-personal-and-family-peace
https://www.quotetab.com/quote/by-voltaire/if-you-want-to-kill-christianity-you-must-abolish-sunday
Warren Wiersbe's Commentary:  Old Testament, p. 791.  https://books.google.com/books?id=GgLq2LR_cFcC&pg=PA791&lpg=PA791&dq=%22if+you+want+to+kill+christianity...%22&source=bl&ots=NVNALdtNv3&sig=ACfU3U2VO51Yz3rmb1HYTg1MJ_JZ1rHoxA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjul7CzwIXpAhXHB80KHdjtAEQQ6AEwB3oECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22if%20you%20want%20to%20kill%20christianity...%22&f=false
https://www.quotenova.net/authors/voltaire/qddn79  [Also included are these caveats:  "There's evidence to suggest that this quote is attributed to the author, though no official sources or credible evidence could be found or has yet to be added to this page.
We're unable to confirm that this quote is completely true and correct.
We don't suggest that you cite this quote as fact without conducting your own further research..."
"Remembering the Lord's Day."  http://www.prca.org/resources/publications/pamphlets/item/600-remembering-the-lords-day
https://www.quotemaster.org/q35e822b3a6bfc912e7e5eff61671d1e0
"How Should We Keep the Sabbath?"  https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/how-should-we-keep-the-sabbath-1144

Some sources are not so sure Voltaire spoke the original:

https://sermons.faithlife.com/sermons/114716-love-the-joy-of-life-matthew-22d-1
The Australian Church Record, from November 24, 1927, page 11, column 1 of the pdf, uses the essence of the quote, but does not attribute it to Voltaire.  [1927-11-24.pdf, from myrrh.library.moore.edu.au]

I did not find a reference to any of Voltaire's works that may have contained the quote.
Your safest course, it seems to me, is that, in the opinion of many, the quote is Voltaire's; however, the actual source has not yet been verified.


Was man judged at the cross along with Satan and the rebellious Angels?

Mankind was not judged at the cross.  Rather, judgement began - and per that, for the household of God, not mankind en masse.

As for Satan, he's been judged, Jn 16:11.  But, the sentence has yet to be carried out, Rev 20:2.  He will get a temporary brief from that incarceration, Rev 20:7.  Then, have a permanent sentence carried out, Rev 20:10.

Back to mankind, judgement has now begun with the household of God, 1 Pt 4:17.  The scripture's "household of God" can be loosely interpreted as "Christians" today.  However, keep in mind mainstream religion is not a spiritual body, rather an institution of man, e.g. Matt 13:24-30, I Cor 10:5-6, Rev 17 and more.

The rest of mankind that is not "the household of God" has not entered into judgment, Rev 20:5.  They will enter into judgement later, Rev 20:12.

The reference you make to Luke 16:22-24 does not support the poor man died then went to heaven immediately.  To make that assertion, one would have to throw out the explicit references in scripture that is not the case, e.g. Heb 11:39-40, Jn 6:44, 54, I Cor 15:51-52.

(Many also use Lk 23:43 in the same context.  There is no punctuation in the original Greek.  We know the criminal on the cross is not in heaven per the scriptures above, among many, many more).

So, one one's dying and going to heaven, or hell, upon the first death.  That's explicitly not the case in scripture.  (And, popularity of a belief makes it no more true, scripture is the final authority).

So, in conclusion: judgement began - for a part of mankind, the "household of God" with the cross.  The rest of mankind enters into judgement later.  Satan is on his own "judgement plan" with God.  (And, there's a fourth category, 1 Cor 6:3 concerning the judgement of angels).


You're right in that the Bible does not state why it was a sin, so we won't be able to cite verses to support any answer to this.

However, the one thing  that is clear is that Satan provoked David to take the census. The Bible doesn't explain why this is, and the there are several theories, but no Biblical statement on the matter. Clearly, however, it was Satan that provoked David to take the census, and following Satan's leading is almost certainly a sin.

The explanations that I've heard on why it was bad had to do with the motivation of David's heart in the matter.

One theory is that he was taking the census to determine the might of his army, because he was counting on this, rather than God to provide military victory and strength.  (I'm not sure I buy that one.)
Another says that it may have been pride.  David wanted to know how mighty a kingdom he had.  (Knowing how God hates pride, this is at least feasible to me.)

Unfortunately, the Scriptures don't give an answer, so in all honesty, I don't think this question is answerable in the usual sense.


Which is the "correct" bible for Catholics?

The King James Version is not accepted by the Catholic Church. Primarily because it is translated to fit Anglican theology src1 src2. There is no Catholic edition of the NIV either. Not to mention these misses Deuterocanonical Books. Regarding NRSV make sure it is a Catholic edition.

The correct bible that a Catholic is supposed to use is the Latin Vulgate Bible. That is the official bible of the Catholic Church. That is the one which is used in papal masses.

But if you are looking for bible in your vernacular look for a bible that has:

73 books in it
An imprimatur sign from competent authority (usually a bishop)
Bishop's conference of a country would usually have released/recommended an official translation, which is used in the liturgy. It would be better if you can get hold of that version.

The following is a complete list of the translations of the Sacred Scriptures that have received the approval of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops since 1983 src:

Books of the New Testament, Alba House
Contemporary English Version - New Testament, First Edition, American Bible Society
Contemporary English Version - Book of Psalms, American Bible Society
Contemporary English Version - Book of Proverbs, American Bible Society
The Grail Psalter (Inclusive Language Version), G.I.A. Publications
New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE)
New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, National Council of Churches
The Psalms, Alba House
The Psalms (New International Version) - St. Joseph Catholic Edition, Catholic Book Publishing Company
The Psalms - St. Joseph New Catholic Version, Catholic Book Publishing Company
Revised Psalms of the New American Bible (1991)
So You May Believe, A Translation of the Four Gospels, Alba House
Today's English Version, Second Edition, American Bible Society
Translation for Early Youth, A Translation of the New Testament for Children, Contemporary English Version, American Bible Society


In Eastern Orthodoxy, what is most important for the efficacy of the sacraments: the right Church or the right God?

I'm not Orthodox and I don't know much on Orthodox theology, but I'll try to answer from what I have found.

AFAIK Orthodox Church shares the ex opere operato doctrine though the understanding is not the same (here near the bottom). This means that the answer is "God". The action of the priest is necessary, but not so much, it's less important than in Catholic understanding.

The priest is necessary for Eucharist (like in Catholic Church). For baptism the priest is not necessary: under extraordinary conditions, even a layman can baptise.


When and where did the Catholic tradition of first communion at 7 years old start?

Catholicism doesn't currently set a specific age at which First Communion is taken.  The New Advent article on Communion of Children says this (Emphasis mine):

  The existing legislation with regard to the Communion of children has
  been definitely settled by the Fourth Lateran Council, which was
  afterwards confirmed by the authority of the Council of Trent.
  According to its provisions children may not be admitted to the
  Blessed Eucharist until they have attained to years of discretion, but
  when this period is reached then they are bound to receive this
  sacrament. When may they be said to have attained the age of
  discretion? In the best-supported view of theologians this phrase
  means, not the attainment of a definite number of years, but rather
  the arrival at a certain stage in mental development, when children
  become able to discern the Eucharistic from ordinary bread, to realize
  in some measure the dignity and excellence of the Sacrament of the
  Altar, to believe in the Real Presence, and adore Christ under the
  sacramental veils. De Lugo (De Euch., disp. xiii, n. 36, Ben. XIV, De
  Syn., vii) says that if children are observed to assist at Mass with
  devotion and attention it is a sign that they are come to this
  discretion.

The source of this is a decree, issued in 1910, named Quam Singulari addressed baptism of children.  Included in the section of the linked article titled "Conditions for first confession and first communion"

Before we get into what the new Advent article states, it appears that some Priests mistakenly believe that the Quam Singulari Decree gives seven as an exact age.  Example here.

The age of discretion, which applies equally to both sacraments. This may be judged (1) by the first indication of the child using its reasoning powers; (2) by the child knowing what is right from wrong. No determined age is placed as a condition; the age of seven is mentioned because the majority of children arrive at the years of discretion, that is, begin to reason, about this period, some sooner, some later.
A knowledge such as a child just beginning to reason can have about one God, Who rewards the good and punishes the wicked, and about the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation. It is not necessary that the child should commit to memory accurate theological definitions, which may convey no idea to the little mind just beginning to unfold.
A child must be able to distinguish the Eucharistic from the common bread; that is, to know that what looks like bread is not bread, but contains the real, living Body and Blood of Christ.
Children should be taught to receive Holy Communion devoutly.
Children should be instructed on the necessity of being in the state of grace and of having a good intention, also of fasting from midnight before Communion.

The actual text of the Quam Singulari Decree can be found here.  The section in which seven year-olds are mentioned reads as follows (emphasis mine):

  The principal interpreters of the Lateran Council and contemporaries
  of that period had the same teaching concerning this Decree. The
  history of the Church reveals that a number of synods and episcopal
  decrees beginning with the twelfth century, shortly after the Lateran
  Council, admitted children of seven years of age to First Communion.
  There is moreover the word of St. Thomas Aquinas, who is an authority
  of the highest order, which reads: "When children begin to have some
  use of reason, so that they can conceive a devotion toward this
  Sacrament (the Eucharist), then this Sacrament can be given to them."6
  Ledesma thus explains these words: "I say, in accord with common
  opinion, that the Eucharist is to be given to all who have the use of
  reason, and just as soon as they attain the use of reason, even though
  at the time the child may have only a confused notion of what he is
  doing." Vasquez comments on the same words of St. Thomas as follows:
  "When a child has once arrived at the use of reason he is immediately
  bound by the divine law from which not even the Church can dispense
  him."

Using the above, we could say that the tradition started out in the twelfth century with some synods and decrees, which were later corrected by the Quam Singulari Decree.

That answers when it starts, but if seven is no longer a proscribed age, why is it so common now?

The closest answer I could find was this article from holyfirstcommunion.com .

  You may be wondering, "what is the proper First Communion age"?.
  Well, I hesitate to put an exact age here.  Requirements can literally
  vary from church to church.

  A general answer is that the children are usually age 7 or 8.  Some
  churches say at least second grade.  Some churches say after one year
  of formal religious education.  And I found one website that said they
  had no requirements as it is about God's grace and they were no longer
  going to base receiving First Communion on merit!  So,  when you are
  looking to find out the right First Communion age for your child,
  contact your specific church for their requirements.

Based on this, it appears that the age of seven is a common age, but not one that is dictated.

Admittedly, this next is at best, an educated guess, but it seems to me that, for the sake of convenience, a Church, or a diocese would settle on a simple, easy to remember common age that would serve as a "rule of thumb".  When a child reaches this age or school grade level, he or she is likely to have reached the age of accountability.  This would make it much simpler to organize classes in the Church to provide the necessary training, education, and preparation in a group/class setting.

Going beyond this, it is relatively clear, simply from some Google searches that seven is a very common age, even if it's not a dictated age, set in stone.  E-How.com has a gift guide specific to giving a seven year old boy a meaningful First communion gift,


In order to understand those passages, we have to take several other things into mind. Paul was writing this letter to the Thessalonians after having gotten word back from them following his first letter.

Also remember in Acts where everyone was getting together selling their possessions and living in a communal group, the reason for that was that those people expected Christ to return for them right away. Paul especially thought that Jesus return would be during his lifetime.

After years had passed and Christ had not returned as most of his disciples expected, many rumors began to circulate and among them were some which declared that Jesus had returned already.

Paul's second letter to the church in Thessalonica is a plea to not listen to those rumors. So let's break down his letter and see what we can extract from it.

  Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

Here Paul is referring to the rapture of the church as described in his first letter to them.

  That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

Here Paul is saying don't pay any attention to all these rumors.

  Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Or; don't let people fool you, remember that before Christ returns the prophesy of:

Daniel 11:31 and 32

  And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.  And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.

Must be fulfilled, (This same event is referred to in Revelation and is the beginning of the great tribulation)

  Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

This is the Antichrist.

  Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

Don't you remember me explaining these things to you, so now you know why there is a delay.

  For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

And see it is already started, and God will let these things continue even including the coming of the Antichrist, who will even perform miracles.

So now let's take a look at where you where you have your trouble understanding.

  And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

I believe where your confusion comes, is because you need some clarification on predestination:

  Predestination is the concept that some people are predestined by God to not receive Salvation and receive eternal damnation.

Predestination is greatly misunderstood; That some will be eternally damned is not the will of God.

  Matthew 18:14  Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

Predestination is based on the fact that God is All Knowing.
Or in other words God knew even before Creation who would and who would not accept Salvation. And based on that fore knowledge during the Great Tribulation, God will allow those who you indicated to be deceived by the Antichrist, since Satan does not really have any power, to accomplish anything unless God permits it.


From a non-Trinitarian perspective, how is love explained as an attribute of God?

Sinfulness and righteousness are not determined merely by actions.  They are also determined by our thoughts and intents.  Prov. 12:5 provides an excellent example of this:

  The thoughts of the righteous are just,
  But the counsels of the wicked are deceitful.

Jesus also taught about this in his Sermon on the Mount, such as in Matt. 5:21-22:

  You have heard that the ancients were told, "You shall not commit murder" and "Whoever commits murder shall be "liable to the court."  But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court.

In Romans 14:141, when discussing whether or not Christians must follow the Mosaic Law, Paul says that if you believe something is unclean, then it is unclean for you:

  I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Eating something which is unclean is a sin.  In other words, Paul is saying that if you believe that eating a particular food is sinful, and you do it anyway, then, for you, it is sinful.  God does not judge us only by our actions, but also by our thoughts, emotions, and intentions.

Just as sin involves both intentions and deeds, love also involves more than just deeds.  Love is also a state of mind.  If you intend and desire to love others, even when you do not currently have the opportunity to do so, you are still following the law, as repeated by Christ, in Matt. 22:37:

  You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.

Notice that the law was not to "love God in all that you do", but rather to love Him in your heart, soul, and mind.  God is concerned with the matters of the heart.  God wants people to love him with their thoughts and intentions, not just with their outward actions.  To love, only by your actions, is to be a hypocrite (Paul warned against loving hypocritically in Rom. 12:9).  That is why God was more interested in the circumcision of the heart than He was in the outward physical circumcision.  For instance, in Deut 30:6 the the Bible says:

  Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.

In Romans 5:5 Paul describes how, as Christians our hearts have been changed:

  ...the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us...

In 2 Tim. 1:7, Paul also talks about a "spirit" of love:

  For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline.

Having a spirit of love, that was given to you, does not require that an object for that love was present at the moment the spirit was given.  A heart filled with love does not cease to be filled with love when the Christian leaves the company of others.  A circumcised heart will not regrow its metaphorical foreskin when it is lonely.  If it were not possible to remain loving towards others in spirit, even when others are not around, how could God judge our hearts and our minds?

When John stated that "God is Love", he was not referring to any specific actions.  He was not describing the love that God has for any individuals in particular.  He was describing God's unchangeable nature.  As the verses above demonstrate, it is possible to have a nature of love without having any object to receive your loving acts.

From a purely logical basis, since sin is not eternal, the same could be asked of God's mercy and long-suffering.  How can you explain that an unchanging God was merciful before sin existed?  I would argue that mercy and love are part of God's unchanging nature and someone's nature doesn't change depending on their circumstances.

For Trinitarians, God's love compliments their theology perfectly, as you described.  For Unitarians, however, God's love does not contradict their theology.  God's nature doesn't prove that the Godhead necessarily includes multiple persons.  On the contrary, it actually provides an explanation for why God may have created us.  If His nature is love, it follows that He would create us so that He would have someone else with whom He could share His great love.  That is not to say that God needed us, in any way, but rather that the venture would appeal to Him, if you will.

Another, slightly less convincing, argument is that time, itself, is part of the creation.  Following that line of thinking, from God's perspective, there is no such thing as "before" or "after" creation because "before" and "after" are part of creation.  Saying that there was a "time" when God was alone is nonsensical when you consider that He is outside of time entirely.


What is the Catholic explanation of the particular temptations of Jesus in the wilderness?

I imagine Catholics and Protestants are pretty much united in the way they look at Jesus' temptation in the wilderness, since both "camps" hold Scripture in high esteem and believe it to be God's word.

There is perhaps no better answer to your question, then, than the one found in Hebrews, especially chapter 2, verses 17 and 18, as well as chapters 4 and 5, beginning with the section from 4:14 ("Therefore, . . .") to 5:10, which ends with Jesus being referred to as a "high priest according to the order of Melchizedek" (5:10).

Of seminal importance are 2:17-18 and 4:15, which say:

  "Wherefore, it behoved [Jesus] in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest before God, that he might be a propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that wherein he himself hath suffered and been tempted he is able to succour them also that are tempted" (Douay-Rheims).

And,

  "For we have not a high priest who cannot have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin" (Douay-Rheims).

Just as the ancient Hebrews were tested (and tempted) in the wilderness for 40 years, so too was Jesus tested (and tempted) in the wilderness for 40 days. There is significance in the two 40s, but that is not the point of the passage. The point of the passage is simply this:

  The reason Jesus can be an empathic high priest to His children is because He experienced every temptation we experience, yet He did so without sinning.

In other words, no one can say Jesus' time on earth was a walk in the park. He, like us, learned obedience to the Father's will through suffering. Unlike us, however, He never stumbled in His obedience and never once gave in to the devil's blandishments and half-truths, whether in His wilderness experience or at any point in His earthly ministry.

Despite Jesus' perfection, He knew firsthand what it is to be tempted. True, there was nothing in His character which was attracted by, or drawn to, sin. Nevertheless, His temptations were real, raw, and most significantly, perhaps, redemptive for us, particularly in the Garden of Gethsemane. It was there in His prayer to the Father that He expressed His desire to be exempted from the bitter cup He was about to drain on our behalf, yet He concluded His prayer with these words:

  "My Father, if this chalice may not pass away, but I must drink it, thy will be done" (Luke 22:42 Douay-Rheims).

Jesus, having emerged successfully from being tempted by the devil, despite the harshness of the wilderness, and despite being weakened by His 40-day fast, became an empathetic and compassionate high priest to all those who

  ". . . go . . . with confidence to the throne of grace . . . [to] obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid" (Hebrews 4:16 Douay-Rheims).

Moreover, Jesus emerged from His temptation steeled by having defeated His arch enemy, and in so doing was prepared for His greatest temptation in the Garden of Gethsemane (i.e., "olive press"), where the pressure became so great that "his sweat became as drops of blood, trickling down upon the ground (Luke 22:44 Douay-Rheims).

As for the significance of the temptations themselves and the "graduation" of them, as you put it, the three temptations seem to fit the pattern laid out for us by the disciple Jesus loved (viz., John) in 1 John 2:16-17 (NASB, Updated):

  "For all that is in the world [i.e., the kosmos], the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever."

The lust of the flesh corresponds to the temptation for Jesus to turn stones to bread.
The lust of the eyes corresponds to the temptation for Jesus to worship the devil in exchange for all the kingdoms of the world. (Notice that the devil showed Jesus these kingdoms in a moment of time, obviously not long enough for Jesus to see the corruption that existed in all those kingdoms.)
The boastful pride of life corresponds to the temptation for Jesus to cast himself from the pinnacle of the temple in Jerusalem.

In each temptation, the devil wanted Jesus to be and to act autonomously. Jesus chose instead to be obedient to and dependent on His Father. To Jesus, his food was to do only the will of his Father, and to complete the work His Father had laid out for him (see John 4:34).

From eternity past Jesus had determined to humble himself. As Paul tells us in Philippians chapter 2:

  ". . . although He existed in the form of God, [He] did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross" (vv.6-8 NASB, Updated).

In conclusion, while Jesus never ceased being God the Son while he was on earth, He did veil, if you will, the glory He possessed from all eternity by virtue of being coequal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. At some point in the future, however, during the Day of the Lord, Jesus will be reveal Himself to be the King of kings, and the Lord of lords,

  ". . . so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2:10-11 NASB Updated).


Why does the Catholic church not sanction the KJV translation?

A brief history of events leading up to the publication of the King James Authorised version of the Bible may help to explain why the Catholic Church does not sanction this translation.
Mary Queen of Scots gave birth to her son James in 1566 in Scotland. In June 1567 the Protestant lords rebelled against their queen. They arrested and imprisoned Mary in Loch Leven Castle, where she was forced to abdicate the throne of Scotland. James was only a year old when he became James VI, King of Scotland, in 1567. In spite of his mother’s Catholic faith, James was brought up in the Protestant religion. He was educated by men who had empathy for the Presbyterian Church.  It was not until 1603, upon the death of Queen Elizabeth I, that the kingdoms of Scotland and England were united and James became King James I of England, the first of the Stuart line.
King James often wrote against the power of the pope and against Catholicism’s meddling in affairs of state. In his opposition to the pope’s power, James promoted the divine right of kings—the idea that kings are accountable to God and no one else. In 1605, a group of Catholics attempted to assassinate James and his wife and son and to blow up Parliament; however, the Gunpowder Plot was foiled. That incident is remembered today as Guy Fawkes Day.
The Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians wanted a new Bible that would get as far away as possible from the structure of the Bishops’ Bible of the Anglican Church. The Bishops' Bible was an English translation of the Bible produced under the authority of the Church of England in 1568, whose bishops were offended by the Geneva Bible, the notes of which were decidedly Calvinistic in tone. The Great Bible was considered deficient because it was translated from the Latin Vulgate, and so a new translation was authorized by the Anglican bishops and came to be known as the Bishops’ Bible.
The idea of a new translation of the Bible was first proposed at a religious conference in Aberdour, Fife. King James was in favour of a new translation. He didn’t care for Tyndale’s translation of Matthew 16:18, which said Christ would build His “congregation” on Peter (James much preferred “church” from ekklesia). The only other alternative at the time was the 1560s Geneva Bible, but King James objected to a “treasonable annotation” on Matthew 2:20 that suggested that kings are tyrants.

King James Version - Translation method: “The King James translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha was translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate. In 1769, the Oxford edition, which excluded the Apocrypha, became the standard text and is the text which is reproduced almost unchanged in most current printings.” Source: What is the King James Version (KJV)?

Reason 1: King James VI of Scotland and 1 of England opposed the power of the Pope and claimed the divine right of Kings
Reason 2: The 1769 Oxford edition of the King James Authorised Version excluded the Apocrypha
Reason 3: King James VI of Scotland and 1 of England and the 47 translators were Protestants
There may be other reasons, but those are the main ones I found when doing research into this subject a few years ago.  My sources were taken from a wide variety of historical and theological articles.


Why do some traditions *not* celebrate Christmas or Easter in any official fashion?

Jehovah's Witnesses don't celebrate Christmas because of the pagan origins of many of our current customs.  They cover this in several articles on their site.  A search of their site returns many. They also reject several other holidays, citing similar reasons.

Several other denominations have similar beliefs, and even within denominations that largely celebrate holidays, there are those with personal convictions about various aspects of holidays and refuse to celebrate to one degree or another.  It's not always a traditional boundary, since most denominations agree that Christianity isn't about rules and regulations, but rather about a relationship with Christ, and His saving grace.

Using a couple of personal examples, I come from a Baptist Church, and most of us celebrate Christmas, have Christmas trees, etc.  However, there are some in my own Church that refuse to have the trees.  I personally don't like telling the kids about Santa Claus because I don't want them questioning whether they can trust me to tell the truth.

Note, that last paragraph was included as an example of personal convictions, not an endorsement or indictment of any person's choice to celebrate in whatever way they see fit.


The short answer is "yes, there are".

There are quite a few other places that prophecy about the end times, particularly in Daniel 7-12, Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21.

Matthew 24:14 specifically prophecies that the Gospel will be preached throughout the entire world prior to the end:

  And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole
  world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
  Matthew 24:14 ESV

Here are a few others:

  But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of
  difficulty. 2For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money,
  proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful,
  unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control,
  brutal, not loving good, 4treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit,
  lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5having the appearance
  of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.  2 Timothy
  3:1-4 ESV

  knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days
  with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4 They will say,
  "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell
  asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of
  creation." 5For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens
  existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through
  water by the word of God, 6and that by means of these the world that
  then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7But by the same
  word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire,
  being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
  2 Peter 3:3-7 ESV

  But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are
  asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14For
  since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through
  Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15For
  this we declare to you by a word from the Lord,[d] that we who are
  alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede
  those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will descend from
  heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with
  the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise
  first. 17Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up
  together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so
  we will always be with the Lord. 18Therefore encourage one another
  with these words.  1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 ESV

  This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be
  considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also
  suffering— 6since indeed God considers it just to repay with
  affliction those who afflict you, 7and to grant relief to you who are
  afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from
  heaven with his mighty angels 8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance
  on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel
  of our Lord Jesus. 9They will suffer the punishment of eternal
  destruction, away from[b] the presence of the Lord and from the glory
  of his might, 10 when he comes on that day to be glorified in his
  saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our
  testimony to you was believed. 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 ESV


What Bible principles and scriptures apply to a situation where self-defense results in the death of the attacker?

There is an Old Testament principle that applies in the case of defending ones property: “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed” (Exodus 22:2–3).

In the case of a night-time attack, the Law granted the homeowner the benefit of the doubt that, apart from the darkness and confusion of the attack, he would not intentionally use lethal force against a thief. Even in the case of self-defense against a thief, a godly person was expected to try to restrain the assailant rather than immediately resort to killing him.

The Old Testament makes it clear that the life (of humans and animals) is in the blood (Leviticus 17:14; Deuteronomy 12:23) and under the Mosaic Law the punishment for taking the life of a human being is death (Leviticus 24:17).

Under the Mosaic Law an individual who committed manslaughter, or the unintentional and accidental killing of a person, could find sanctuary in any of the six designated cities of refuge throughout the land of Israel (Numbers 35:10–15, 22–25; Deuteronomy 19:4–6; Joshua 20:1–6). But the person guilty of shedding the blood of another was himself at risk of being avenged should he leave the city of refuge.  Even manslaughter (unintentional and accidental killing) breaks God’s laws.

The principle is clear - no one should be too quick to use deadly force against another, even someone who means to do him (or his family) harm.

In the situation you describe the person who takes the life of another will be judged by God, just as the person who commits rape or murder will be judged by God.  Regardless of right and wrong, any person who takes the life of another person has sinned and will answer to God for what they have done.

With regard to who bears the responsibility of sending someone to hell, people go to hell because of their own sin, which they freely choose.  James 1:14-15 speaks of pre-meditated sin: “each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.”

  John 3:18 explains in the simplest terms who will go to heaven and who will go to hell: “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” So, those who go to hell are specifically those who do not believe in Jesus’ name.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/who-will-go-to-hell.html

As Christians we all have a responsibility to share the gospel with others – the great commission is not an option!  In a crisis situation, such as you describe, prayer in the powerful name of Jesus may be a deterrent.  Indeed, miracles have been known to happen where the hand of an assailant has been stayed by divine intervention.  The burden of who goes to hell rests squarely on the shoulders of the individual.  Only remember that the shedding of blood breaks God’s commandments, even if done in self-defense.


In the Catholic Church, is there a punishment for "heresy"?

The 1983 Code of Canon Law says

  §1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provisions of can. 194 §1 n.2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §1, nn.1, 2 and 3.

  – CIC (The online translation is slightly different from my hardback book)

A latae sentitiae excommunication means that the person is excommuicated by the very act; no explicit decree of excommunication is necessary.

Canon 1331 §1 lays down what happens to excommunicated persons, and §2 what happens once the excommunication is formally recognised to have occurred:

  §1. An excommunicated person is forbidden:

  to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever;
  to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments;
  to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance.

  §2. If the excommunication has been imposed or declared, the offender:

  who wishes to act against the prescript of §1, n. 1 must be prevented from doing so, or the liturgical action must be stopped unless a grave cause precludes this;
  invalidly places acts of governance which are illicit according to the norm of §1, n. 3;
  is forbidden to benefit from privileges previously granted;
  cannot acquire validly a dignity, office, or other function in the Church;
  does not appropriate the benefits of a dignity, office, any function, or pension, which the offender has in the Church.

Canon 1336 as mentioned above allows an ordained minister to be further constrained by any or all of the following:

  a prohibition or an order concerning residence in a certain place or territory;
  privation of a power, office, function, right, privilege, faculty, favor, title, or insignia, even merely honorary;
  a prohibition against exercising those things listed under n. 2, or a prohibition against exercising them in a certain place or outside a certain place; these prohibitions are never under pain of nullity;

Note that excommunication is not a punishment. It's a recognition that the person is outside the Church, it's a separation. Canon Law shows what the result of that separation is: basically, the heretic is cut off from receiving the benefits of the Church, including its ministries — the one exception to that would be Reconciliation (Penance).


Do any Christian traditions claim to be antinomian?

Antinomian is quite a negative word. The kind hardly anyone likes to call themselves, even if it was factually correct. Try comparing to bastard, which has a factual meaning (an illegitimate child). Even though being born out of wedlock isn't very shameful nowadays, it's very rare that anyone calls themselves a bastard.

You may find individuals like the blogger Dr. White, who profess to be antinomian -- but even he begins by telling how insulting the word is:

  The word “antinomian” is a curse word of the highest degree in the church today.  To be charged as an antinomian is to be branded a libertine, careless in morality and one who cheapens the precious blood of our Savior.

Certainly there are antinomian churches, but they avoid using that unpleasant term of themselves.


What is the basis of the LDS teaching that the angel Michael became Adam?

Doctrine and Covenants 107:53-56

  53 Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos,
  Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high
  priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into
  the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last
  blessing.

  54 And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed
  Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel.

  55 And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him: I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever.

  56 And Adam stood up in the midst of the congregation; and, notwithstanding he was bowed down with age, being full of the Holy Ghost, predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation.


Is female homosexuality against the Law of Moses?

Quite simply, no, it's not fair to say that.  I do not know Hebrews, but I do know that in Greek, the word anthropos indicates a generic man or person, while aner means specifically a person who is male.  If we went through the entire Bible and applied an exclusive gender wherever it said "man", it would be nonsensical.

  Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for
  God made man in his own image.  Genesis 9:6 ESV

So, capital punishment if anyone kills a man, but no punishment for killing a woman?

  Thus says the Lord: “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not
  the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his
  riches, 24 but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands
  and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love,
  justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I
  delight, declares the Lord.”  Jeremiah 9:23-24 ESV

So, men should not boast about wealth or wisdom or strength, but women can?

  I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not in himself,
  that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps.  Jeremiah 10:23 ESV

And a man's life is not his own, but woman's life is?

So, again, no, we cannot exclude female homosexuality as being lawful under Mosaic Law just because the word "man" is employed.  At best, it would be an argument from silence, but it really isn't from silence.


What does the Parable of the Vineyard Workers mean?

I love this parable. The labourers symbolize humans, so you and me and everyone else. The householder is God. Working in the vineyard represents being faithful to God in your lifetime. And the money symbolizes Heaven/God's Glory.

The first group of people work for the whole day. So this means that the first group are faithful and obedient to god for their whole life. The second group works three hours less than the first. This means that this group of people were unfaithful to God their first part of their life but were converted and were faithful for most of their life... And the last group hardly worked at all in comparison with all the other groups. So this means that this group of people were unfaithful their whole life, except were converted for the very last part of their life.

At the end of the day, everyone receives the same pay no matter how long they worked. What this means is that all people who are faithful to God will make it to heaven and receive the same reward from god, regardless of how long they have been faithful in their lifetime.

Keep in mind that being faithful and your reward from God can vary depending on your specific denomination.

(In my personal understanding, I don't think Jesus was trying to give the message of "Party your whole life and become faithful your later years" as some might take it. I think he was more trying to get the point across that if you have been faithful your whole life, don't be proud and think that you are better than those who become faithful later in their life. Also I think he is trying to say that no matter who you are or at what point in life you are, Jesus will accept you with open arms and not discriminate against you. Also in my personal experience, I am a happier person when I follow gods commandments so I believe those who entered in the vineyard in the morning actually had it the best because their whole life they were able to enjoy the happiness of being Faithful.)


Reward in Heaven? What is it? (Catholic)

The question: what exactly is this "heavenly reward"?
Short answer: the reward is that you are with God rather than not.
Discussion
Since you ask from the Catholic perspective, the reply will be based on the current Catechism1.
About each person getting a different reward.

CCC 1023 Those who die in God's grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live for ever with Christ.  They are like God for ever, for they "see him as he is," face to face.

Recall from the Old Testament that Moses himself could not see God face to face.  Being with God, forever, is considered a great reward among Catholics and is taught by the Church to be the great reward.

CCC 1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either
accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.  The New
Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final
encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly
affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in
accordance with his works and faith.  The parable of the poor man
Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as
well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul

a destiny which can be different for some and for others.

That last line (above) appears to be the teaching that you are referring to in your question.  And now for the different rewards:

1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at
the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his
life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven - through
a purification or immediately - or immediate and everlasting damnation.

The reward is one of three things: entrance into Heaven immediately, entrance into Heaven after purification, or "or immediate and everlasting damnation"
It may be hard for us to grasp, given that we are immersed in the physical world and may make analogies to temporal rewards.  The Church teaches that the reward at judgment is spiritual in nature: to be with God and to see God as He really is.  What greater reward could there be?
Personal Reflection
"Well done, my good and faithful servant." (Matthew 25:21)
Just to hear those words at judgment would be reward enough.

1 I suggest a review of the articles I cited the Catechism, since they go have references and footnotes.  Each article has notations to show its derivation from Scripture, Tradition, and/or teachings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.


Does "Lithium" have any meaning in Christianity?

Does “Lithium” have any meaning in Christianity?
Lithium has no direct meaning in Christianity.
Lithium is the lightest of all metals and is named from the Greek work for stone (lithos). It is the first member of the Alkali Metal family. It is less dense than water (with which it reacts) and forms a black oxide in contact with air.
The Greek Lithos is thus defined as a stone. It could metaphorically refer to Christ.
The Nirvana song Lithium is about a man who turns to religion amid thoughts of suicide. Nirvana first recorded "Lithium" in 1990 but then re-recorded the song the following year for Nevermind.

"Lithium" is a song by American rock band Nirvana. It appears as the fifth track and third single from their second album Nevermind (1991). Written by frontman Kurt Cobain, the song is about a man who turns to religion amid thoughts of suicide. Nirvana first recorded "Lithium" in 1990 but then re-recorded the song the following year for Nevermind.
Released as the third single from Nevermind in July 1992, "Lithium" peaked at number 64 on the US Billboard Hot 100 and number 11 on the UK Singles Chart. It was also a number 1 hit in Finland and a top 5 hit in Ireland and Portugal. The accompanying music video, directed by Kevin Kerslake, is a montage of concert footage.

Interesting that Nirvana chose this name do a song. Nirvana is often associated with Buddhist spirituality and not Christianity. And lithium salts, are primarily used as a psychiatric medication, making as sort of interior nirvana so to speak.

Lithium compounds, also known as lithium salts, are primarily used as a psychiatric medication. They are primarily used to treat bipolar disorder and treat major depressive disorder that does not improve following the use of antidepressants. In these disorders, it reduces the risk of suicide. Lithium is taken orally. - Lithium


When was the term 'substitutionary atonement' first coined and what was the reason for the choice of the 2 words?

It is hard to nail down a person or time that can be credited with the coining of the term substitutionary atonement.  The concept is not well attested in early extra-biblical writings although there are early variations/precursers such as Ransom theories (Origen) and vicarious atonement theories (Athanasius and Augustine).  It's first systematic exploration can probably be attributed to St. Anselm and even at this early date is has perhaps more to do with the penal aspect of atonement:

Theologian Marcus Borg (1942-2015) points out that the substitutionary understanding of Jesus’ death “was not central in the first thousand years of Christianity.” [1] Borg explains:
[The] first systematic articulation of the cross as “payment for sin”
happened just over nine hundred years ago in 1098 in St. Anselm’s
treatise Cur Deus Homo? [Why Did God Become Human?] Anselm’s purpose
was to provide a rational argument for the necessity of the
incarnation and death of Jesus.

Much like the absence of the exact words "original sin" or "trinity" from the biblical text, the idea of substitutionary atonement is integral to both what God, in Christ, has done for us and how this work was typified for us in the Levitical system of worship.
Substitute
a person or thing acting or serving in place of another.

a·tone·ment
reparation for a wrong or injury.
"she wanted to make atonement for her husband's behavior"

Propitiation -
hilastērion

Neuter of a derivative of G2433; an expiatory (place or thing), that is, (concretely) an atoning victim, or (specifically) the lid of the Ark (in the Temple): - mercyseat, propitiation.

Atonement -
kâphar,
kaw-far'

A primitive root; to cover (specifically with bitumen); figuratively to expiate or condone, to placate or cancel: - appease, make (an) atonement, cleanse, disannul, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon, to pitch, purge (away), put off, (make) reconcile (-liation).

Propitiation in the New Testament (Romans 3:24) and Atonement in the Old Testament (Leviticuas 16:10) both contain the nuance of expiation and I strongly believe that Leviticus chapter 16 demonstrates, in the sacrificed goat (lamb) and the released goat (lamb), the aspects of both substitution and atonement with  definite penal undertones, especially as regards the sin offering:

Lev 16:15  “Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, sprinkling it over the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat. Thus he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel and because of their transgressions, all their sins. And so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which dwells with them in the midst of their uncleannesses. - Leviticus 16:15-16

The blood of the sin offering expiates or cleanses the Holy Place (which is within the veil) of the uncleanness of the people and also of the tent of meeting and the altar.  This opens the way for concord between God and His people.  The yearly ritual of Israel is a picture of the once for all entrance and cleansing of that which is behind and within the veil of human flesh so that the very Spirit of God may enter and dwell:

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, _ Hebrews 10:19-20

In fulfillment in Christ it is not a perpetual sacrifice (even the Levitical practice lasted for a year) but rather a sacrifice with perpetual effect (He entered once and sat down).  It is however, in type and fulfillment, both substitutionary and atoning.
Likewise the scapegoat:

“And when he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall present the live goat. And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness. The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness. - Leviticus 16:20-22

This goat actually has ALL the iniquities AND the transgressions AND the sins of the people transferred from them onto it and it bears them away into the wilderness (outside the camp) so that the people may remain within the camp.  It is impossible to escape the notions of substitution and atonement/expiation here (v.10) as the scapegoat takes on and carries away that which is not it's own and cannot abide in proximity to God.  It is also difficult to avoid the penal aspect as well since the goat suffers the consequence of bearing iniquity (expulsion into the wilderness).
And so we have Jesus typified in two sacrificial animals.  One of them is killed in order to cleanse the place of God's dwelling and the implements of man's concord/worship with Him (the temple made without hands) and the other bears away into the wilderness all within man that separates him from God.  Both of these animals are substitutionary and provide atonement.


According to Catholicism, Can God annihilate the soul?

In the Summa Theologica (First Part, Question 104, Article 3), Aquinas asks "Whether God can annihilate anything?" He concludes,

Some have held that God, in giving existence to creatures, acted from natural necessity. Were this true, God could not annihilate anything, since His nature cannot change. But, as we have said above, such an opinion is entirely false, and absolutely contrary to the Catholic faith, which confesses that God created things of His own free-will, according to Ps. 134:61: "Whatsoever the Lord pleased, He hath done." Therefore that God gives existence to a creature depends on His will; nor does He preserve things in existence otherwise than by continually pouring out existence into them, as we have said. Therefore, just as before things existed, God was free not to give them existence, and not to make them; so after they are made, He is free not to continue their existence; and thus they would cease to exist; and this would be to annihilate them.

In other words, Aquinas believes that since God creates things because he wants to, and because he loves them, we must believe that it was possible for him not to give things (including the soul) existence, and similarly at least theoretically possible for God to fail to continue them in existence.
However, the very next question he considers is "Whether anything is annihilated?" (emphasis added) His conclusion is:

Some of those things which God does in creatures occur in accordance with the natural course of things; others happen miraculously, and not in accordance with the natural order, as will be explained. Now whatever God wills to do according to the natural order of things may be observed from their nature; but those things which occur miraculously, are ordered for the manifestation of grace, according to the Apostle, "To each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit, unto profit" (1 Cor. 12:7); and subsequently he mentions, among others, the working of miracles.
Now the nature of creatures shows that none of them is annihilated. For, either they are immaterial, and therefore have no potentiality to non-existence; or they are material, and then they continue to exist, at least in matter, which is incorruptible, since it is the subject of generation and corruption.2 Moreover, the annihilation of things does not pertain to the manifestation of grace; since rather the power and goodness of God are manifested by the preservation of things in existence. Wherefore we must conclude by denying absolutely that anything at all will be annihilated.

In other words:

If God annihilates something, he will do it either (a) as part of the natural course of things, or else (b) as a miracle, to display his power or for some other teaching purpose.
But in nature, we see that no created entity is annihilated in the natural course of things. Either they are material, and the matter constituting them continues in existence even after they die or are worn down to nothing; or else they are immaterial, in which case (since they are pure form with no accident) it is impossible for them to fail to exist.
Furthermore the annihilation of entities does not constitute a display of God's grace and power; these are best displayed by God's maintaining things in existence:

For you love all things that are
and loathe nothing that you have made;
for you would not fashion what you hate.
How could a thing remain, unless you willed it;
or be preserved, had it not been called forth by you?
But you spare all things, because they are yours,
O Ruler and Lover of souls,
for your imperishable spirit is in all things!

(Wisdom 11:24–12:1)
Thus, since God does not annihilate anything either in the natural course of events or as a miracle, we must believe that nothing at all—including the soul—is ever in fact annihilated.

1 Psalm 134 in the Septuagint, 135 in the Hebrew numbering.
2 That is, Thomas claims, because beings are generated out of matter, and they degenerate and decay (they are corrupted) back into matter, the matter itself is not corruptible. Matter can be formed into new entities, and these entities can decay back into matter, but the matter itself is not created nor destroyed—it is not corruptible.


Does the Mormon doctrine of exaltation implicitly require acknowledging the existence of sentient extra-terrestrial life?

Before we dive into the answers, we need to understand the Mormon perspective on the doctrine of exaltation.

The focus of all LDS teaching is on salvation through Christ and His Atonement. Exaltation is all about bringing us back to Christ and to know Him by becoming like Him. Exaltation is not "getting your own planet." That phrase is foreign to Mormons. The Gospel Principles manual says:

  Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in
  great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom.
  He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become
  like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation.

And with exaltation come these things as some blessings:

  Our Heavenly Father is perfect, and He glories in the fact that it is
  possible for His children to become like Him. His work and glory is
  “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses
  1:39).

  Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in
  Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised,
  “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings
  given to exalted people:

  They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:62).
  They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23).
  They will be united eternally with their righteous family members and will be able to have eternal increase.
  They will receive a fulness of joy.
  They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19–20).
  President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised
  through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are
  obedient to His commandments. They shall increase in knowledge,
  wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the
  perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp.
  Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:36; italics in original).

Exaltation is a broad and deep topic of LDS doctrine, much of which can only be learned, as the LDS believe, by revelation and attending the temple and receiving those ordinances. It is sacred to them.

With that in mind, remember that the teaching of any speculation or topic not directly relevant to our salvation is discouraged in the LDS church. You know how it can be: opinions or ideas get taught in class or over the pulpit, and maybe get misconstrued as truth, then all of a sudden you have congregations teaching and absorbing false doctrine, and their focus is removed from the Atonement of Christ.

So as far as I know, there is no official doctrine in the LDS church at this time which directly answers your third question. The LDS would probably say, "We don't know. It hasn't been revealed." Any other attempted answer would merely be speculation based on reasoning and maybe science, but not on the revelations from God which the LDS would require in order to account it as doctrine.

But your first two questions have more secure answers:

1. In the same chapter in that manual referenced above, it says

  To be exalted, we first must place our faith in Jesus Christ and then
  endure in that faith to the end of our lives. Our faith in Him must be
  such that we repent of our sins and obey His commandments.

  He commands us all to receive certain ordinances:

  We must be baptized.
  We must receive the laying on of hands to be confirmed a member of the Church of Jesus Christ and to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
  Brethren must receive the Melchizedek Priesthood and magnify their callings in the priesthood.
  We must receive the temple endowment.
  We must be married for eternity, either in this life or in the next.

  In addition to receiving the required ordinances, the Lord
  commands all of us to:

  Love God and our neighbors.
  Keep the commandments.
  Repent of our wrongdoings.
  Search out our kindred dead and receive the saving ordinances of the gospel for them.
  Attend our Church meetings as regularly as possible so we can renew our baptismal covenants by partaking of the sacrament.
  Love our family members and strengthen them in the ways of the Lord.
  Have family and individual prayers every day.
  Teach the gospel to others by word and example.
  Study the scriptures.
  Listen to and obey the inspired words of the prophets of the Lord.

  Finally, each of us needs to receive the Holy Ghost and learn to
  follow His direction in our individual lives.

2.  From the same source as above, there are some scriptures referenced:

D&C 132:3–4, 16–26, 37 (pertaining to exaltation)
D&C 131:1–4 (eternal marriage is key to exaltation)
D&C 76:59–70 (blessings of celestial glory explained)
D&C 84:20–21 (the power of godliness is manifest through priesthood ordinances)

I was going to quote them, but it got kind of long. You can read them here.

There are also more scriptures to be found in the Bible and other books. A satisfying, but perhaps not comprehensive list, can be found in the Topical Guide under "Exaltation."

I would not expect this answer to satisfy some of the readers. Mason Wheeler has already explained, in the comments, the reason for this, and I will quote it here for emphasis, because I would suggest the same in this case:

  It's worth noting that a good, concise explanation of Exaltation is very difficult to give, as it's basically the highest point of LDS doctrine, and to understand it well--beyond a brief overview that's more of a caricature than anything actually useful--requires an understanding of a lot of other doctrine first. You would get a better explanation by speaking with LDS missionaries, (who do explain Exaltation, after building up to it in a well-structured manner,) than by looking for specific answers here without laying the groundwork. "Line upon line, precept upon precept." (Isaiah 28:10)

(On a personal note, I often do this type of thing in my studies. For example, if I wanted to learn calculus but only knew arithmetic, I wouldn't go check out a calculus book and expect to understand it. I visit with professors and practice the problems on my own until I can grasp the more advanced concepts.)


The word "Poly" is a Greek word, meaning 'many'.
"Scriptura" is a Latin word, meaning 'scripture'.
Put these words together and we get the phrase 'many scriptures'. The  phrase "Poly Scriptura" would therefore refer to exactly that; be it all the 66 books in the Bible; the Bible & other books, such as the writings of the early church fathers; or, as in the Youtube video, the many different available Bible translations.

I found the below paragraph on this site. The author is rebutting "King James Onlyism"; that King James is the only acceptable Bible version and "sola-scriptura", and that all other Bible versions are "poly-scriptura".

  Most of the time, but not always, he tends to become agitated when I ask this, because it puts him on the defense. He is attempting to argue for God’s Word being found exclusively in one English translation.  However, it is his burden to demonstrate with reason why I must abandon my favored, non-KJV translation because it doesn’t fit the qualifications of infallible, inerrant, and so forth.  Now, he can chide and mock me by saying I believe in poly-scriptura not sola scriptura or what ever, but he is still in the position of establishing why his view of the biblical text is correct and mine is in error.


What does the parable of the "goodman of the house" mean?

It's generally interpreted as a warning about the unexpected suddeness of the Lord's return.  Just as you cannot know when you might be robbed, you also cannot know when the Second Coming will occur.  Compare 1 Thessalonians 5 for a parallel warning by Paul. We can note that Paul compares "the Day of the Lord" (and not Jesus Himself) to the thief in the night.

Additional insight is also provided by Matthew 7:24-27, another parable about a house destroyed due to the owner's unreadiness.  If we take the house as the soul, the warning is that not having your "house in order" is to undergo a great risk.  We also have John 10:8-10, where Jesus contrasts Himself with a "thief", who, in context, can be understood as a false prophet or teacher --and perhaps even as the Adversary (the devil).

In summary, the theme seems to be that the "Day of the Lord" will not be without dangers for the unprepared soul.  I think we can take those dangers, spiritual and otherwise, as being the "thief" that one must prepare against.