According to those holding that Jesus was literally born of a virgin, why did Paul not mention it?

The target audience of the writers of the gospels was to people who did not know about or did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah and Risen Lord. They included the virgin birth story because it was an important part of the narrative. Paul's target audiences, on the other hand, were already Christians and so, presumably, were already aware of the narrative of Christ. There are many other life events Paul did not mention as well.


Do any young earth creationists believe that a change to the earth's axis tilt was God's way of shortening human lifespans?

As indicated in this overview of YEC theories regarding the decline in lifespans, environmental changes (such as might be caused by a change in the earth's axis tilt) are not typically cited as a significant cause of the decline in human lifespans.  Environmental changes in general are seen as having only a minor effect, if any, due to the continued long life of Noah and his immediate descendants:

All positions which attempt to explain the ‘lifespan drop’ in environmental terms have another bit of data to explain, and that is the temporary persistence of longevity after the Flood. Noah was 600 at the time of the Flood, but lived another 350 years afterwards, in the post-flood atmosphere! Even in pre-Flood terms, Noah was already of moderately advanced age. One would presume that, if the post-Flood atmosphere/environment has such devastating effects on us now, then because Noah would have been instantly exposed to these same effects, it should have cut his life short much more rapidly.1 [emphasis in original]

That said, some YECs nonetheless argue that there was a change in the tilt of the earth's axis caused by some catastrophic event in the past, perhaps in association with Noah's flood. This shift is cited as evidence for YEC geomagnetism theories, such as magnetic reversals; Noah's flood itself; and methods of archaeological dating (since many ancient events are traditionally dated older than 4000 BC, the approximate year of the creation of the world according to many YECs).2
However, these theories are not directly connected to the decline in human lifespans, nor are they widely accepted even among Creationists.  Creation Ministries International writes:

Some creationists believe that a change in axial tilt (but not from the vertical) started Noah’s Flood. But a lot more evidence is needed and this idea should be regarded as speculative for now.3

Summary
Some Creationists do argue for shifts in the earth's axial tilt.  However, this shift is not directly connected to the change in human lifespans; rather, it is seen as evidence for YEC theories of geomagnetism and archaeological dating.  That said, many YECs regard axial tilt theories as speculative and not particularly likely.

Carl Wieland, Decreased lifespans: Have we been looking in the right place? (Creation Ministries International)
The Dodwell Hypothesis is the best-known example of this.  Bill Overn defends and applies the hypothesis in his paper, "The Tilt of the Earth's Axis."  Paul D. Ackerman suggests that Dodwell's Hypothesis explains the cause of the Flood (an asteroid striking the earth).
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use.  See also Danny Faulkner's rejection of Dodwell's hypothesis (Answers in Genesis).


In Roman Catholic liturgy specifically, the altar is where the Eucharistic Sacrifice is made; i.e., Christ's one sacrifice on Calvary is made present again on the altar at each mass. The altar, in this theology, is still for performing sacrifices.

  "In the New Law the altar is the table on which the Eucharistic Sacrifice is offered. Mass may sometimes be celebrated outside a sacred place, but never without an altar, or at least an altar-stone."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01346a.htm

As the largest unified body of Christians on the planet, Roman Catholics have a large influence on the terminology we use. Note that as a Protestant I don't agree with this theology, but the term "altar" likely persists in our churches merely as a matter of "stale" terminology used by those who do not know better. Protestant theology (at least all that I'm aware of) does not allow for an "altar." The reason to have an altar is antithetical to the Protestant doctrines regarding regeneration and justification and having something that fulfills the purpose of altar (meaning that it isn't just a matter of stale terminology) is nonsense in Protestant churches.


They would first point out that in John 14:28 Christ says he is both "going away" and "will come to you" as evidence that Christ and the Holy Spirit referred to in John 14:16-17 are really the same person based on John 14:18 [and v28]

  16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. 18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. John 14:16-18(KJV)

Next they would point out that while the Father in John 14:28 is treated as independent and "greater,"

  In passages of scripture such as Matthew 3:16-17 where the Son, Father, and Holy Spirit are separated in the text, they view this phenomenon as confirming God's omnipresence, and His ability to manifest himself as he pleases."
  Wikipedia

Finally, they would posit that the view of the "Father" as presented in v28 must be taken contextually as explained to their understanding just a few verses before in John 14:8-9, in which they would affirm that Christ essentially states that He and the Father are the same person.

  (John 14:8-9, WEB) Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you such a long time, and do you not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father. How do you say, ‘Show us the Father?’


Were the medieval popes examined on a toilet-lid-like chair to establish their masculinity?

The chair was real, but its actual function is different from what the legend says. And actually, it seems to have been three chairs: one "commode"-type seat, and two porphyry "pierced" chairs. Read on for more.

In Misconceptions About the Middle Ages (page 66-7; ed. Harris and Grigsby), a description is given of the chairs' function in papal coronations:

  The alleged manual examination of the papal claimant's genitalia, performed by a junior deacon through a [sic] opening in the papal chair, aimed, of course, to guard against the election of another woman Pope. ... By 1406, the humanist Jacopo d'Angelo ... denies in his report of the coronation of Gregory XII that such a rite existed, and accounts for the false belief along largely correct lines by explaining the meaning of function of various chairs in the coronation ritual: one chair at the Lateran, called the sedes stercoraria [which means "dung chair" or "toilet"], on which the Pope sits to remind him "that he rises out of clay and dung," that is, that he is subject to the failings of our human nature; and two porphyry seats in the Chapel of San Sylvester (which, because they are pierced, Jacopo says, "the common people tell the senseless fable that someone touches him as he sits to prove that he is indeed a man"). Seated in the latter, the Pope receives, respectively, the papal staff and keys (i.e., the power to govern, granted by Christ to Peter) and a red belt hung with twelve precious stones (invoking the Old Testament priesthood). The two porphyry chairs had first been noted in the investiture of Paschal II in 1099, as found in the Liber Pontificalis. ... The "stercory chair" was eliminated from the rite of investiture in 1560, while the two pierced chairs were last used in the accession of Leo IX [sic; that should be Leo X] in 1513. One was taken from the Vatican by Napoleon after the Treaty of Tolentino and is now in the Louvre; the other is still in the Vatican Museum.

The writing of Jacopo d'Angelo to which they refer is a letter to a certain Emmanuel Chrysoloras, which doesn't seem to be available in English. The editors claim indebtedness to The Myth of Pope Joan by Alain Boureau, so if you want to know more then that's probably a good place to look.

The renowned 19th century historian of Rome, Ferdinand Gregorovius, described the sedia stercoraria in further detail in History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages, Volume 5, Issue 1:

  Advancing across the forums and through the triumphal arches of Septimius Severus and Titus the procession skirted the Colosseum passed by S. Clemente and reached the piazza of the Lateran. Here the clergy of the Lateran received the pope with solemn song. They escorted him to the Portico where he took his seat on an ancient marble chair, the sella stercoraria. This symbolic ceremony of the deepest abasement of the supreme Head of Christendom on a seat bearing such a name is perhaps the most curious custom of the Middle Ages, a custom which we can only now contemplate with a smile. Cardinals however hastened to raise the Holy Father from the inappropriate seat with the comforting words of Scripture, "He taketh up the simple out of the dust and lifteth the poor out of the mire." [Psalm 113:7] The pope standing erect took three handfuls of gold, silver, and copper from the lap of one of his chamberlains and threw them among the people saying "Gold and silver are not mine but what I have that I give thee." [Acts 3:6]

In conclusion, though reports of the testicle verification rite go back a long way, so do contrary reports. The contrary reports make more sense (to me at least) and the reports of the testicular examination come chiefly from opponents of the Papacy and give confused accounts of what actually took place. My verdict, personally, is that it never took place but that someone saw the chairs with the holes and let their imagination do the rest.


What is the basis of God's Goodness/Righteousness?

Christian theologians have been divided on the issue of balancing God's sovereignty and man's freedom. If we construct a strict sovereignty then we fall in the danger of determinism and fatalism, that inevitably raises the question on God's moral nature and his sincerity. If we overemphasis on man's freedom then we might diminish God's sovereignty. The Reformed and Calvinistic theology has often been accused as determinism which makes man into puppets in the hands of God. The other prominent branch is "Molinism" after the name of a Spanish Jesuit of the Counter-Reformation Luis Molina (1535-1600) which is  considered to be the root of "Arminianism" after the name of Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609). Here is an excerpt by Dr. Craig's article  from ReasonableFaith:

  Everyone acknowledges that we have at least the illusion of free will.
  I take it that my sense of freely choosing is not mere appearance
  only, since if it were, nothing I think or do is of any significance
  whatsoever. Even the decision to believe in determinism would be
  meaningless, no more significant than having a toothache. Since
  freedom of the will is a necessary condition of the meaningfulness of
  my life, I may as well assume that I do have it. After all, if I do
  not have free will and my life is meaningless, who cares?

  So I think that determinism is incompatible with free will, but that
  determinism has not been demonstrated to be true. So what does it mean
  to have free will? Some thinkers have said that it is the ability in
  causally identical situations to choose either A or not-A. It seems to
  me, however, that this so-called Principle of Alternative
  Possibilities is not a necessary condition of willing freely. I’m
  persuaded by illustrations like that given by Harry Frankfurt to show
  that freedom does not require the ability to choose other than as one
  does. Imagine a man whose brain has been secretly implanted with
  electrodes by a mad scientist. The scientist, being an Obama
  supporter, decides that he will activate the electrodes to make the
  man vote for Obama if the man goes into the polling booth to vote for
  Romney. On the other hand, if the man chooses to vote for Obama, then
  the scientist will not activate the electrodes. Suppose, then, the man
  goes into the polling booth and presses the button to vote for Obama.
  In such a case it seems that the man freely votes for Obama. Yet it
  was not within his power to do anything different!

  Such thought experiments have been criticized on the grounds that no
  one could know what the man was going to do before he actually
  attempted to do so; hence, his free decision must be aborted by the
  activation of the electrodes. But while this objection seems cogent
  against human examples of prevention or intervention, it occurs to me
  that if God has middle knowledge and so knows what a person would
  freely do in any set of circumstances God might place him in, then the
  objection has no force. Suppose, for example, that had God known that
  Pontius Pilate would not send Jesus to the cross, He would not have
  placed Pilate in such circumstances. In that case, Pilate did not
  under the circumstances have the ability to let Jesus go. Yet he
  freely sent Jesus to the cross, since nothing determined him to do so.

  This suggests that what is critical to free will is not the ability to
  choose differently in identical circumstances but rather not being
  caused to do something by causes other than oneself. It is up to me
  how I choose, and nothing determines my choice. Sometimes philosophers
  call this agent causation. The agent himself is the cause of his
  actions. His decisions are differentiated from random events by being
  done by the agent himself for reasons the agent has in mind.

  This understanding of free will has relevance to the case of God
  Himself. Jesus, being divine, was impeccable (could not sin).
  Therefore, there was no possibility of his yielding to Satan’s
  temptations in the wilderness. Yet he resisted sin freely because
  nothing external to him determined his choices. Like the man with the
  electrodes implanted in his brain, Jesus could not have chosen to sin,
  but he freely resisted sin. Again, God cannot choose to do evil, yet
  He freely does the Good because nothing outside Him determines Him to
  do so.

  So, to return to the case of human agents, certainly a free choice
  influences physical events, most obviously in the case of basic
  actions in my own body, like freely lifting my arm. We are not
  causally determined to make all the choices we make; rather many
  choices are up to us and are therefore free choices. We are held
  accountable for such choices because they are not the result of random
  brain events but are undertaken for reasons which we weigh and act
  upon.

  I’m not sure what you mean by “some ethereal and unintelligible
  source,” but if you are referring to God, I agree that if God secretly
  determines my every thought and action, then I am but a puppet whose
  actions are meaningless. But a God endowed with middle knowledge of
  what persons would freely do in any set of circumstances God might
  place them in can be provident over human affairs without infringing
  on human freedom.

also read a concise comparison of Molinism and Calvinism.


Can the Word of God and God's wisdom be beneficial to an unbeliever?

This is a two-part answer, because your question addresses two things:

I should also make it clear up front that I am one of those unbeliever types.

1) Yes, wisdom from the bible can be beneficial to an unbeliever.

Because wisdom from all sources is beneficial.  As an unbeliever, no book holds a special place.  This means that all sources can be analysed for wisdom.  The bible in particular contains many parables and thought experiments that can be useful regardless of their source; exercises to challenge one's sense of ethics and morality.

But equally, we could read Harry Potter and analyse some of their circumstances and come out with different, but equally valid, wisdom.  Stories of daring and heroism, and in particular those things that the heroes are willing to do or sacrifice in order to achieve that heroism, are always fun to break down and analyse.  Try to work out the ethics of Snape, for example.

But do be aware that, since unbelievers don't share the same foundational concepts, the stories and ethics can come out somewhat differently.  Many of the more foundational stories of the Old Testament -- The Binding of Isaac, Jonah and the Whale, The Testing of Job all being class examples -- and even the concepts from the New Testament -- the vicarious redemption of mankind by Jesus, Hell, etc. -- can be and are interpreted entirely differently.

2) Don't do that.

Even in the rare case that the story you're going to tell is actually appropriate, telling bible stories to a stressed-out unbeliever is going to come across as preachy and will stress your friendship equally if not more.  Feel free to suggest actions taken by those in the stories as possible routes out of their situation -- after all, this is distilled version of the wisdom that is actually imparted to you -- but just telling the story will just likely cause your message to be lost.


Short Answer: Johannes Lippius (1585-1612), a German Protestant theologian, philosopher, composer, and music theorist, who also coined the term "harmonic triad" as a set of three notes stacked vertically in thirds.
Earliest use of the musical triad as a harmonic entity in Western music
The triad became common from 1300 onwards, but the triad functioning as a chord appeared only much later (toward the late 1400s).  The following 4 famous compositions between 1300-1600 should illustrate the progression of the use of triad from "juxtaposition" of the 3 notes to the 3 notes as "indivisible unit" (see quotes from Dr. Bertoglio and Dr. Elders below):

c. 1365 Guillaume de Machaut's Messe de Nostre Dame (sample performance): Triad appearing in Organum style compositions as juxtaposition of two consonant harmonic intervals but rarely in important places.
c. mid to late 1400s Johannes Ockeghem's Missa Prolationum (sample performance, score): Triad appearing much more frequently in end of phrase cadences in this Mensuration canon style composition, but still mostly as a side effect of polyphonic writing, not as a self-standing entity.
c. 1515 Josquin des Prez's Missa Pange Lingua (sample performance): Triad starts appearing in isolated homophonic section such as the "et incarnatus est" in the Credo (10:36-11:33) in an otherwise cantus firmus style composition featuring imitative voice pairings (less polyphonic).
c. 1562 Giovanni Palestrina's Missa Papae Marcelli (sample performance): Triad appearing in chordal harmony style similar to later chorale style compositions.

cited in this answer to the question "Who first compared the Trinity to a musical triad?"

Tri-unity represented by triad→monotone conversion

"et hi tres unum sunt" (based on: Isaias 6:1-4)

Monteverdi Duo seraphim @ 3:47
Guerrero's @ 1:55

Contrapuntal technique symbolizing generation
1 (dux)→2 (comes generated by dux, not created by composer!)→3 voices
Father→Son, Father+Son → Holy Ghost

“genitum, non factum”

Missa Ecce Ancilla Domini/Beata es Maria Credo, Guillaume Dufay @ 1:54
Missa Hercules Dux Ferrariæ Credo, Josquin Desprez @ 1:42

“genitum, non factum, [...] per quem omnia facta sunt”

canon in Credo of Bach's B-minor Mass @ 2:23

"Filium Dei unigenitum"

Missa Sine Nomine n. 2 Credo, Johannes Tinctoris @ 1:09

playlist of these in the above-listed order
source: PDF pp. 7-8, notes 5-7, of

Chiara Bertoglio, “A Perfect Chord: Trinity in Music, Music in the Trinity,” Religions 4, no. 4 (December 2013): 485–501

Earliest comparison of the chord and the Trinity
Musicologist Willem Elders in his book Symbolic Scores: Studies in the Music of the Renaissance wrote in the section "Symbols of the Trinity in Art and Music" of the chapter "Canon and Imitation as Musical Images of the Three Divine Persons" (emphasis mine):

The dogma 'one God in three Persons' can be musically represented in the following ways:
(a) the number three can be expressed in the rhythmic movement of the composition, viz. by means of perfect mensuration or proportio sesquialtera;
(b) the concept 'three-in-one' may be symbolized in the triad;
(c) the same concept can also be expressed by way of three canonic voices.
...
The occurrence of the triad as a possible symbol of the Trinity must clearly be approached with even more caution.  The thirteenth-century poet Pierre de Peckham, perhaps inspired by Augustine's interpretation of the ten strings of the psaltery as representing the Ten Commandments, remarks that three strings of the harp, vibrating 'in unity',

Sount par accord come la trinité
(Sound in accord as the Trinity).

...
Yet it is hard to give evidence of this particular use of the triad as an image of the Trinity in Renaissance composition.  Until the sixteenth century the theory of polyphonic composition considered triadic chords as complexes of two harmonic intervals.  Thus, though it is true that Walter Odington (fl. 1298-1316) already recognized the third as a consonant interval, and while it cannot be denied that the triad became a common phenomenon in three-part music from about 1300 onwards, the chord as an indivisible unit is only descried much later.  In his Synopsis musicae novae of 1612, Johannes Lippius says the following: "The simple harmonic triad is the true and three-in-one sounding root of all the most perfect and complete harmony found in the world ... and the image and shadow of that great divine mystery, which is to be adored, the Unitrinity."  If we further take into account that triads occur as often in settings of texts dealing with the Trinity as they do in settings of other texts, it becomes apparent that any possible symbolic purpose of the major and minor third will not be easy to prove.

Bradley Broadhead, a PhD in Theology from McMaster Divinity College, in his 2014 journal article The Triune Triad: A Musical Analogy Concerning the Trinity and Humanity published in Volume 3 of Imaginatio et Ratio: A Journal of Theology and the Arts attributed the same Johannes Lippius (1585-1612) to make the first definite connection between the musical triad to the Trinity:

From Bach to Messiaen, theologically minded composers have contemplated the Trinity from a musical perspective.² Part of this tradition is employing the major triad as an analogy for the Trinity. An early precursor³ is found in the autobiography of Ignatius of Loyola (1491—1556) which describes a moment when his “understanding began to be elevated so that he saw the Most Holy Trinity in the form of three keys.”⁴ What exactly his contemplations consisted of we can only speculate on, but his experience serves as a pretext for further exploration. A more definite connection between the major triad and the Trinity is found in the work of Johannas Lippius (1585–1612). He was a musical theorist and theologian whose theological insights impacted his conception of the major triad, contributing in turn to the theory of inversion “that stands as the foundation of the modern approach to music.”⁵

How properties of the Trinity are represented in the musical properties of a chord
One major aim of his paper is to

build my analogy on the (tantalizingly) brief remarks of Lippius in his work, Synopsis of New Music, that imply how each note of the major triad corresponds to a person of the Trinity.  This correspondence can easily be inferred by the way he uses the vocabulary of Trinitarian relations to describe how these notes relate to one another.⁸ I expand upon his remarks below in the sections on each person of the Trinity. The fruit of this investigation in turn aids an exploration of the economic Trinity⁹ in relation to salvation history by means of a musical thought experiment. Finally, this experiment culminates in a musical depiction of participation in the divine nature.

Quotes related to Lippius from the sections of Dr. Broadhead's paper:
The Father:

Turning to the major triad, Benito Rivera makes a convincing case that Lippius has Gregory’s conception of the Trinity in mind when Lippius describes the major triad in Synopsis of New Music.12 According to Rivera, “for him the basis [the root of the triad] is the source from which the chord arises.”¹³ At the source of the modern conception of the major triad as a single unit is also the notion of one note giving rise to the other notes of the triad in a way that parallels the Father’s place as the source of the Trinity.¹⁴

The Son:

According to Lippius, “the ultima or summa [the fifth of the triad] . . . is “begotten” by the prima [the root of the triad].¹⁹

The Spirit:

What has been said about the Son and the Father in no way diminishes the relations between them and the Spirit, but the relationship is different because the Father begets the Son, while the Spirit proceeds from the Father in a way that does not entail sonship. Eastern interpreters of the Trinity have been content to note that Scripture distinguishes between the Son and the Spirit,²⁶ while Western interpreters have argued that the Spirit proceeds from the Father
and the Son (i.e. filioque), making the procession of the Spirit unique.²⁷ Looking at the major triad through the lens of the Trinity, Lippius asserts that the root and the fifth “‘co-spirate’ in a perfect and masculine sonority, and then one media [the third] ‘proceeds’ from them and connects them with its milder sweetness. . .”,²⁸ in line with the Western understanding of the procession of the Spirit. What Lippius hears in a subjective sense (it is difficult to objectively determine “masculine sonority” and “milder sweetness”), I hope to affirm by means of a more concrete illustration.

Trinity, Space, and Perichoresis:
Lippius's comparison of the major triad to the Trinity was further developed by
Dr. Broadhead and by Dr. Jeremy Begbie, a professionally trained musician and a professor of theology who wrote the award winning 2007 book Resounding Truth:

While visual representations of the Trinity are useful in some respects, a musical representation has a threefold advantage: first, it is invisible, second, it involves sound waves and air, which connotes the biblical ambiguity between wind and spirit ( רוח in the Old Testament and πνεύμα in the New Testament),³⁷ and third, it allows for distinction in a shared space without conflict or compromise. This third point in particular is useful in terms of understanding the unity and distinctions of the Trinity. Begbie asks,

What could be more apt than to speak of the Trinity as a three-note chord, a resonance of life; Father, Son, and Spirit mutually indwelling, without mutual exclusion, and yet without merger, each occupying the same space, “sounding through” one another, yet irreducibly distinct, reciprocally enhancing, and establishing one another as other?³⁸

Other sections:
Dr. Broadhead then continued his Trinitarian thought experiment by considering how the chords and their overtone series can further symbolize the following:

Fall and Redemption
Incarnation and Redemption
Participation in the Divine Nature

Conclusion:

The major triad is a rich resource for contemplating the nature of the Trinity and God’s interaction with humanity. The constructs created in this paper illustrate a wide range of the various doctrines concerning the Trinity and humanity, including the relations between members of the Trinity and aspects of the fall, redemption, and participation. As an analogy, it avoids Sabellianism by showing how the three persons interrelate with one another and it avoids Tritheism by affirming the Father as the source. Finally, the functions of the notes in the major triad provide a parallel for the unique operations of the persons of the Trinity.

Broader comparison of Trinity with music
Another extensively researched journal article A Perfect Chord: Trinity in Music, Music in the Trinity by Dr. Chiara Bertoglio (a classical pianist with a PhD in music performance practice as well as MA in Systematic and Philosophical Theology), published in a 2013 special issue of Religions, Music and Spirituality, surveys the history of Western music (including references to the Church Fathers) of how "music help us to “say” and to “understand” something of the ineffable and unattainable mystery of the Trinity" in various ways represented by the sections of her article:

2. The Liturgy of Trinitarian Love: how human participates in the liturgy of Trinitarian love (we as musical instrument)
3. The Harmony of Creation, the Harmony of the Creator: how the order and harmony of creation are expressed in music
4. God: the Lord of Time: Homage to the Trinity through the ternary rhythmic mensural notation
5. A "Polyphonic" God: Counterpoint between cantus firmus and the higher parts as an icon of the Trinity
6. A "Harmonious" God: Trinitarian analogies of the chord which is based on the Western tonal system, which in turn is based on the physical properties of sound in the first 6 harmonics.  This is OP's topic and she also  mentioned Lippius:

Already during the Ars-Nova period, the interval of third starts to appear among the allowed consonances, probably in consequence of the influence of British music: at first as passage note (i.e., as a non-consonant, or not totally consonant interval, which could be tolerated between two consonant notes), and later as an “imperfect” consonance ([36], p. 321). It was not before the 16th century, however, that the concept of “triad chord” was established⁹. It is perhaps interesting to consider here the German theorist Johannes Lippius (1585–1612), who perfectly summarized the concept of his time, as the result of the progressive intensifying of an awareness coming from the preceding centuries.¹⁰ For Lippius, the triad (“trias harmonica perfecta”) is “imago et umbra magni mysterii divinæ solum adorandæ Unitrinitatis” ([55]; cf. [56], pp. 40–49). This same concept has been developed in recent times by Paolo Venturino in a series of deep, fruitful and thought-provoking observations on the Trinitarian symbolism of the triad ([57], pp. 67ff; cf. [58]).¹¹
Footnotes:
⁹ Up until then, actually, the three notes forming the triad were not conceived as a self-standing “harmonic” entity proper,
but rather as the juxtaposition of two consonant harmonic intervals (cf. [54], p. 188).
¹⁰ He was the first to formalise the concept of chord inversion, according to which the chords “C-E-G”, “E-G-C” and “GC-
E” are three versions of the same triad.
¹¹ The argument maintained by Venturino is part of a wider discussion, aiming at demonstrating the presence and the
theological value of a particular temperament of keyboard instrument created by Johann Sebastian Bach. According to
Venturino, the composer ciphered his tuning system in the autograph title-page of the Well-Tempered Keyboard I (1722). We are omitting here, in a simplistic way, the complex acoustic/mathematical implications of Venturino’s argument; however, it is interesting to quote here some of his statements concerning the Trinitarian values of the triad.

Her treatment in section 6, the OP's topic, is consistent with and complements what Dr. Bradley Broadhead explored in his journal article referred to above.
Resources for further study

A 1977 English translation of Lippius's 1612 Synopsis musicae novae by Benito V. Rivera can be found in a book Synopsis of new music = Synopsis musicae novae published by Colorado College Music Press reviewed in the Journal of Music Theory here.

In contrast, for examples of how music had been used to portray evil, including the use of the tritone chord please see the notes of Dr. William Renwick's presentation The Portrayal of Evil in Music  in a 2001 symposium.

Book chapter Canon and Imitation as Musical Images of the Three Divine Persons of 1994 book Symbolic Scores: Studies in the Music of the Renaissance by Dutch musicologist Willem Elders.


Which sects interpret "Day and Hour unknown" literally?

I would argue that most churches accept this quite literally, and that the exceptions prove the rule.

Three great examples in the last 150 years of trying to pick a date are as follows:

The Millerites who, in following Miller, were convinced Jesus was coming back in 1844.
Ed Whiseant's "88 Reasons the Lord is Coming Back in 1988"
Harold Camping's date of May 21, 2011

In all cases, these predictions did not come to pass. (I realize that since all three dates have come to pass, this may come as a shock to some people - but so far the record is zero :)

In at least the later two cases, most Protestants dismissed the prophecies as heresy, using precisely the justification you state.  Here, for example is a post from March 2011, using precisely the same justification.

The most interesting of the three, however, is clearly that of the Millerites. Like Camping, William Miller stuck his neck out and said the Lord was coming back in 1843.  When that didn't happen, he recalculated and figured out it was 1844.  When that discredited him, he slipped off the stage - but not before providing the essential ingredients to help launch the Seventh Day Adventists and the Jehovah's Witness.

But again, these are hardly indicative of the mainstream.  Most of us just say, "Really?"


Why does Iglesia ni Cristo use the Lamsa Bible?

Iglesia ni Cristo (English: Church of Christ; abbreviated as INC) is an international Christian denomination religion that originated in the Philippines. It was registered and preached in 1914 by Felix Manalo,who became the first executive minister [1].

This new sect Iglesia Ni Cristo ( English: Church of Christ) is just 100 years old.They are avid Unitarians.Their Unitarian Theology is identical to Socinus than to Arius.

The Lamsa Bible is an English translation of the Aramaic Bible by George Lamsa [2].

The main reasons INC uses the Lamsa Bible is because it suits their theology.

The Lamsa Bible contains the exact phrase "church of Christ" in Acts 20:28 whereas all Greek MSS reads " ekklessia theou."

INC strictly teaches its doctrines in terminology that is found only in the Bible.

They use Acts 20:28 twofold purpose:

1) To deny the divinity of Christ [ it wasn't God's blood].

2) To affirm their claim that the name of the only true church is church of Christ.[For INC other churches whose name is not church of Christ is automatically a false church].

Reference:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iglesia_ni_Cristo

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamsa_Bible


Dominion Theology is the belief that society should be governed exclusively by Christian Laws, whether or not all of the people in that society are Christians. It is very much a minority view within Christianity, which has traditionally believed in dual secular and ecclesiatical authorities, even in times and places where Christianity has been the dominant or state religion.

For example, even at the height of Christian dominance in Europe, Kings were permitted and expected to make laws for their subjects and enforce them, apart from church law.

The name "Dominion Theology" is derived from Genesis 1:28, where God grants humanity "dominion" over the Earth.

See Wikipedia and its references for more detail.


What movement was Chesterson writing about in "Orthodoxy"

Chesterton always is talking about German philosophers he despises mainly Nietzsche, even if he doesn't name them.  He also routinely takes on his British contemporaries (and friends) spewing these same philosophies.

But you're right, he's not talking about George Bernard Shaw or H.G. Wells here.  He's talking about what he saw in British Churches in the early 20th century.

I like to go back to what he says in Orthodoxy about Original Sin being the only provable doctrine.  I think what he's saying is that there's a good many Christians who don't think they need 'a washing.  Keep in mind the various ways Protestants and Catholics deal with post-baptismal sin and you'll see where I'm going.  The doctrine of original sin means that we've got a tendency to follow our passions and they will lead us astray.  Not all Christians believe this and a good many believe that if something feels good, that it's OK.

But, to your point, who were these people

  Whether or no man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. Some followers of the Reverend R.J.Campbell, in their almost too fastidious spirituality, admit divine sinlessness, which they cannot see even in their dreams. But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street. The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.

So, who is R.J. Campbell? Well, he's one of the progenitors of the New Theology Movement. And what is the New Theology Movement?

  The New Theology is a false "religious" system that became popular among Catholics in Europe from the 1920s onward. Because it was recognized as resurgent modernism, it was kept under a lid by the Vatican and was condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis. Its primary founders were Maurice Blondel, Father Henri de Lubac and Hans Urs von Balthasar. It enjoys an undeserved popularity today.

A Short Catechism on the New Theology

I love short Catechisms that get to the point. So, there was a movement somewhere within liberal Anglican and liberal Catholic circles to apply modernism to theology, which fortunately was quashed rather handily in , but unfortunately oozed out over the 20th century and beyond.

A theology based on Evolution would sincerely deny original sin, since it denies our first parents' existence.  That's one thing Catholics are not allowed to believe in regards to evolution

  Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.

Pope Pius XII - Humani Generis

So, thanks for asking the question (it was fun to track down all those references, I usually just assume I'll never know who he's talking about) and keep reading Chesterton!


The term was originally used as a way to separate Latter-Day Saints from other Christians, due to their belief in the Book of Mormon as well as the Bible.  (Much like the term "Christian", which was first used by Jews in the early Apostolic period to distinguish this sect of Judaism, who believed that Christ had already come, from the more respectable, mainstream Jews.)

(EDIT: Because this apparently confused someone, I'm using the word "Christ" in the original, literal meaning here. Christos is the literal Greek translation of the Hebrew messiah, and was used as a title rather than a name at that time.)

In the early days of the church, the term commonly used by LDS members to refer to each other was "saints".  (This can be seen throughout the Doctrine & Covenants, a collection of modern-day revelations regarding the church received by Joseph Smith and his successors, and in surviving letters from the period.)  But again like the term "Christian," Mormons ended up adopting the term once it became ubiquitous.

The church currently sponsors the well-known Mormon Tabernacle Choir, and runs an official outreach site at www.mormon.org, so it's safe to say that it's not considered offensive, although the official name of the church does not contain the word and it's considered proper to use the full name, or simply "Latter-Day Saints," in any sort of formal context.


Do Lutherans and Catholics have the same beliefs regarding the purpose of Confirmation?

In the Lutheran faith confirmation is not a sacrament as it is for Catholics.  According to the book of Concord Article XIII(VII) confirmation does not meet the criteria which make a sacrament as it is not required by Gods direct command nor is there a clear promise of grace associated with it.  I would say the caveat exists that it is at conformation where people first receive communion as it marks that they now have fellowship with other Lutherans of their denomination.


Does the Roman Catholic Church have a daily Bible reading?

Yes

Divinum Officium has Mass propers for the pre-Vatican II, 1962 and earlier calendars; and there is a daily reading website for Novus Ordo Masses.


What is theological root of global warming skepticism?

In addition to his evangelism and church planting, Ed Stetzer conducts surveys of pastors for LifeWay. One of the survey questions he asks from time to time is:

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: I believe global warming is real and manmade.

Stetzer has asked the question in 2008, 2010, and 2013.
In 2010 Stetzer found that the number of American Protestant pastors agreeing with the statement dropped sharply compared with 2008. This matched a trend seen in polls of the American public at large.
Source: New Research: Protestant Pastors & the Environment, Shifting on Global Warming and Teaching on the Environment
Earlier this year, Stetzer found that the number of pastors agreeing with the statement is beginning to trend upward again, but has not yet reached 2008 levels. Again this corresponds with the public at large.
Source: New Research on Protestant Pastors' Views of the Environment
Stetzer further broke down the latest poll results by region, denomination, and political party.

Pastors identifying as Democrats are the most likely to strongly agree (76 percent) in the validity of man-made global warming, followed by Independents (20 percent). Just 7 percent of Republican pastors strongly agree. Conversely, Republican pastors are the most likely to strongly disagree (49 percent), followed by Independents (35 percent) and Democrats (5 percent).
• Pastors in large cities (32 percent) are more likely to strongly agree with the statement than pastors in small cities (20 percent) and rural areas (18 percent);
• Southern pastors are less likely (18 percent) to strongly agree with the statement than pastors in the Northeast (30 percent) and West (25 percent);
• Self-identified mainline pastors are more likely than self-identified evangelical pastors to strongly agree (35 percent vs. 15 percent) with the statement.

Although there is a difference between Mainline and Evangelical pastors, it is much smaller than the difference between Democrats and Republicans, and it is nearly identical to the gap between urban and rural areas. The data suggest the difference is political rather than theological.
A 2009 survey of the general public by the Pew Center seems to confirm this, showing that political party affiliation is the dominant factor affecting views about climate change, and that the economy and the weather may have a small influence.
Also, despite Stetzer's tongue-in-cheek tweet, "I'm sure they are all lying," he points out in his blog that "the consensus in scholarly papers is clear.…A survey of thousands of peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals has found 97.1% agreed that climate change is caused by human activity."


Can we use KJV Bible version in mobile application

The protection that the Authorized Version, and also the Book of Common Prayer, enjoy is the last remnant of the time when the Crown held a monopoly over all printing and publishing in the United Kingdom.[166] Almost all provisions granting copyright in perpetuity were abolished by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, but because the Authorized Version is protected by royal prerogative rather than copyright, it will remain protected, as specified in CDPA s171(1)(b).[j]

Cambridge University Press permits the reproduction of at most 500 verses for "liturgical and non-commercial educational use" if their prescribed acknowledgement is included, the quoted verses do not exceed 25% of the publication quoting them and do not include a complete Bible book.[167] For use beyond this, the Press is willing to consider permission requested on a case-by-case basis and in 2011 a spokesman said the Press generally does not charge a fee but tries to ensure that a reputable source text is used.

Wikipedia - King James Version


What sources are used for the Christian Bible translations?

Wikipedia has a good list of the various sources used:

Septuagint
Masoretic
Syriac
Dead Sea Scrolls
Vulgate
Samaritan Pentateuch
Textus Receptus
Codex Bezae
Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Vaticanus
other fragments and partial texts


Where did the rule regarding abstaining from Communion after divorce originate?

I hope I'm not misrepresenting the Eastern Orthodox position, but I'm assuming it's the same as the Catholic. If not, let me know.

Disallowing the divorced the Eucharist is not a specific thing. A priest is not allowed to give the Eucharist to anyone he knows is living in a state of mortal sin. It's simply that divorce is a mortal sin (Luke 16:18), as well as remarrying.

To receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is both an insult to the Body and Blood of Christ (Hebrews 10:29), and thus—or as a result of that—a detriment to the soul (and sometimes even the body):

  1 Corinthians 11:23-31 (DRB) For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. 26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. 31 But if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But whilst we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world.

You see St. Paul teaches that you cannot receive the Eucharist whilst you are in a state of judgement, and to be punished for receiving it. Certainly living in a state of "adultery" (Luke 16:18) falls under this category.


What happens to Lutherans who become Catholic?

Lutherans officially recognize the "Office of the keys"

  What is the Office of the Keys?*

  The Office of the Keys is that special authority which Christ has given to His church on earth to forgive the sins of repentant sinners, but to withhold forgiveness from the unrepentant as long as they do not repent.

  Where is this written?*

  This is what St. John the Evangelist writes in chapter twenty: The Lord Jesus breathed on His disciples and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (John 20:22–23)

  What do you believe according to these words?*

  I believe that when the called ministers of Christ deal with us by His divine command, in particular when they exclude openly unrepentant sinners from the Christian congregation and absolve those who repent of their sins and want to do better, this is just as valid and certain, even in heaven, as if Christ our dear Lord dealt with us Himself.

as given in Luther's Small Catechism from Luther's te, though he may not have written these questions himself. And while there may be some today, and almost certainly some in the past who might have invoked this in the past with respect to someone who converted to Catholicism, it would not be the default action for most Lutherans today, with respect to someone who might choose to.join the Catholic Church as to Lutherans who come to accept certain hallmarks of Catholic beliefs, there is no particular problem with this, either, and it is probably the rare individual who does not agree with at least a few of them, though there are probably some beliefs that are rarely held by Lutherans.


In the gospels Jesus speaks, as your question points out, of the unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  Indeed it's true that blaspheming the Spirit of God is a grave sin. It's important to keep in mind that he was speaking not to his disciples or to the crowds following him, but to the Pharisees who accused him saying "It is only by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons, that this fellow casts out the demons."  Those Pharisees did not say what they said by carelessness or momentary anger. They said it intentionally and deliberately, in order to entrap Jesus.  And his response ("unforgivable sin") was an explanation of the spiritual consequences of their actions.  I think he was inviting them to repent.  But what do I know?

Sisters and brothers, for pastoral reasons I urge you to be very VERY careful with speech about this unforgivable sin.  There are a surprising number of people in this broken world of ours who have become convinced that they have committed this sin and are beyond redemption.

The ones I have spoken to are seriously seeking some kind of reconciliation, but have become convinced they're not worth it.  Some are struggling with intrusive thoughts of personal unworthiness, and others are struggling to repent of past angry thoughts or words.   Not one of these people seeking redemption from God can possibly be guilty of this sin of blasphemy against the Spirit:  it is that same Spirit that inhabits their hearts and turns them to seek God.  Jesus did not turn away ANYONE who sincerely sought healing or repentance.

So, let's you and I leave all judgement about this sin to God, OK? Please? For the life of the world?


What is the meaning of this excerpt from Foundation of the Christian Faith, by Karl Rahner?

This passage comes from a book by Karl Rahner called Foundations of Christian Faith. (The original title is Grundkurs des Glaubens). In the translation by William V. Dych (New York: Crossroad, 1978), the passage can be found on page 371.

What Rahner is asserting generally in this passage is that the Bible is essentially the Church’s book: it was produced by the Church for its members.

Let us parse Rahner’s rather dense prose. My interpretations follow each block quote.

  We regard Holy Scripture as the church's book, the book in which the church of the beginning always remains tangible as a norm for us in the concrete.

The Bible belongs to the Church. Through the Bible, the original Church (the one founded by Christ on the Apostles) makes itself present and tangible for us today. As such, the Bible also normative: that is, it instructs us as to what we need to believe and how we need to behave.

  Indeed it is a norm which is already distinguished from those things which are found in the original church but which cannot have a normative character for our faith and for the life of the later church.

The Bible transmits to us the essential norms of the Faith, not those that are specific to the time and place of the early Church. (E.g., in the early Church, some communities judged that it was ethical to eat meat sacrificed to idols, because the idols are just superstition anyway, whereas others judged that such meat should not be eaten so as not to mislead those who are weak in the faith. The concrete practice—eating the meat or not—is not an essential norm, because the situation is particular to time and place.)

  If the church in every age remains bound to its origin in its faith and in its life;

Fairly clear as written. Clearly, despite the conditional formulation, Rahner is asserting that the Church in fact really is bound to its origin in its faith (beliefs) and life (morals).

  if the church as the community of faith in the crucified and risen Jesus is itself to be in its faith and in its life the eschatological and irreversible sign of God's definitive turning to the world in Jesus Christ, a sign without which Jesus Christ himself would not signify God's irreversible coming into the world and would not be the absolute savior;

By establishing the Church, God left an indelible (“irreversible”) sign of his Incarnation (his “turning” to the world, in Rahner’s terminology). The Church is also an indelible sign of the glory to come (an “eschatological” sign).

Jesus himself (through the Incarnation) is a sign of God’s presence in the world.

In fact—asserts Rahner— Jesus would not be such a sign, indeed would not be the “absolute” (i.e., unique, supreme) savior of the world, if it were not for the Church.

(I must say that I find this last affirmation questionable. God is perfectly capable of saving people however He wants. I think that Rahner is trying to affirm that the Church is the unique means of salvation for all men. That is true. But it is so because God wanted it to be that way; God is perfectly capable of saving mankind without the mediation of the Church, and even without the Incarnation.)

  and if this church of the beginning objectifies itself in scriptural documents at least in fact, and also does so necessarily given the historical and cultural presuppositions in which the church came to be, then in all of this together we have a point of departure for understand the essences of scripture.

The Church, which has its origins in Christ and the Apostles, commits to writing what is essential about itself (“objectifies itself”), a task that was rendered necessary by the historical and cultural situation of the early Church. (At least implicit in this assertion is that something of the historical situation of the early Church remains in the text of the Scriptures that we have today.)

By keeping these things in mind, it is much easier to understand what the Bible actually is.

  It is also a point of departure from whose perspective we can arrive at an adequate and at the same time a critical understanding of what is really meant by the inspiration of scripture and by a binding canon of scripture.

From the same starting point, we can also understand what it means for the Bible to be “inspired” and what we mean by a “canon” of Scripture.

  Since scripture is something derivative, it must be understood from the essential nature of the church, which is the escatological and irreversible permanence of Jesus Christ in history. It is to be understood from the perspective as something normative in the church.

The Bible is derived from the Church, not the other way around. The Church is (as we noted above) an indelible sign of both the Incarnation and the glory to come. The Church is, therefore, normative for us today (i.e., both in terms of what we believe and how we are to behave).


Is it Biblical for a Christian to say that God is a tyrant?

From Brittanica.com:

  Tyrant, Greek tyrannos, a cruel and oppressive ruler or, in ancient Greece, a ruler who seized power unconstitutionally or
  inherited such power. In the 10th and 9th centuries BCE, monarchy was
  the usual form of government in the Greek states. The aristocratic
  regimes that replaced monarchy were by the 7th century BCE themselves
  unpopular. Thus, the opportunity arose for ambitious men to seize
  power in the name of the oppressed.

God did not usurp authority not righfully His. He created the universe and we belong to Him.
God is not the oppressor of mankind but its liberator. He set the Hebrew people free and gave them laws to keep them free, if they would only follow them.
When God performs miraculous events considered harsh or tyrranical, consider the objets of his wrath: murderers, adulterers, slave traders and harsh masters, empires and religions that command their people to offer child sacrifice, adult human sacrifice, etc.
God freely pardons all who confess their sins to Him.
A mark of the tyrant is to sacrifice others (or get them to sacrifice themselves in his service) for the sake of his power and self-aggrandizement. Jesus offered his life as a sacrifice for others.

I just don't see how the label of tyrant fits. The wrath of God could only be tyrannical if it was

undeserved
executed without warning
implemented with no recourse for the subject to appease
offered switftly, without permitting a reasonable chance for reflection and action

God is slow to anger and abounding in love. The Bible is filled with ample examples of God issuing warnings centuries in advance. The warning of the flood was given 969 years before it happened. One of the tribes wiped out by the Israelites as they entered the promised land was warned at least two hundred years before. Despite that, when Rahab helped the spies, she was spared by Joshua.

God also does not show favoritism. Has he not executed the same punishments against Israel that he did against her enemies when they rebelled?

These are not the marks of a tyrant. It is our vain belief that we are "basically good people" that blinds us (willfully!) to the fact that we deserve hellfire immediately, but every day are spared until we die.

What is the proper attitude to take? The most righteous man to ever live (apart from Jesus) was Job. He lost his oxen (used to produce crops), his sheep (for clothing), his camels (for transport), his children (for posterity and companinship), his health, his reputation, the respect of his wife, the loyalty of his servants, the compassion of his siblings, was persecuted by his friends, and then chastised by a young man. Finally, he was rebuked by his own creator. To all this, Job said,

My ears had heard of you
    but now my eyes have seen you.
Therefore I despise myself
    and repent in dust and ashes.

Job questioned God's justice and fairness until he met God face to face and understood why he was wrong. So, like Job, you can call God a tyrant. Just be sure that when you meet Him, that you take it back.


What is this box that can be found in Catholic churches?

It is the tabernacle where the Eucharist is reserved for adoration. I personally do not like above picture because the Church in question looks very modern and plain.

Here are some better pictures

  The tabernacle is a liturgical furnishing used to house the Eucharist outside of Mass. This provides a location where the Eucharist can be kept for the adoration of the faithful [hence the genuflecting and the Pope's reverential bow before it] and for later use (e.g., distribution to the sick).

  It also helps prevent the profanation of the Eucharist. Thus the law requires, "The tabernacle in which the Eucharist is regularly reserved is to be immovable, made of solid or opaque material, and locked so that the danger of profanation may be entirely avoided" (CIC 938 §3).

  The word tabernacle means "dwelling place." Any place someone dwells is a tabernacle. The term is also sometimes used for a temporary dwelling place. Thus the tent-like sanctuary that the Jews used before the Temple was built was called the Tabernacle, because God dwelt there. Similarly, for the feast of Sukkot the Hebrews erected temporary shelters to live in for the festival, which is often called "the feast of tabernacles" or "the feast of booths" as a result.

  The tabernacle in Church is so named because it is a place where Christ dwells in the Eucharist.

  cf. What is A Tabernacle?

As regards the lamp beside the tabernacle, it is a sanctuary lamp: A wax candle, generally in a red glass container, kept burning day and night wherever the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in Catholic churches or chapels. It is an emblem of Christ's abiding love and a reminder to the faithful to respond with loving adoration in return.

  Please note: The sanctuary lamp also serves to inform people that the Blessed
  Sacrament is indeed present in the tabernacle, because on certain
  occasions the tabernacle is empty and then it would be inappropriate
  to genuflect to it (though one might genuflect or at least bow to the
  altar on which it rests or to a nearby crucifix). –  Andreas Blass

Please see also: Tabernacle | New Advent.


What are the main differences between the Baptist and Pentecostal traditions?

Although the Pentecostal movement originated from Wesleyans (an infant baptism movement) these days the large majority of Pentecostal churches are adult or believers' baptism, and is it reasonable to say that Pentecostalism is a sub-branch of the Baptist movement.
(My guess is that they shifted to believers' baptism because of their strong focus on being baptised by the Spirit, which fits much more naturally in the baptism is a human response camp than the baptism is a sacrament for infants who can't express their own thoughts camp.)
So, that said, I think there are a few major Pentecostal distinctives:

Pentecostals believe in a distinct Baptism with the Holy Spirit. Although they believe all Christians do have the Spirit, at some time after their conversion they have a distinct experience of receiving and being empowered by the Spirit. Spiritual gifts are thought to really be given after this Baptism of the Spirit, and many think that the moment of this Baptism is marked by everyone speaking in tongues.
Non-Pentecostal Baptists would say there is no evidence in the Bible of two classes of Christians like this, and they would also say that the idea that everyone should exhibit the same gift (such as speaking in tongues) is against the Bible.

Pentecostals are continuationists - they believe that all spirit gifts are still given now, including the more miraculous or 'signs' gifts such as speaking in tongues, healing and prophecy. Some Baptists are also continuationists, but in general Pentecostals have a greater expectation that these miraculous things will be experienced to a level that is almost commonplace.

Many Pentecostal Christians teach that the gift of prophecy still continues and is common today. Many things are identified as 'prophecy' by different Christians, but for some Pentecostals this will include new messages given for specific people in specific situations with no doubt whatsoever that it is from God, rather than a wise application of part of the Bible. In the worst cases this can get dangerously close to superseding the Bible, with some saying that their prophecies should be considered to be as definite as inspired scripture and that they cannot be questioned.


Depends on the colony -

Maryland was most assuredly a refuge for Catholics.
Pennsylvania was explicitly for Quakers under William Penn.
Massachusetts was founded by Puritans & Baptists who had already escaped once to Holland. The Mayflower Compact (linked above) was an explicitly religious document signed by members of a wayward sect who trying to get to Virginia, but couldn't navigate...
Rhode Island was founded by Roger Williams, escaping persecution in Massachusetts (drum roll please!)

In contrast,

New York was all about money from the get-go.  The Dutch didn't really do the religious persecution thing that much.
Georgia was basically a debtor's prison.
My own native Virginia was all about tobacco. Read John Smith's biography if you don't believe me.

Generically, historians have posited there are two influences in American development - God and Mammon.  God is a more northerly thing, and the explanation goes that is the reason the Northeast tends to be more "socialistic" or paternal in its governance.  By contrast, the South was a more money-based thing, in which laisez-faire economics would be more valued - hence Texas' reputation as the reddest of the red states, and Massachusetts' as a blustery blue*.

Finally, the Spanish influence ostensibly mixed both Religion and Money - but in no event was it the persecuted fleeing Europe. Rather, it was the establishment church in much of the West and in Florida that at least came along for the ride.

A decent primer on this is "How the States Got Their Shapes," an amazing book and an okay TV Show

So, short answer - depends on where you're talking.

And now for the obligatory hand-grenade: (Meaning, I'm being a bit tounge-in-cheek here)

*Personally, I've always thought these colors were backwards, as I used to think of Massachusetts as a pinko-communist sort of place....


Do Mormons actually believe in any sort of supreme being/ultimate reality/"Absolute"?

Short answer is that the Mormon God, Heavenly Father, is as supreme as it's going to get.

On your misconceptions on the Mormon belief about God:

Not creating matter - you are correct in your understanding

  You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing, and they will answer, “Doesn’t the Bible say he created the world?” And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end. (King Follett Sermon)

Polytheistic- you are partly correct (Technically more of Henotheism-believing in multiple Gods but only worshipping one) See Also

The First Article of Faith states:

  We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

Latter-day Saints pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. They acknowledge the Father as the ultimate object of their worship, the Son as Lord and Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit as the messenger and revealer of the Father and the Son. 1

On becoming like gods ourselves I've written more in this answer (basically to us there is only ever one God 1 Cor 8:5-6).

Unclear on subject point. We believe God does have a physical, exalted/perfect body. 2 The LDS website says:

  He is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things. He is perfect, has all power, and knows all things. ... We should seek to know our Father in Heaven. He loves us, and He has given us the precious opportunity to draw near to Him as we pray. Our prayers, offered in humility and sincerity, are heard and answered.

From that it mentions he is the Ruler and Preserver of all things, but it doesn't go into detail about how that is done. The second part mentions that part of what He does is answer man's prayers because He loves us.

Related is Mosiah 4:9

  Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend.

1 https://www.lds.org/topics/godhead?lang=eng&old=true

2 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/130.22?lang=eng#21

All emphasis was added and is not present in the original sources


Are there any Unitarian Catholic Churches?

Yes but they are a modern phenomenon, and they go by the named of Arian rather than Unitarian.   They also are small groups, largely based on the Internet.

  Arian Catholicism is an Internet Church, founded in 2006, claiming to teach true Christianity. The church is Arian in nature but not Anomoean and follows the teachings of Arius of Alexandria - that Jesus was a man to be followed, not worshipped, who was the spiritual Son of God. God the Father and the Son of God were not co-eternal, nor of the same substance. Arian Catholics believe that Christianity was hijacked during the fourth century; that the Romans integrated Christianity with Paganism and the Roman State; the Romans introduced Trinitarianism, altering the ecumenism of the church; and that the Romans destroyed scriptures that were not in keeping with the newly authorised beliefs.

  According to their website, the official symbol of the Arian Catholic Church is the Chi-Rho cross, in preference to the crucifix or the other types of cross.

  Arian doctrine was historically deemed heresy by Trinitarian Christians, but the Arian Catholic Church likewise deem Trinitarian Christians to be heretics and apostates.

http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Arian_Catholicism

Note -  This group has either changed a lot, or another group has taken over with that name!  A few days ago I ran across an Arian Catholic Church but it was "non-dogmatic" advertised itself as far as "inclusivity" (Women in ministry, gay friendly etc.).   I however have had trouble finding that web site again (may be off line now).

https://www.facebook.com/arian.catholic.church/?tn-str=k*F

There is a smilar "Orthodox" Arian group here.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRM2ela4Hr612CjTvIJCUbw

I seem to recall seeing other groups using the words "Essene" and "Nazarene" (which can mean a number of other things including New Age and Messianic Jewish/Hebrew Roots), but haven't seen anymore recently.


It's funny. This question made me realize something I never noticed before.  It's true.  For almost nothing (a 'mere apple'), Adam knowingly threw away life, heaven, paradise, and eternal happiness - for the whole universe. This makes Adam's sin possibly the greatest ever committed. A million Hitlers could not sin in all their lives as much as Adam did in this one crime.

One sin, no matter how small is the closest thing man will approach the infinite for it shows disrespect to the only being who is infinite in goodness and glory. Therefore, the smallest sin can't be repaid in a thousand deaths of the universe. Even if all mankind, animals, forests, planets, etc., were to burn a thousand Hells, the penalty could never approach the infinitude of the crime because a crime is proportional to the object it offends. To cut off the leg of a centipede when angry is not as offensive as cutting off the leg of the American President's new born child in anger. Similarly, to disrespect God is greater than all crimes against all humans, for all of time.

Now to add to the infinitude of the smallest sin, the fact that Adam actually did not have a sinful compulsion and yet threw all of life away for just a stupid apple, who can comprehend or express the wickedness of it? We would be less foolish and evil to kill a whole nation with a nuclear bomb for the temptation of a jelly-bean.


What is the justification of disallowing women to become Roman Catholic priests?

The closest Scriptural verse that could support why the Sacrament of Orders cannot be conferred on a woman is 1 Tim. 2:12: "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence."

Plus, is there any biblical precedent for priestesses "according to the order of Melchisedech" (Psalm 109/110:4)?

Here's St. Thomas Aquinas's explanation for why "the female sex is an impediment to receiving Orders:"

  Certain things are required in the recipient of a sacrament as being
  requisite for the validity of the sacrament, and if such things be
  lacking, one can receive neither the sacrament nor the reality of the
  sacrament. Other things, however, are required, not for the validity
  of the sacrament, but for its lawfulness, as being congruous to the
  sacrament; and without these one receives the sacrament, but not the
  reality of the sacrament. Accordingly we must say that the male sex is
  required for receiving Orders not only in the second, but also in the
  first way. Wherefore even though a woman were made the object of all
  that is done in conferring Orders, she would not receive Orders, for
  since a sacrament is a sign, not only the thing, but the signification
  of the thing, is required in all sacramental actions; thus it was
  stated above (Question [32], Article [2]) that in
  Extreme Unction it is necessary to have a sick man, in order to
  signify the need of healing. Accordingly, since it is not possible in
  the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the
  state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament
  of Order. Some, however, have asserted that the male sex is necessary
  for the lawfulness and not for the validity of the sacrament, because
  even in the Decretals (cap. Mulieres dist. 32; cap. Diaconissam, 27,
  qu. i) mention is made of deaconesses and priestesses. But deaconess
  there denotes a woman who shares in some act of a deacon, namely who
  reads the homilies in the Church; and priestess [presbytera] means a
  widow, for the word "presbyter" means elder.

Thus, a female cannot receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders just like a priest cannot baptize with motor oil or consecrate a dorito chip.

Every sacrament requires the proper:

Matter (e.g., unleavened bread for the Eucharist or water for baptism)
Form (the correct words pronounced to effect the sacrament)
Intention (to do what the Church does)

If any of these are lacking, the sacrament is not valid.


Is it a sin or forbidden to follow any of the parts of the Law of Moses?

The topic of the law in relation to the Gospel is one of the most discussed ones in the entire history of theology. The space here is not sufficient for arguing one view as opposed to the other. I am going to answer your question with a simple "yes", though. Sometimes a contextless, literalistic application of Old Testament law is in fact sinful, and I am going to base that on three principles.

Rabbinic wisdom in the tradition of Hillel. When one law contradicts another in a specific circumstance, you must chose the most important one. E.g. when asked by Gestapo about the whereabouts of some hidden Jews, the moral thing is lying. In many instances Jesus aligns himself with this rabbinic school, as opposed to the tradition from Shammai.
Following that principle, there are further moral insights in the New Testament, that will on many occasions make a compliance with the old law an immoral act.
The law in the OT was given to serve many purposes. They include instructions on how to evaluate witnesses and administer punishment, including capital punishment. About this four sub-points spring to mind:

In comparison to other laws from the same era, e.g. the law of Hammurabi or the Greek law of Draco the laws of the OT are very humane. One is not to cut off limbs of thieves, or go beyond what is a reasonable punishment.
That contrast, IMO, has a value. The tendency is instructive, perhaps even more than the individual examples. In a society such as ours today, we had better follow the intent of the law, than literal words addressed to an early bronze age society. And that's not because I do not believe the words are true. I say that exactly because I believe they are.
Instructions about how to evaluate juridic guilt and punish offenders where not given to individuals, but to the people as a whole. Just as we today may not act as policemen, judges or prison wardens except in an official capacity, so this aspect of OT law never, ever were intended for anything but officially assigned people. And that includes the law "an eye for an eye". It is not about individual revenge. (Nor is it about inflicting physical damage, but that is another topic.)
In the New Testament focus has shifted away from how to organize a priestly state of a chosen people, to how to build communities, made up from all peoples, that reflect the Kingdom of God. That renders all aspects of the OT law, that concerned the treatment of suspected or convicted lawbreakers, void. It has served its purpose and while it was not wrong, it is not any longer applicable. Trying to apply it as if it were, would be contrary to the Gospel, and thus, yes, sinful


How do Protestants explain Zechariah 12:10-14, used by Roman Catholics to prove Mary's perpetual virginity?

The sense of Zech 12:10 "only" is an expression of one of a kind.

Here is another use as regards Abraham and Isaac.

  And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

The word "only" is yachiyd.  It does not necessarily mean one and only with no other children, but as unique, special, only in the sense of the one child of promise.

So, Zech 12:10 is not about Mary and Joseph, but rather, all about Jesus Christ the only Son.


Does the Catholic Church have to submit to an approved private revelation?

No, the Church does not have to submit to private revelation, even if they are approved and are deemed worthy of belief.

Private revelation is outside the deposit of faith and thus the Catholic faithful is not obliged to submit to a particular revelation. Nevertheless some prudence must be applied in whether or not the faithful should believe a particular private revelation.

  67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

  Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations". - Catechism of the Catholic Church

  84 The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful." -  Catechism of the Catholic Church

In deciding whether to "submit" to certain demands of a private revelation, the Catholic faithful must exercise the use of prudence.

  Although an assent of Catholic faith may not be given to revelations thus approved, still, an assent of human faith, made according to the rules of prudence, is due them; for according to these rules such revelations are probable and worthy of pious credence. [De Serv. Dei Beatif.] - Apparitions/Private Revelations

Although the Apparitions of Fatima (1917) are in the domain of private revelation and as thus are not part of the deposit of faith, but are worthy of belief, still the virtue of prudence must be exercised by the faithful (pope included) in making an informed decision whether to accept this private revelation or not.

Since the Visions of Fatima ask that the pope in union with all the bishops of the world to consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart, the question of the prudence in fulfilling this request rests with them.

  Private revelations do not form part of the deposit of faith of the Catholic Church, and its members are not bound to believe in any of them. (Assent may be given based on the discernment of the Church and its judgment that an apparition is probable and worthy of pious credence.) The reported visions at Fátima gathered widespread attention, as numerous pilgrims began to visit the site. After a canonical inquiry, the Bishop of Leiria-Fátima officially declared the visions of Fátima as "worthy of belief" in October 1930, officially permitting the cult of Our Lady of Fátima. - Our Lady of Fátima (Wikipedia)


Do preterists who profess the two-age model believe that Jesus is still with us?

Not necessarily. Technically one could take the two-age model literally where one age would end in 70 (and thus Jesus would no longer be with us), but most who hold to this believe that the ages overlap. So Jesus was talking about the present age that overlaps the former age when he said it. Thus he will be with us to the end of the current age, which overlapped the former age.


What happens to a human after he dies according to Catholicism?

In the Penny Catechism Q 332. asks, "What are the four last things to be ever remembered?"

The answer is:

  The four last things to be ever remembered are Death, Judgment, Hell, and Heaven. [cf. Ecclus 7:36].

Therefore after death the body turns to dust and the soul of man is judged1.

The soul of man then goes to hell or to heaven (perhaps via purgatory) and awaits the resurrection of the body so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body. [cf. CCC 366.]

1. cf. Heb 9:27 (RSVCE).

Cf. Particular Judgment | New Advent.

Please see also: ARTICLE 12 "I BELIEVE IN LIFE EVERLASTING" of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.


What is the Biblical basis for "God's already forgiven you" teaching?

From a Calvinist perspective, any teaching which makes God contingent on man in any way negates the supremacy of God.  Put another way, who is man to say anything to God?  Any choice which man makes for God is the result of an election that occurred ante praevisa merita, and is thus a decision man made long before any person "decided" he or she wanted forgiveness.  In such a scheme, to say that God has "already" forgiven you makes logical sense, because God, who exists before and outside of time, would have already made the decision.  Any scripture backing predestination thus applies, such as Ephesians 1:4:

  even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him (ESV)

From an Arminian perspective, of course, free will is paramount, and the above argument would be nonsensical at its core. As such, for Methodists and the like, the timing of God's forgiveness could be a question - but Osteen in particular isn't Methodist. But, a Methodist would state the obvious - if Christ's death isn't sufficient for future sins, what is?  Hebrews is clear that:

  so also Christ died once for all time as a sacrifice to take away the sins of many people. He will come again, not to deal with our sins, but to bring salvation to all who are eagerly waiting for him. (Hebrews 9:28)

As such, even from the polar opposite soteriology, the timing of Christ's forgiveness would predate any individual's decision.

Finally, it should be noted that Joel Osteen has never been to seminary, nor does he profess to be "much of a theologian", so don't expect too strong of a case if you're basing it on him.


Was the Holy Spirit or God (the Godhead), the father of Jesus?

The Holy Spirit is not the Father of Jesus, God the Father is. What you are asking about is the nature of the Trinity.

Trinity

Christians have always believed the Son of God was preexisting before the creation of the world and is God who created the world. The Father spoke through the Son and the Spirit performed the actual creative events.

  John 1:1-3
  1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

God told Moses that His name was ‘I AM’ (Exodus 3:14 ) meaning without beginning and eternal, therefore, when Jesus said the following, the Jews picked up stones to stone Him for blasphemy:

  John 8:57-58
  “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” 58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

The Holy Spirit is also God. He is an eternally existing divine person and the author of divine operations.

For example:

  Genesis 1:2
  Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Now all three person of the trinity combined are the Godhead who is One.

  Matthew 28:19
  Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

God is One:

  Isaiah 44:6
  The Lord, Not Idols 6 “This is what the Lord says— Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

So it seems very Biblical to accept the Trinity as believed by the Christian church throughout all the ages.  One definition of the trinity that makes things clear can be taken from John Owen’s Works Volume 2, Page 462:

  God is one; — that this one God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; — that the Father is the Father of the Son; and the Son, the Son of the Father; and the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of the Father and the Son; and that, in respect of this their mutual relation, they are distinct from each other.

What sometimes makes the issue more complex, and more direcct to your point, is that Jesus sometimes speaks from His 'God-ward' side, like when the Jews wanted to stone Him, and sometimes from His 'man-ward' side.  The verses you quote seem to be when He is speaking from his man-ward aspect, like ‘to my God and your God’. The same is true when Jesus refers to his disciples as his 'brothers'.  This is easily understood when we remember although Christ was eternal, the man Jesus was not. Therefore, the Spirit is one person of the Holy Trinity performing the works of the eternal Father’s will through the eternal Son, God's word. That is how in a theoretical-sense the Spirit is kind of a 'father' of the body of Christ, but not really, more like the creative cause, or operation, according to the original Father's will. The God-Man is by no means the Son of the Spirit, He is the Son of God the Father.

The Son is the eternally generated Son of the Father, not the Spirit.  What you have noticed is that the body of Christ was made by the Spirit, so technically, yes, God was the father of the Man Jesus, by the Spirit’s operation and power. The eternal Son was willing to take this body prepared for Him, thereby creating the God-Man, the Christ of God, in order to bring salvation to men. By this means The eternal Son assumed a human body prepared for Him by the eternal Spirit, according to the will of the eternal Father.  All three; Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are the 'I AM', the only One and true God.


When did people start to deny Jesus as a historical person?

The 'Christ myth theory' Wikipedia page actually provides quite an in-depth exposition on the development of the concept Jesus wasn't a historical person:

  The beginnings of the formal denial of the existence of Jesus can be traced to late 18th century France, and the works of Constantin François Chassebœuf de Volney (1757–1820) and Charles-François Dupuis (1742–1809). Volney and Dupuis argued that Christianity was an amalgamation of various ancient mythologies and that Jesus was a totally mythical character.

Later still...

  In 1835, German theologian David Friedrich Strauß (1808–1874) published his extremely controversial The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined (Das Leben Jesu). While not denying that Jesus existed, he did argue that the miracles in the New Testament were mythical retellings of normal events as supernatural happenings.

Finally...

  German Bruno Bauer (1809–1882), who taught at the University of Bonn, took Strauss' arguments further and became the first author to systematically argue that Jesus did not exist.

A key component of the theory is the supposition that the new testament texts are utterly useless in providing any accurate historical data regarding 'the person of Jesus of Nazareth'.

However, most scholars today, even those with a critical view of the new testament, agree that Jesus certainly existed and made some manner of impact on the religious-political scene of first-century Judea. His crucifixion during the governorship of Pilate is a historical fact taken for granted, and his baptism by John is usually admitted even by those who criticize the reliability of the new testament in its depiction of historical events.


What does Ravi Zacharias mean when he says "Intent is always prior to content"?

Ravi Zacharias is a renown apologist for the Christian faith.  I, too, enjoy listening to him.  His account of his interview with the Grand Mufti of the Islam faith, which he describes as perhaps the most tension-fraught interview he has ever conducted, is unforgettable.

Since Mr. Zacharias is an astute apologist, I am guessing that his phrase "Intent is always prior to content" is a good "mantra" for anyone aspiring to be an apologist and a witness for Christ.  Before one opens his or her mouth in defense of the faith, a good question to ask oneself is,

  "Now, why am I about to defend the faith?  Is my intent to make myself look good by out-arguing the person with whom I am engaged in conversation, or is my intent first, to build a bridge of communication with my interlocutor, and second, to bear witness to the truth in Christ Jesus, but in a spirit of love, gentleness, and godly fear?"

If your intent is the former, then you should probably not open your mouth; you'll do more harm than good.  If on the other hand you are genuinely interested in hearing the person out, responding appropriately in a Spirit-led way, and all the while being in an attitude of prayer and dependence on God, then you are probably in a position to accomplish something for God.

Remember, our task is not to make ourselves look good, but to make our Savior look good.  Moreover, achieving eloquence and thus acquitting ourselves in a prideful way must never be the goal; pointing to Jesus is.

  "If I can speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am simply a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal" (Paul, 1 Corinthians 13).


The notes in my Bible say:

  [11:3] The question probably expresses a doubt of the Baptist that Jesus is the one who is to come (cf. Mal 3:1) because his mission has not been one of fiery judgment as John had expected (Mt 3:2).

So the timeline becomes:

  Jesus enters the scene. --> John proclaims that he is the Messiah. --> John Baptizes. --> John is put in prison. --> John expresses doubt because he hears things are not going as he expected them to.

This might have been because John was in some way ill-informed of exactly what was happening, because Jesus sends the following reply:

  Matthew 11:4-6
  4 Jesus said to them in reply, “Go and tell John what you hear and see:
  5 the blind regain their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the good news proclaimed to them.
  6 And blessed is the one who takes no offense at me.”

Many of the people closest to Jesus express serious doubts at one point or another -- Thomas in particular comes to mind. (It should be noted, though, that many others, like His Blessed Mother, Mary, never doubt.)


In Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Lutheranism, what are the main explanations on the matter of why Jesus Christ needed to be baptized?

Well, I am not catholic, but there seem to be a question that fascinated and perplexed many of the early Church fathers.

Justin Martyr addressed the baptism of Jesus, as a sign that He is manifested as the Christ, a sign for the Church first, and then the world.

  Now, we know that he did not go to the river because He stood in need
  of baptism, or of the descent of the Spirit like a dove; even as He
  submitted to be born and to be crucified, not because He needed such
  things, but because of the human race, which from Adam had fallen
  under the power of death and the guile of the serpent, and each one of
  which had committed personal transgression.... For it was not His entrance
  into Jerusalem sitting on an ass, which we have showed was prophesied, that
  empowered Him to be Christ, but it furnished men with a proof that He
  is the Christ; just as it was necessary in the time of John that men
  have proof, that they might know who is Christ.

According to Irenaeus, the baptism made Jesus the Christ since the Spirit anointing equipped him for the messianic ministry. Adelin Rousseau and Louis Doutreleau, sum up the meaning, as "On the one hand, having assumed flesh, the eternal Word has become 'Jesus'; on the other hand, having been anointed by the Father by means of the Spirit, the incarnate Word or 'Jesus' has become the
'Christ' = the 'Anointed One". Basically, before the baptism Jesus was not functionally the Christ, since the human nature was not divinely equipped.

  ... the Word of God, who is Savior of all and who rules the earth and the heaven, who is Jesus—as we have demonstrated—who has taken flesh and has been anointed of the Spirit by the Father, has been made Jesus-Christ. (Adversus
  haereses)

Gregory seem to points out that Christ was baptized not for His sake but for ours, sanctifying the waters of baptism for all generations to come and manifesting the the Trinity through the Spirit who comes to rest on him in the form of a dove and the voice of the Father that resounds from heaven.

  Today He is baptized by John that He might cleanse him who was defiled, that He might bring the Spirit from above, and exalt man to heaven, that he who had fallen might be raised up and he who had cast him down might be put to shame.
  (On the Baptism of Christ)

Augustine [known for giving baptismal regeneration its strongest underpinning], states that "...Christ wished to be baptized in order by His example to lead us to baptism. And so, in order that He might lead us thereto more efficaciously, He wished to be baptized with a baptism which He clearly needed not, that men who needed it might approach unto it." .... "For which reason [the efficacy of Christ's baptism because the heaven opened], when Christ was baptized, heaven was opened, to show that in future, the heavenly power would sanctify baptism. (Summa Theologica, Volume 1)

Benedict XVI's "Homily on the Feast of the Baptism of Our Lord", seem to reiterate the same stance as the church fathers:

  “To inaugurate his public life and to anticipate the “Baptism” of his
  death, he who was without sin accepted to be numbered among sinners.
  He was “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John
  1:29). The Father proclaimed him to be “his beloved Son” (Matthew
  3:17) and the Spirit descended upon him. The baptism of Jesus is a
  prefiguring of our baptism (Compendium of the Catechism of the
  Catholic Church, n. 105).”

But, stresses on the humanity of Jesus and its identification with fallen human being, that is by virtue of being a human [albeit a fallen one], we needed the baptism:

  ... displays the path of abasement
  and humility that the Son of God freely chose in order to follow the
  Father’s plan, to be obedient to his will of love for man in all
  things, to the point of the sacrifice on the cross. Now an adult,
  Jesus initiates his public ministry, traveling to the Jordan river to
  receive a baptism of repentance and conversion from John. There occurs
  here something that might seem paradoxical in our eyes. Does Jesus
  need to repent and convert? Certainly not. And yet He who is without
  sin places Himself among sinners to be baptized, to perform this
  gesture of repentance; The Holy One of God joins with those who
  recognize their need of forgiveness and ask God for the gift of
  conversion, that is, the grace to return to him with all their heart,
  to be completely his. Jesus wishes to place Himself among sinners,
  making himself solidary with them, expressing God’s nearness. Jesus
  shows himself to be solidary with us, with our effort to convert, to
  leave our egoism behind, to turn from our sins, to tell us that if we
  accept him in our lives he is able to lift us back up and lead us to
  the heights of God the Father. And this solidarity of Jesus is not, so
  to say, a simple exercise of the mind and will. Jesus has truly
  immersed himself in our human condition, he lived it through and
  through, except for sin, and is able to understand weakness and
  frailty (Ibid.)


Why did the conclave elect Pope Stephen I, when he died prior to taking office?

I don't see the problem, and the Church sees no problem worth explaining, because:

Unlike some groups, Catholics don't think that death is a sign from God that a person is unworthy.
Being elected pope makes a man infallible under certain conditions. It doesn't make him sinless or immortal.
It was God's plan to have a man unanimously elected, and then to have him die of a stroke. I don't understand what the problem could be. For all I know of God's plan, which is nothing, Stephen died so that you could ask and learn the answer to this question. We try not to speculate on God's will, because we can't, and we don't need to. We just trust God.

Man elected unanimously, dies like everyone else. What's the problem? The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord! There is no problem.