I'm unaware of Jesus preaching anywhere "that the faithful should give up their wealth and worldly possessions and spend a humble existence in servitude of God."  In Luke chapter 18 we have the account of one person who Jesus said should divest himself of his worldly possessions and distribute his wealth to the poor if he would be perfect, but this is nowhere mentioned as a general commandment.

The theme that does come up again and again, both in Jesus's preaching and in the various apostolic letters later on, is to keep your priorities straight.  Wealth becomes sinful if you let the pursuit of wealth become more important to you than the pursuit of righteousness.  This is why we are told that the love of money, not the money itself, is the root of all evil.

On the other hand, having resources available gives you the power to do good with them.  Witness the impact that the Salvation Army and Catholic Charities have on disadvantaged communities, or the way the Mormons tend to always show up promptly at the scene of any major disaster with large amounts of supplies and volunteers to contribute to relief efforts.  These are people living their religion, actively giving of themselves to help those in need, as Jesus and his apostles did.

If you're looking to grade religions on Christian living, a better question than "how much money does church X have?" is "what do they do with their resources?"


How do Calvinists argue that limited atonement is just and merciful?

I am a Calvinist and I will try to answer this difficult but explainable question in my thoughts and belief in scripture.
Until we can see man's total depravity and God's total sovereignty we will never be able to understand God's just means so please bear with me.

  Few really believe in the complete ruin and total depravity of
  man.  Those who speak of man's "free will" and insist upon his
  inherent  power to either accept or reject the Savior, only voices
  their misunderstandings of the real condition of Adam's  fallen
  children.  So, if few believe that the condition of the sinner is
  entirely hopeless, there are fewer who really believe in the absolute
  sovereignty  of God. ~ A.W. Pink

What do we mean by the expression "the sovereignty of God"?  We mean the greatness of God, the subject of God as king, and the God-hood of God.  Basically, God is God.  To say God is sovereign is to assert that He is the Most High, doing "according to His will in His army of heaven, and among the inhabitants  of the earth: and none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, What doest thou"? (Daniel 4:35).
To say that God is sovereign  is to declare that He is the almighty and the owner of all power in heaven and earth.  No one can defeat His plans, prevent His purpose or resist His will (Psalms 115:3). We proclaim that He is "The Governor among the nations" (Psalms 22:28), setting up kingdoms,  overthrowing empires, and determining  the pathway of the nation's as He decides is best and according to His wil,His desire and His good pleasure.  To say that God is sovereign  is to announce that He is the "Only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords" (1Timothy 6:15).  This is the real picture of God of the Bible.

The sovereignty  of the God of the Bible is absolute, irresistible and infinite.  We recognize  His right to rule the universe  just as He pleases.  We affirm that His right is right of the potter over the clay to mold that clay into whatever form he chooses.  He makes out of the same lump one vessel into honor and a other unto dishonor (Romans 9:21).  As a Calvinist in my belief, I affirm that God is under no rule of laws outside of His own will and nature, that He is only accountable to Himself and under no obligation to give explanations of His business to anyone.
Sovereignty  characterizes the whole being of God and His sovereign  qualities.

For many centuries Israel was the only nation to whom God granted any special  revelation of Himself:

"Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways"
(Acts 14:16
"You only (Israel) have I known of all the families of the earth"
(Amos 3:2)
Consequently, as all other nations were without the preaching of
God's  word, they were strangers to the faith that cometh thereby
(Romans 10:17)

These nations were not only ignorant of God himself, but had no way to please Him as a man or to be accepted  by Him.  Did God provide salvation to those people?  Has God changed?  Does God not have the same rights as a sovereign today as He had then.  Why was Israel God's  chosen nation.  Was it unjust for God to leave the other nations to themselves. NO!  God is both just And merciful to whom He pleases and He wills.  Why should we question God?

We as humans in our finite minds seem to think it is "all about us".  Most all of us believe  that God made all things but that He made all things for himself is not so widely believed. However, that God made us, not for our own sake, but for himself, not for our happiness, but for His own glory is repeatedly  affirmed in Scripture.

  "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for
  thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they were created"
  (Revelation 4:11).

But Proverbs 16:4 even goes further. It clearly declares that the lord made the wicked for the day of evil; that was His purpose in giving them existence.  God is our creator.  Is is not fair that He and He alone uses us as he finds His very will, His good pleasure and glory.  I say absolutely.  He is God, I am not.  All for His glory.

These are a few things that have come to mind as a Calvinist and as I think of your question.  God is just and merciful to whom He chooses.  This is of His makings, who am I to question?  He is the "Almighty, the maker of all"  all things to His glory.  Before we can question why, we must understand who He is and His sovereignty and not forget who we are.
I hope this can and will give you a better understanding of how most Calvinist see God.

KJV Bible,  R.C. Sproul,  A.W. Pink and John Mcarthur have all been contributors to my understanding of limited atonement. Understand who God is and His Holiness then the rest falls in place.


David was born 1041 bc, maybe plus or minus a year.

David was 30 years old when he began to reign and he reigned 40 years.(2 Sam 5:4)

Multiple lines of evidence put the end of his reign/start of the reign of Solomon at 971 BC.

The evidence is found in:-
1. Edwin Thiele's "Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings";

William Hamilton Barnes evidence from the Tyrian King Lists;
Kenneth Kitchen's evidence from Egyptian chronology;
1 Kings 6:1, Ezekiel 40.1 and Leviticus 25:9,10, together with
the Seder Olam.

The Seder Olam probably written in the second century AD says that Ezekiel's Jubilee in Ezekiel 40:1 was the 17th.  It was a Jubilee Year because in that year New Year's day, Rosh Hashanah, was on the 10th day of the month (see Leviticus 25:9,10). For 48 out of 49 years New Year's Day happens on the 1st day of the month.  The Jubilee Year happens every 49 years.  Ezekiel 40:1 is counted from the destruction of Jerusalem 587 BC, and was in 573 BC.

A translation of the Seder Olam says:

  And so it says (Ez. 40:1): “In 25th year of our exile, on the day of the New Year, on the tenth of the month, 14 years after the destruction of the of Jerusalem.” When did he Ezekiel have this vision? At the beginning of a Jubilee period. If they staid for 17 entire jubilee periods, how can there be an excess of 17 years?

See http://www.betemunah.org/sederolam.html and look at the section in part 2 under Joshua (chapters 11 and 12), and the paragraph starting "Caleb said to Joshua "I was 40 years old when Moses..", etc.

The author of the Seder Olam does not know how to find 17 "extra" years from the time of the beginning of the Jubilee Cycle to the 14 year after the destruction of Jerusalem (in 587 BC).  These difficulties of the author of the Seder Olam are not important to us.  What is important is that he says there were 17 jubilee cycles: for this assertion he must have had access to information held by the priests in Jerusalem which no longer exists.

573 BC + (17 jubilees * 49 years) = 573 + 833 = 1406 (year of entry into Canaan and year the Jubilee cycles first began)

1406 + 40 years in the wilderness = 1446 (date of exodus)

1446 - 479 (as per 1 Kings 6:1) = 967 BC (Temple of Solomon started to be built)

967 BC + 4 (as per 1 Kings 6:1) = 971 BC (Start of Solomon's, end of David's reign)

971 +70 (as per 2 Samuel 5:4) = 1041 BC (year of David's birth).

3 Extra Biblical evidences of the existence of David:-

In 1993 AD the "House of David" inscription was found at Tell Dan, the first extra Biblical evidence that David actually existed.  The inscription related to events in the year 841 BC, and defeat of Ahaziah.  "We thus gain a clear mention of David as dynastic founder of the kingdom of Judah about 150 years after his death". (See "On the Reliability of the Old Testament" by Kenneth Kitchen, Eerdmans, (2003), pages 92,93 and 615).

The stela of Mesha king of Moab also mentions the "House of David" from about the same time.  "This was some six generations after his (David's) death" (Kitchen, page 93).

Shoshenq I of Egypt lists his achievements at Karnak.  One of the places he speaks of which is in south Judah/Negev region is a place called "Heights of David".  This would have been within 50 years of David's death.  (Kitchen, p93)

Postscript:
I should have provided a link to the archaeologist Eilat Mazar's article, first published early 2006:  "Did I find King David's Palace?" :-
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/jerusalem/did-i-find-king-davids-palace/


What are the different views regarding the order of events for end-times prophecy?

I've found a few sources for answering this question.  The one I'm choosing to use as a reference is this one from Clay Watts, as it includes some views that are largely ignored in the other sources I've found.

The Figurative/Idealist view: The order of events is a non-issue because the end-times prophecies are to be taken figuratively, not literally.
The Literal/Preterist view: Most of Revelation was fulfilled in the first century, and that many prophetic details relate to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
The Literal/Historicist view: End times prophecy has been in the process of being fulfilled since the time of Christ
The Literal/Pre-millennial views, all hold that the end times events are still in the future. The include:

Pre-tribulation/Dispensationalism: Dispensationalism holds that God deals with man differently in successive covenantal eras.  Once the church dispensation ends with the rapture, Daniel's seventieth week will continue with Israel as a major participant in the tribulation period, culminating in the second coming of Christ and his millennial reign with the saints
Mid-tribulation:  The tribulation is actually the three and one-half year Great Tribulation, and that it commences with the revealing of the Antichrist midway through the seven year peace treaty he has made with Israel. At that point the church is raptured in order to escape the Great Tribulation, which is taken to be God's wrath.
Pre-wrath: The church will experience some of the Great Tribulation period after the mid-point of Daniel's seventieth week, when antichrist is revealed. This would include the natural and man-caused disasters, or wrath, but then the church will be taken out just prior to the wrath of God aimed at the unrepentant. In this view God's wrath includes only the trumpet and bowl judgments, which occur after the sixth seal.
Post-tribulation: The post-tribulation view sees a single second coming of Christ. It says that the church will be kept by God's grace through all of Daniel's seventieth week, and the saints will be given their glorified bodies in order to meet Christ as he comes to earth to defeat the antichrist at Armageddon and establish his millennial reign in Jerusalem

The article linked to at the beginning of this answer offers the arguments for each of the views.

The article does miss Postmillennialism, which teaches that the second coming will come after the 1000 year reign.


According to Roman Catholicism, how old will our resurrection bodies be?

St. Augustine said in City of God that we'd all be about 33 (same age as Christ) at that time it was thought that unbaptized babies might go to limbo.

  Then, again, these words, “Predestinate to be conformed to the image of the Son of God,” may be understood of the inner man. So in another place He says to us, “Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed in the renewing of your mind.” In so far, then, as we are transformed so as not to be conformed to the world, we are conformed to the Son of God. It may also be understood thus, that as He was conformed to us by assuming mortality, we shall be conformed to Him by immortality; and this indeed is connected with the resurrection of the body. But if we are also taught in these words what form our bodies shall rise in, as the measure we spoke of before, so also this conformity is to be understood not of size, but of age. Accordingly all shall rise in the stature they either had attained or would have attained had they lived to their prime, although it will be no great disadvantage even if the form of the body be infantine or aged, while no infirmity shall remain in the mind nor in the body itself. So that even if any one contends that every person will rise again in the same bodily form in which he died, we need not spend much labor in disputing with him.

The answer is though, we don't know for sure since no public revelation details heaven.


Catholicism - Consequences of not believing in all dogmas

This is an interesting question. Many people are not particularly clear on what dogmas really are and why they are important. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

The dogmas of the faith
88 The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

Therefore, dogmas are those propositions which Christians are obliged (that is, they must) to believe irrevocably. They are truths which, if not believed, bring down the whole edifice of the Faith and make it empty.
The Code of Canon Law further states:

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.
§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.
§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.
Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.
§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

That is to say, the Supreme Pontiff may "proclaim by definitive act" or an Ecumenical Council may "declare (...) that a doctrine (...) is to be held definitely," or else all bishops may "agree" that a doctrine "is to be held definitely"; and such a "definite" doctrine must, by force of Canon 750, be believed by all, since they are required to safeguard and expound on the Deposit of the Faith — otherwise they would not be declared definitely.
Finally, Canon 751 defines heresy as a baptised Christian refusing to believe those definite teachings, which are to be believe "with divine and Catholic faith." In particular, refusing to believe in the Real Presence (as the Reformed do, but not the Lutherans, who believe in Consubstantiation rather than Transubstantiation) means denying the Sacramental and saving power of Holy Communion, which is a very grave matter to Catholics as a whole.
As for the Assumption of Our Lady (the one defined in 1950 by the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus), it was the result of the consensus of all Bishops, even though it was defined by the Holy Father. Here is the relevant passage:

And, since we were dealing with a matter of such great moment and of such importance, we considered it opportune to ask all our venerable brethren in the episcopate directly and authoritatively that each of them should make known to us his mind in a formal statement. Hence, on May 1, 1946, we gave them our letter "Deiparae Virginis Mariae," a letter in which these words are contained: "Do you, venerable brethren, in your outstanding wisdom and prudence, judge that the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin can be proposed and defined as a dogma of faith? Do you, with your clergy and people, desire it?"

But those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule the Church of God"(4) gave an almost unanimous affirmative response to both these questions. This "outstanding agreement of the Catholic prelates and the faithful,"(5) affirming that the bodily Assumption of God's Mother into heaven can be defined as a dogma of faith, since it shows us the concordant teaching of the Church's ordinary doctrinal authority and the concordant faith of the Christian people which the same doctrinal authority sustains and directs, thus by itself and in an entirely certain and infallible way, manifests this privilege as a truth revealed by God and contained in that divine deposit which Christ has delivered to his Spouse to be guarded faithfully and to be taught infallibly.(6)

That is to say, the definition of the Dogma of the Assumption showcases the agreement of the Church, which by Christ's promise, has been protected from error through the action of the Holy Spirit; and denying this dogma implies necessarily that the Church can and does err and is thus not protected from error, falsifying the Christ's words in Mt 16:18, and putting in check all other doctrines which the Church holds, from the Trinity to the Resurrection to the remission of sins and salvation.


What is the Biblical support for a distinction between veneration and worship?

To approach this question we must first cut through terminology.

The Catholic Dictionary defines worship as

  Acknowledgment of another's worth, dignity, or superior position.

So worship is not, necessarily, religious at all.

It then goes on to define two words for worship of a particularly religious character.

  In religion, worship is given either to God, and then it is adoration, or to the angels and saints, and it is called  veneration.

The basic definitions from the Oxford dictionary define worship as

  the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity

(which is what Catholics mean by adoration)

and venerate as

  Regard with great respect; revere (i.e. feel deep respect or admiration for)

The King James Version generally regards worship as  having a wide connotation, similar to the Catholic definition of worship. The NIV uses worship only for worship of a (real or supposed) deity.

I take the OP's question to be asking for the difference between worship and veneration in the Oxford terminology; which is to say the difference between adoration and veneration in the Catholic terminology.

Either way, the distinction is simply that one relates to the worship of a deity, and the other does not. That is, quite simply, the difference. In a way, to answer the question, there is nothing more to be said. However there is a lot more that can be said.

We can consider some examples. When David grovelled to Saul (1 Samuel 24 8), and when Mephibosheth grovelled to David (2 Samuel 9 8) this was veneration, acknowledging the other's superior status. In Revelations 3 9 we are told that some who had been false would worship at the feet of the Philadelphian Christians, acknowledging that  they are the ones loved by God. It was surely not intended that members of the Philadelphian church should be worshiped as gods;  but rather that they be venerated as loved by God.   The worship of God described in Revelations 19 4 is adoration  because it is to God. The worship of Diana (Acts 19 27) is adoration, not mere veneration, because Diana, whatever her true status, was being worshiped as a deity.

A much lower form of the word worship appears in the Banquet (Luke 14 10) where the guest is advised to sit at the lower end of the table so  that when the host asks him up higher he will have worship (KJV). This does not, of course, mean the other guests will imagine him to be divine, or bow down to him, merely that he will go up somewhat  in their estimation.

Before looking in more detail at the Bible it may be helpful to consider the concept of veneration in ordinary life.

We may attend church to worship God, by singing His praises, praying, contemplating His being and  listening attentively to His word. We may be impressed with the sermon, appreciating the message as inspiring , challenging, informative and useful.  We may think appreciatively of the amount of effort and study which the preacher has gone to, not just in preparing this sermon but in all the back years of study which enabled him to do this., We may be moved by the singing of the choir. In post-service fellowship we may enjoy a most delicious piece of cake, lovingly baked by a culinarily talented member of the flock. We may admire all these people, and remark favourably on them to others. We may personally speak to the preacher thanking him and praising him. We may do the same to the cakemaker  We may compliment one of the choirboys on his talent, diligence at practice, commitment and skill; all the while conscious that our own  abilities and efforts fall far short of his.

We would not think we were venerating the preacher, the baker or the musician, but that is what we would be doing. We would not bow down, as that is not in our culture, but we might express our admiration by physical gesture,  in other contexts, by  applauding with our hands. Applause is, in the wider sense, a form of worship.

We should not find that our appreciation of the cake got in the way of our worship of God, but if it did,  almost certainly it is our worship of God which is too low, rather than our veneration of the cake which is too high.

Even animals, lacking words,  use gestures  to acknowledge status.

To turn now to worship in the New Testament; the most common word for worship is proskuneo (Strong's concordance word number 4352). This literally meant to kiss the ground in front of a person's feet as a mark of respect. This may mean anything from worshiping God to a conventional courtesy to a person of higher status.    Jairus (Matthew 9 18) and Mrs Zebedee (Matthew 20 20) were not worshiping Jesus as divine. The NIV translates proskuneo in these cases simply as knelt, though the KJV uses worship, reflecting the older usage. In the parable of the debtor (Matthew 18 26) the debtor falls to his knees and begs for time to pay. Again it is the same word, and the KJV translates it as worship. In general the NIV interprets the same word differently, depending on whether the perpetrator regards the recipient as divine.  That is the difference between worship (OP sense) and veneration, is neither more nor less than  to whom is it directed (or rather what does the doer think of that person).

This same word is used to describe the Heavenly worship  in Revelations 19 4 and the worship of the Beast (Revelations 13 8).

It is also the word used in John 4 20-24 where the Samaritan woman challenges Jesus as to why Jews worship only at the Temple. Here it seems to have a slightly higher meaning. After all, Jews worshipped in synagogues too, but the temple worship was special because it involved sacrifice. Similarly, it has been argued, true Christian worship, at its highest, requires participation in the sacrifice of the Mass.

A different Greek word latreia  (Strongs 2999) means more particularly service to God, the worship of God, and is translated in Romans 12 1 as true and proper worship in the NIV. This word is also used to refer in several places to the worship of God in the temple.  Philippians 3 3 has this as worship God in His Spirit in the KJV but  serve God by His Spirit in the NIV.

In Acts 14 the priests of Zeus wanted to offer sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas, which led to them tearing their clothes and protesting strongly. This incident concerned an attempt to treat them as gods.

In Acts 10 25 Cornelius worshipped Peter (KJV) or did him reverence (NIV). Peter told him to stand up. There is no compelling reason to assume Cornelius intended to adore Peter as divine, rather than make a common gesture of polite respect.  Similarly Peter asking Cornelius to stand up is not, of itself, any argument that gestures of respect are wrong. It may simply be two men being mutually courteous to each other. It might be argued one way, it might be argued another.

In Revelations John twice tries  to worship an angel, and is discouraged by that angel (Revelations 19 10 and Revelations 22 8).

The worship of angels, referred to in Colossians 2 18, is based on a different Greek word, threskeia (Strong's 2356) which means  religion. What is being discussed here is a religion of angels, whatever that may have been.

The Church of England Article 22 states that the Roman doctrine concerning (amongst other things) worshiping, and adoration, of images and relics is grounded upon no warranty of Scripture. This being said, it is unlikely that any clear and convincing proof could ever be found to endorse such practices as being required by the Bible alone.  If there were such a clear unequivocal scriptural warrant could the C of E have failed to notice it? If one were subsequently deduced then, like the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, it would be way too complicated for most of us  to comprehend.   However,  Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do not ascribe to the Protestant "sola scriptura" (scripture alone) doctrine, but rather they teach that authoritative doctrine comes equally from the tradition of the Church. The Bible itself emerged from, and forms part of but not all of, that tradition.  Nowhere in the Bible is there a list of books which constitute the Bible, for example. The Church has decided .  Therefore the fact (if acknowledged)  that there is no proven warrant from scripture is not, from a Catholic or Orthodox perspective, reason to doubt the validity of a practice which is hallowed by centuries of Church tradition, and is found, in practice to increase devotion to, and worship of, God Himself.


If Noah's Flood was a historical global flood then how is the evidence that Egypt was founded before the Flood explained?

Like Young Earth Creationists do with most things, they believe that the conventional dating systems are wrong.

In the case of Egypt this involves saying that what are normally thought to be sequential dynasties are actually concurrent dynasties. The most extreme accounts propose that the First and Second Intermediate Periods are actually one period, a time of chaos caused by the Exodus. Some identify the Hyksos with the Amelekites who the Israelites fought just after the Exodus (chapter 17). Note that while almost all YECs would say the chronologies need revising, there are many proposed alternatives, and specific theories like the following image are controversial.

Here's a long article from Creation.com: Egyptian chronology and the Bible—framing the issues


How do Seventh Day Adventists understand "a form of [a] God" in Philippians 2:6?

Hi let me start by correcting some of the assumptions you seem to have made

  Jesus in his preexistence was Michael the archangel

This statement suggests that there was a change from Michael to Jesus. In fact Adventists would say that Jesus is Michael and that it is another name for Jesus. When you look at the name Michael, it has the meaning of "One who is like God" so it fits the character of Christ.

In his pre-existence, Christ was involved in many aspects of earth's history including creation. Note the plural pronouns used when God says Let us make man in our image.

Next is the assumption that Michael is an angel. The term arch angel is a transliteration of ἀρχάγγελος which is translated chief of the angels. So it is more that he has authority over angels rather then being one.

This should resolve the first two questions. Michael/Jesus is the Son of God incarnated as man.

  what do they say going on with Michael waging war in heaven post-resurrection?

The assumption made here is that this is post resurrection. Adventists would describe this as the beginning of the great controversy and that this actually happened before the fall. This is a brief summary of the interpretation of Revelation 12 and you will see that this is not interpreted chronologically as it appears.

The war in heaven. This is the initial disagreement of Satan against God. He is cast out of heaven to earth taking some angels with him. At this point he, Satan, is on earth and can tempt Eve.
The woman who gives birth is God's chosen people giving birth to Christ, who was crucified and caught up to God again.
The history of the church is then explained using symbolic language.

A lot of these answers don't have the substantial amount of work that is required to complete this story.  I can provide more detail around sections if needed.


1 Timothy 4:1-3 - Are We Still Living in the Great Apostasy?

(LDS)

The answer is No! We have a living prophet on the earth today by the name of Thomas S. Monson. Christ's church was restored to the earth by a young prophet by the name of Joseph Smith Jr. This I know through fasting and prayer. Is there individual apostasy? Yes.

What is an apostasy?
An Apostasy is a general falling away from the truth. This occurred after the death of the apostles. (Amos 8:11-12; Acts 20:29-30; 2 Timothy 4:3).

When Jesus Christ lived on the earth, He established His Church. After His Ascension into heaven, His Apostles carried on His work under His direction, through revelation and with His priesthood authority.

After the Apostles and many righteous Church members were killed and other members departed from the truth, the Lord took the priesthood authority and His Church from the earth. Without God’s priesthood authority, the Church no longer functioned as Christ had established it. The ordinances were changed and many plain and simple truths were lost. While many good people and some truth remained, the original Church was lost.

The Apostles prophesied of the falling away or Apostasy. One example is Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3).

Restitution of All Things

The Apostle Peter prophesied of the “restitution of all things” before Christ’s Second Coming (Acts 3:19-21). Having been lost because of the Apostasy, Christ’s Church and His authority were to be restored to the earth. This Restoration would make available the opportunity for all to receive once again all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Joseph Smith’s First Vision marked the beginning of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the earth. In subsequent years, Christ restored His priesthood and reorganized His Church. He has continued to reveal truths to His prophets and to restore the blessings that were taken from the earth for a time.

Joseph Smith

At fourteen years old, Joseph had a desire to find the truth. Like the rest of his family, he was deeply religious, and when the time came for him to be baptized, Joseph had to decide which of the many Christian denominations to join. After careful study, he still felt confused. He later wrote,

  "So great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was [ … ] to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong [ … ] In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?" (Joseph Smith-History 1:8, 10).

Joseph turned to the Bible for guidance. He read:

  "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him" (James 1:5).

This verse deeply impressed him. He decided to pray about what he should do, with simple faith that God would hear and answer him.

In the spring of 1820, Joseph went to a grove of trees near his home and knelt in prayer. He described his experience:

  "I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me [ … ] When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other-This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" (Joseph Smith-History 1:16-17).

This vision of Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ was the beginning of Joseph Smith's calling as a prophet of God. He was told that none of the churches on the earth had the fullness of truth. Over time, Joseph Smith was chosen to establish Christ's Church and restore the priesthood, or the authority to act in God's name. He was led by God to an ancient record and given the ability to translate it into English. This record is called the Book of Mormon. He continued to pray and receive revelation for the Church throughout his life. These revelations were compiled into a book of scriptures referred to as the Doctrine and Covenants and shows that God still leads His children today. Joseph Smith formally organized The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on April 6, 1830. (Video Rendition)


Why do Christian's associate Jesus as the son of God?

Not all denominations of Christianity give the same answer to this question. But probably all Christians can agree that we believe Jesus to be the Son of God, because he said he was, and the Scriptures repeatedly tell us that's who he is:

  "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
  whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
  life." (John 3:16)

See, "Jesus Christ, Divine Sonship" for many more scriptures.


Why shouldn't the UK have women bishops?

(Full disclosure, I am an Anglican / Episcopalian. I am 100% behind a very, very strong view of Scriptural authority, though I believe in the case of female priests, the old interpretation is not really in line with what Paul or God wrote. As such, I think it's totally okay to have a female priest- but for Scriptural reasons. )

1. There is a scriptural case for not allowing women any positions of authority in the church

In 1 Corinthians, Paul says that he does not permit a woman to speak in church. Additionally, completarian theology reads several passages in Paul's letters to be clear that a woman is not to exercise "headship" over a man. The Scriptural case is laid out pretty well in this answer, which basically says that there are many Scriptures that say "Women shouldn't preach," but that aren't as clear cut as one might assume.

2. If a Scriptural case exists, then it is a de-facto ground of support

Whether one agrees with the interpretation or not, there is thus an explicit argument in Scripture that women are not to have priestly authority. In the same way that the Queen of England is bound to certain "constitutional" limits, proscribed by tradition, so to the Church is bound to traditional arguments, including certain interpretations of Scripture.

The central debate amongst Anglicans today is the very question of the role of Scripture.  "Progressives" in the Anglican Tradition believe that Scripture is a source of theology, but not the only one. Traditionalists, including the vast majority of Africans, who outnumber English Anglicans several fold, disagree. As a church of compromise (Anglicans promote the via media - the "Middle Way"), the role of Scripture is the crux of the question- not women themselves. Traditionalists can rightly call on Scripture by looking to Paul, to Judges, and to other references. (Again, will expand when not on a phone)

3. Pragmatically, the question of women priests has been settled, but bishops are an open case

Because society has changed so much, universal acceptance of denying all female roles is no longer an option.  Many, many congregations views denying women a platform to preach as a societal anachronism.  (Again, full disclosure, when I look at the relative position the early church gave women, see, for example 2 John, which was addressed to the elect lady and her church, I am convinced that the Gospel was revolutionary in the freedom it afforded women when compared against the original society.)  As such, as the relative status of women has changed so dramatically, many congregations actually desire both male and female teaching and oversight.  Again, the Anglican via media has a straight-forward solution - let individual congregations decide.

The issue with bishops is that their purview is simply that much larger.  There are thousands of churches, but only hundreds of dioceses.  Additionally, parishes in the Anglican tradition do not have set boundaries, whereas dioceses do* (yes, there are execeptions, but by and large this is true.)

As such, accidents of geography necessarily override individual congregational preferences.    In the same way that both Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are forced into the same Congressional seat, so too, both pro-women and anti-women adherents are forced into the same district.

In other words, the compromise doesn't scale to the diocese level.

Because the pragmatic solution doesn't scale to the diocesean level, debate exists there. Anglicans haven't settled this issue, and so, until we do, there will be decisions that each faction vociferously hates.

4. The bigger issue is Scripture

Ultimately, even the deciding factor - meaning the role of Scripture, how it is interpreted, and how it is applied in this context, will have unintended precedent setting effects.

If, for example, a female bishop is forced on a congregation that reads Scripture to exclude them, how will they feel when a homosexual bishop is chosen?  The United States has, at the time of writing, two.  Again, remember that this is absolute heresy in the majority of the Anglican world (Uganda, Nigeria, etc...).  Their reading of Scripture would be very simple - 1 Corinthians 5 - expel the immoral brother!


There's no scripture where Jesus refers to Joseph as father--but that doesn't mean that he didn't, it just means it's not recorded.
Other people certainly referred to Joseph as Jesus' father:

John 6:42 ESV They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
John 1:45 ESV Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

Luke interestingly calls Joseph Jesus' father, "as was supposed." It was apparently a popular point of contention as to whether Joseph was Jesus' actual father.

Luke 3:23 ESV Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

But this question can't be definitively answered by scripture alone.


God commanded people to kill in the Old testament, does he still command people to kill today?

While God did command nations to kill, it's important to remember that he never commanded individuals to kill devoid of their representing a nation.

So no, I don't think you could say that it is legit for any single individual to claim that God commanded them to kill.  On the contrary, one of the ten commandments is, "You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13).  The word that God uses for murder is different than the word that is used to mean "kill" when it is carried out in war.

So to answer your question, yes.  You can deny their claim.  They were not told by God to murder.

You can read more about the words used here.


Why do other religions exist if Yahweh is the one true God?

The premise in the question :

  Does this signify that there is in fact no reason for God to mind the existence of other fictional Gods, which further implies that God actually doesn't care about us and that we are just created and left to our own devices?

. . is incorrect.

God has specifically stated :

  Thou shalt have no other gods before me [Exodus 20:2 Deuteronomoy 5:6 KJV]

This was addressed to the nation to which he chose to express the Law by the mediation of Moses. And the history of Israel contains many examples (the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities in particular) of God judging Israel when they followed other gods than himself.

  I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; [Exodus 20:5 KJV]

God does not 'allow the continued propagation and existence of other religions' as can be seen in history and as can be seen contemporaneously by the natural judgments that fall upon idolatrous nations.


What happens to people outside Earth on the second coming?

Don't worry you aren't going too miss it even if you are on Mars! "The whole earth" here refers to all of creation. The one who created those places is hardly going to forget to check for inhabitants. He knows the hairs on our head by number and every star by name.


In Marian Consecration, does invincible ignorance apply to grace as well as sin?

This applies to anything in Catholic doctrine.

If you are not fully aware and have not given your full consent consciously, knowingly and soberly, that thing is not binding. In other words, you have the ability to say, 'Hey, I didn't know what I was doing and I take it back'.

Now, God does not like people making solemn promises to Him and later taking it back , as we see in the Old Testament (which is why I try to limit what I promise God, and instead ask Him for the grace necessary to do a thing which is for His glory).

Your case is slightly different, though. Your intentions were to pledge something to God (through Our Lady), and had a good intention to offer your sufferings for a greater good (of the suffering of other people). That said, it would be wise to only 'defer' graces which don't include those garnered by your headaches or anything you pledged. If it was a light-hearted pledge but with a good intention, I can't see any reason why Our Lady or Our Lord wouldn't allow you to take the pledge again in order to set things straight, so to speak. On the other hand, if you really knew what the pledge was and fully consented, then taking it back now ( or wanting to take back the ability to use those same graces for other things also) kind of defies the purpose of a pledge altogether,as I'm sure you'll agree.

God is the most rational person I know ;) He'll know and understand. I wouldn't lose sleep over it, as God knows your intention is good, and your question's very existence is physical proof of that.

My advice would be a solemn prayer to Our Lord or Our Lady and whoever you pledged to asking that you amend your pledge to include a limited set of your sufferings as offerings, so, as you desire, you can defer your graces as you please. Personally, I might start asking God to use His graces as HE pleases, isn't that the perfect way to use them? Still working on getting off my high horse to hand Him the reigns over, though.


Who nurtured Adam when he was an infant?

Here's the relevant text:

  When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground—then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.—Genesis 2:5-8 (ESV)

Thus, either:

God created Adam fully formed or
God created Adam as an infant and placed him a garden where he was able to live safely.

In both cases, it is God who made sure that Adam lived.

A subsequent text suggests that option #1 is correct:

  The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”—Genesis 2:15-17 (ESV)

Otherwise, how could God expect the man to work and keep the garden, and how could he understand God's commands?


On what basis do Popes choose their papal name?

It varies.

For example, Benedict XVI chose his name after St. Benedict and Pope Benedict XIV.

Pope Pius XII likely chose "Pius" because he is in the episcopal lineage of Pope St. Pius X.

John Paul I and II chose theirs after the preceding John XXIII and Paul VI.

Christ chose St. Peter's for him. ☺

Other than that, yes, "the names essentially [come] down to the Pope in question's relatively arbitrary choice". After they are elected, a cardinal asks them which name they choose.


In Theistic Evolution, when did the alleged evolutionary animal/ape/man become accountable for his sins?

First, a disclaimer: Theistic evolution (TE) is neither a theological system nor an alternative to mainstream evolutionary science. TE is an awkward label applied to people who accept evolutionary theory and also believe in God. Those who claim this label are not a unified group. The following is my own understanding, which is still evolving.

The early chapters of Genesis, taken as historical narrative, are impossible to reconcile with mainstream evolutionary biology. To accept evolution as fact is to deny Adam and Eve as history.

On the other hand, the typology of Adam and Eve does not change if they are not historical figures. If the story of Adam and Eve is allegory, then it is an allegory explaining the beginnings of God's relationship with created beings.

Put into a framework of hominid evolution, Adam and Eve represent the first beings capable of living in relationship with God. This is represented by God's breathing the "breath of life" (Genesis 2:7) into them.

The eating of the forbidden fruit that "opened their eyes" (Genesis 3:7) is a poetic reference to the awakening that transformed amoral hominids into moral agents, capable of distinguishing right from wrong.

And I don't think it's much of a stretch to suggest that this moral awakening grew directly out of an experience (or multiple experiences) of realizing the consequences of wrong actions. That's one of the lessons of Adam and Eve: actions have consequences.

So, no TE does not necessarily deny Adam's fall as being representative of the entire human race. In fact, from a TE perspective we could say Adam's fall is nothing other than representative of the entire human race.

And in answer to the question in the title, the "alleged evolutinary animal/ape/man" became accountable for his sins when he first became aware that he was acting against the will of God.


Do Amish have fire alarms?

Some Mennonites  and Amish, I am sure have fire alarms in their homes. They are not so much anti-technology as so much to desire to live a much simpler life style than most other Christians. This can cause them to be greatly misunderstood.

The short answer is maybe, but no may be closer to the truth.

The Amish may be forced to install a fire detector by law and enforcement of the law, but whether the fire detector remains in place is not known. Installation of such devices goes against their religious convictions.

  News came earlier this week that the long-running dispute between Amish and authorities in Morristown, New York, has come to an end.  You might remember a post last spring on the Amish smoke alarm issue; if you viewed the PBS documentary The Amish you would have seen this case discussed.

  To review, Amish had refused to follow local building codes (updated by the town in 2006), arguing that they conflicted with their religious beliefs.  Most memorably, the Amish balked at the installation of household smoke detectors. But they also found other regulations problematic, covering everything from the foundation to the roof. Here’s Karen Johnson-Weiner explaining the smoke alarm issue (taken from the transcript of The Amish film):

    Karen M. Johnson-Weiner, Anthropologist: There are a number of aspects of the building code that are problematic. The need for smoke detectors and now carbon monoxide detectors. That’s putting your faith in a manmade device instead of God. What God wants to happen will happen. The Amish are building their homes according to way their Ordnung says they have to build. If, heaven forbid, a fire comes, sweeps through the house and something terrible happens, the child will be in a better place, the people will be in a better place, they’ll be with God. Theirs is not an intellectual faith; it’s a lived faith. In a very real way because everything they do is guided by their Ordnung, by their beliefs. In a way they’re always in church.

  Both sides have conceded points in the dispute.  Though not on every issue.  I found the following bit amusing:

    On the thorniest issue — smoke detectors — neither side caved. The town’s code inspector will install detectors before giving homes a final approval, but whether they remain is up to the homeowners, as it is in any home.

  Any Morristownians in the market for a smoke detector, barely used? I have a hunch there will be a few soon available (if they don’t land in the junk pile behind the barn first).

  As one of the principals in the case pointed out, this resolution means both parties leave satisfied, with no one having to go to jail.  That of course is in contrast to what went on in Kentucky in 2011-2012, when numerous Swartzentruber Amish ended up in prison in the dispute over the SMV triangle. - Amish smoke detector dispute resolved


Why is the Feast of the Visitation held on May 31st, during the Easter/Pentecost season?

The Wikipedia article you link to actually gives a clear explanation: quoting from the Roman Calendar, "so that it would harmonize better with the Gospel story."
From 1389, when the feast was first made universal in the Western Church, until 1969 when the most recent edit was made to the Roman Calendar, the feast was held on July 2. This is exactly 1 week (the end of the octave) after the Feast of the Nativity (Birth) of St. John the Baptist on June 24. The idea was apparently to cluster feasts relating to John the Baptist.
In 1969, the Roman Calendar was updated, and several celebrations of the Latin Rite of the Church were added, removed, or moved—this was the case with the Visitation. The entry in the Calendar's chapter "Variationes in Calendarium Romanum Inductae" ("Changes Introduced into the Roman Calendar") for July 2 reads:

In Visitatione B. M. V.
Ss. Processi et Martiniani
Festum Visitationis die 31 Maii reponitur, i.e. inter sollemnitates Annuntiationis Domini et Nativitatis S. Ioannis Baptistae, quo aptius consentiat narrationi evangelicae.
On the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Saints Processus and Martinian (i. e. these saints are celebrated instead)
The Feast of the Visitation is restored to the 31st day of May, that is between the solemnities of the Annunciation of the Lord and the Birth of Saint John the Baptist, by which [movement] it more appropriately agrees with the story of the Gospel.
(Calendarium Romanum 1969; my translation)

Pope Paul VI and his advisors seem to have had in mind the Gospel according to Luke:

The angel said to [Mary] in reply ... "Behold, Elizabeth, your relative, has also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren." ...
During those days Mary set out and traveled to the hill country in haste to a town of Judah, where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. ... Mary remained with her about three months and then returned to her home.
(Luke 1:35, 36, 39, 56; New American Bible, Revised Edition)

We are not told exactly how long after the angel's announcement Mary set out, but traditionally the Church has held that Mary was with Elizabeth from approximately the sixth month of the pregnancy until birth; that is, from the conception of Jesus until approximately the third month of pregnancy. This would have been about six months before the birth of Jesus, or about June 25. The birth of John the Baptist is, indeed, celebrated on June 24. Any time between March 25 and June 24 would seem appropriate, but it's not clear why May 31 in particular was chosen. May 31 had been used to celebrate the Queenship of Mary, and that feast was moved to August 22, the week after the Assumption.
As a note, there is no "Pentecost season" in the Western Church. If Easter falls between March 22 (the earliest possible date) and April 11, Pentecost will fall no later than May 30, putting the Visitation in Ordinary Time (during, I believe, the 9th week of Ordinary Time). If Pentecost falls later (it can fall as late as June 14), then the feast is during the Easter Season.


Where is the reference in bible that JESUS preached for three and Half years?

I agree that this is a tricky question and the answer depends on the tradition to which the answerer belongs.  Here is a simple, yet plausible scheme that not everyone will agree.

In the Gospel of John, who appears to be quite careful about his time elements, we have a series of Jewish feasts mentioned.  The most significant of these feasts for chronological purposes is the Passover feast which occurred about March/April in our modern calendar.

John 2:13, 23 - Passover feast a few months after Jesus' baptism
John 5:1 - unnamed feast but probably the Passover.
John 6:4 - Passover feast
John 7:2 - feast of booth (or tabernacles) 6 months after feast of Passover
John 10:22 - feast of dedication - a few months later
John 12:1 - Passover feast when Jesus was crucified

By this simple account Jesus ministry began several months before His first Passover during the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar (Luke 3:1) and ended at His crucifixion about 3½ years later.


Has there been any explanation given on the murder of Joan of Arc?

She was burned by the English clergy who denied her appeal to the Pope near the end of the Hundred Years War and she was cleared of all charges only 30 years after her death (even though it took almost 500 years to canonize her).

And yeah, there's been extensive research and analysis of what happened.  The trial and the aftermath is all amazingly well documented and worth reading; or if you prefer historical fiction Mark Twain has an awesome book about her.


What is the biblical basis for and against the "filioque"?

So Jesus sent the Holy Spirit:

  John 15:26 NIV 26“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from
  the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will
  testify about me.

And here you see that Jesus needs to go away before the Holy Spirit can come:

  John 16:7 NIV 7But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am
  going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but
  if I go, I will send him to you.

Jesus received the Holy Spirit from God the Father and then gave it to us:

  Acts 2:32-33 NIV 32God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all
  witnesses of it. 33Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received
  from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you
  now see and hear.

And here the Holy Spirit came to us through Christ:

  Titus 3:5-7 NIV 5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had
  done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of
  rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us
  generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that, having been
  justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of
  eternal life.

So, some of the early fathers, such as Augustine, took these and other threads, and started to weave a tapestry, to make it into a coherent belief.

So the Holy Spirit came from the Father and the Son.


When did the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) adopt the doctrine of the Trinity?

Paul Edwards, in his book "Our Legacy of Faith: a brief history of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS)" (Herald Publishing House, 1991) indicates that the transition to belief in standard American trinitarianism occurred gradually towards the turn of the 20th century, and that the transition was complete by 1890:

In 1878 the "Reorganization accepted the inheritance of "early" Mormonism and thus identified itself with a more orthodox Christian position of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit as an infinite, almighty, and all-powerful Godhead." (p.144)
Previously-held views "simply faded away as the more orthodox Christian view of God, that of the Trinity, became the primary belief of the movement. By 1890 the plurality of gods was referred to as a 'doctrine of man.'" (p.161).

For more detail one would probably need to dig through the old Conference papers themselves.


In Aquinas's first proof of God's existence, what is the difference between accidentally and essentially ordered causal series?

Here's S.Th., I, q.46, a.2, ad 7, for reference:

In efficient causes it is impossible to proceed to infinity "per se"—thus, there cannot be an infinite number of causes that are "per se" required for a certain effect; for instance, that a stone be moved by a stick, the stick by the hand, and so on to infinity. But it is not impossible to proceed to infinity "accidentally" as regards efficient causes; for instance, if all the causes thus infinitely multiplied should have the order of only one cause, their multiplication being accidental, as an artificer acts by means of many hammers accidentally, because one after the other may be broken. It is accidental, therefore, that one particular hammer acts after the action of another; and likewise it is accidental to this particular man as generator to be generated by another man; for he generates as a man, and not as the son of another man. For all men generating hold one grade in efficient causes—viz. the grade of a particular generator. Hence it is not impossible for a man to be generated by man to infinity; but such a thing would be impossible if the generation of this man depended upon this man, and on an elementary body, and on the sun, and so on to infinity.

St. Thomas distinguishes between causal series ordered per accidens ("accidentally") and causal series ordered per se ("essentially"). Edward Feser's Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide (ch. 3 "Natural Theology," § "The First Way") describes the difference:

This brings us to an important distinction Aquinas and other medieval thinkers made between two kinds of series of efficient causes. On the one hand there are causal series ordered per accidens or “accidentally,” in the sense that the causal activity of any particular member of the series is not essentially dependent on that of any prior member of the series. Take, for example, the series consisting of Abraham begetting Isaac, Isaac begetting Jacob, and Jacob begetting Joseph. Once he has himself been begotten by Abraham (and then grows to maturity, of course), Isaac is fully capable of begetting Jacob on his own, even if Abraham dies in the meantime. It is true that he would not have existed had Abraham not begotten him, but the point is that once Isaac exists he has the power to beget a son all by himself, and Abraham’s continued existence or non-existence is irrelevant to his exercise of that power. The same is true of Jacob with respect to both Abraham and Isaac, and of Joseph with respect to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Given that we are considering them as a series of begetters specifically, each member is independent of the others as far as its causal powers are concerned. Contrast this with a causal series ordered per se or “essentially.” Aquinas’s example from the First Way of the staff which is moved by the hand is a standard illustration, and we can add to the example by supposing that the staff is being used to move a stone, which is itself moving a fallen leaf. Here the motion of the leaf depends essentially on the motion of the stone, which in turn depends essentially on the motion of the staff, which itself depends essentially in turn on the motion of the hand. For if any member higher up in the series ceases its causal activity, the activity of the lower members will necessarily cease as well. For instance, if the staff was to slip away from the stone, the stone, and thus the leaf too, will stop moving; and of course, if the hand stops moving, the whole series, staff included, will automatically stop. In this case the causal power of the lower members derives entirely from that of the first member, the hand. In fact, strictly speaking it is not the stone which is moving the leaf and the staff which is moving the stone, but rather the hand which is moving everything else, with the stone being used by it as an instrument to move the leaf and the staff being used as an instrument to move both stone and leaf.
Causal series ordered per accidens are linear in character and extend through time, as in the begetting example, in which Abraham’s begetting Isaac occurs well before Isaac’s begetting Jacob, and Isaac’s begetting Jacob occurs well before Jacob’s begetting Joseph. Causal series ordered per se are paradigmatically hierarchical with their members acting simultaneously, as in the staff example where the movement of the leaf occurs precisely when the movement of the stone occurs, which is precisely when the movement of the staff occurs, which is precisely when the movement of the hand occurs. Now it is in Aquinas’s view at least theoretically possible for a causal series ordered per accidens to regress to infinity, and thus have no beginning point (ST I.46.2). (This is why Aquinas thinks it is not possible to prove via purely philosophical arguments that the world must have had a beginning in time.) For since each member of such a series has its causal power independently of the earlier members, there is no need to trace any particular member’s action back to the activity of a first member; for instance, when Jacob begets Joseph, it is precisely Jacob who begets him, and not Abraham who begets him by using Isaac and Jacob as instruments. By contrast, “in efficient causes it is impossible to proceed to infinity per se – thus, there cannot be an infinite number of causes that are per se required for a certain effect; for instance, that a stone be moved by a stick, the stick by the hand, and so on to infinity” (ST I.46.2). For “that which moves as an instrumental cause cannot move unless there be a principal moving cause” (SCG I.13.15). That is to say, since the lower members of a causal series ordered per se have no causal power on their own but derive it entirely from a first cause, which (as it were) uses them as instruments, there is no sense to be made of such a series having no first member. If a first member who is the source of the causal power of the others did not exist, the series as a whole simply would not exist, as the movement of the leaf, stone, and staff cannot occur in the absence of the hand.
What Aquinas is saying, then, is that it is in the very nature of causal series ordered per se to have a first member, precisely because everything else in the series only counts as a member in the first place relative to the actions of a first cause. To suggest that such a series might regress infinitely, without a first member, is therefore simply unintelligible. The leaf is “moved” by the stone only in a loose sense; strictly speaking, the leaf, stone, and staff are all really being moved by the hand. Thus to suggest that this series of purely instrumental causes might regress to infinity is incoherent, for they would not in that case be the instruments of anything at all (CT I.3). As A. D. Sertillanges put it, you might as well say “that a brush can paint by itself, provided it has a very long handle” (quoted by Garrigou-Lagrange in God: His Existence and His Nature).
Given their essentially instrumental character, all causes in such a series other than the first cause are referred to by Aquinas as “second causes” (“second” not in the sense of coming after the first but before the third member of the series, but rather in the sense having their causal power only in a secondary or derivative way). It is worth emphasizing that it is precisely this instrumental nature of second causes, the dependence of whatever causal power they have on the causal activity of the first cause, that is the key to the notion of a causal series per se. That the members of such a series exist simultaneously, and that the series does not regress to infinity, are of secondary importance. As Patterson Brown and John Wippel point out, even if a series of causes ordered per se could somehow be said to regress to infinity, it would remain the case, given that they are merely instrumental causes, that there must then be something outside the entire infinite series that imparts to them their causal power.
Whether or not the series of causes per accidens regresses infinitely into the past, then – and again, while Aquinas believed that it did not, he didn’t think this could be proven through philosophical arguments – a causal series per se existing here and now, and at any moment we are considering the matter, must necessarily trace back to a first member. But strictly speaking, even the hand in Aquinas’s example doesn’t count as a first mover – the example is intended merely as a first approximation to the notion of a first mover – because it is itself being moved insofar as its activity depends on the motion of the arm, the flexing of certain muscles, and so forth. To understand the way in which such a series regresses and how it does and must terminate, it is crucial to remember that for Aquinas, motion or change is just the reduction of potency to act. So when we talk about one thing being moved by another, which is moved by another, and so on, in a causal series ordered per se, this is shorthand for saying that a certain potency is reduced to act by something whose potency is itself reduced to act by something whose potency is itself reduced to act by … and so forth. (Or, to soften the technical terminology slightly, a certain potentiality is actualized by something whose potentiality is itself actualized by something whose potentiality is itself actualized by … and so on.) As should be evident, such a series can only possibly terminate in something which is not reduced to act or actualized by anything else, but which just is in act or actual, and thus “unmoving.” The potential of the hand for movement is actualized here and now by the flexing of the muscles of the hand, the potential of the muscles to flex is actualized here and now by the firing of certain motor neurons, the potential of the motor neurons to fire is actualized here and now by the firing of certain other neurons, and so forth. Eventually this regress must terminate in something which here and now actualizes potentialities without itself being actualized, an unmoved mover.


How does the gospel turn justice into a defender of the guilty?

As it's been preached to me, justice, here, refers to God's faithfulness to His own promises.  It does not refer to giving us what we deserve, which would be Hell.  Toward us, justice would necessarily mean Hell.

Instead, "Just" refers to the fact that He has promised to forgive us through the cleansing power of Christ's blood, as long as we have repented and placed our faith in Christ.

Short version: In this verse, we see that because God is Just, He will keep His promises.  That would be why the word is combined with "faithful".

For doctrinal support, I refer to Barne's Notes on the Bible

  And just to forgive us our sins - The word "just" here cannot be used
  in a strict and proper sense, since the forgiveness of sins is never
  an act of justice, but is an act of mercy. If it were an act of
  justice it could be demanded or enforced, and that is the same as to
  say that it is not forgiveness, for in that case there could have been
  no sin to be pardoned. But the word "just" is often used in a larger
  sense, as denoting upright, equitable, acting properly in the
  circumstances of the case, etc. Compare the notes at Matthew 1:19.
  Here the word may be used in one of the following senses:

  (1) Either as referring to his general excellence of character, or his
  disposition to do what is proper; that is, he is one who will act in
  every way as becomes God; or,

  (2) that he will be just in the sense that he will be true to his
  promises; or that, since he has promised to pardon sinners, he will be
  found faithfully to adhere to those engagements; or perhaps,

  (3) that he will be just to his Son in the covenant of redemption,
  since, now that an atonement has been made by him, and a way has been
  opened through his sufferings by which God can consistently pardon,
  and with a view and an understanding that he might and would pardon,
  it would be an act of injustice to him if he did not pardon those who
  believe on him.

  Viewed in either aspect, we may have the fullest assurance that God is
  ready to pardon us if we exercise true repentance and faith. No one
  can come to God without finding him ready to do all that is
  appropriate for a God to do in pardoning transgressors; no one who
  will not, in fact, receive forgiveness if he repents, and believes,
  and makes confession; no one who will not find that God is just to his
  Son in the covenant of redemption, in pardoning and saving all who put
  their trust in the merits of his sacrifice.

Also from Vincent's Word Studies (also available from the same link as Clarke's Commentary)

  Just (δίκαιος)

  Rev., righteous. From δίκη right. The term is applied both to God and
  to Christ. See Revelation 16:5; John 17:25; 1 John 2:1; 1 John 3:7; 1
  Peter 3:18. The two words, faithful and righteous, imply each other.
  They unite in a true conception of God's character. God, who is
  absolute rightness, must be faithful to His own nature, and His
  righteous dealing with men who partake of that nature and walk in
  fellowship with Him, is simply fidelity to Himself. "Righteousness is
  truth passing into action" (Westcott).


Is Matthew 26:32 and John 20:9 a mistake stating that Jesus told the disciples He would rise again then stating they didn't know after it happened?

The fact that someone is given information does not mean that they know nor understand, nor realise its significance.  This is a perfect example.

John chooses the verbs here rather carefully.  Koine Greek has two words (verbs) that are translated "know", namely, (a) ginosko, and (b) oida.  W E Vine (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words) comments on the difference in the shades of meaning between these two words:  "ginosko frequently suggest inception or progress in knowledge, while oida suggests fullness of knowledge".

In John 20:29, John uses the verb "oida" meaning that while the disciples may have known (been told), they did not fully realise the significance of what Jesus had said.  This is yet another reminder that the disciples were very human.


What major changes have American Presbyterians made to the Westminster Confession of Faith?

American Presbyterians have indeed made a number of significant changes to the Westminster Confession through the years.  Some portions of the Confession have been revised (or outright rejected) by most American Presbyterians, while other changes provoked (or were the result of) debate and division.  The most significant changes can be broken down as follows:

On the civil magistrate (1788–1799)
Semi-Arminianism in the Cumberland Presbyterian Church (1829)
Expansion and modernization (1887–1925)
Conservatism in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (1936)

Civil magistrates
The earliest major changes, and those affecting perhaps the most American Presbyterians, are related to the Westminster Confession's treatment of the authority and powers of the civil magistrate.  The section at the root of the issue was 23.3, beginning with "yet he hath authority":

The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

18th century American Presbyterians objected to this language, especially the ideas that the civil magistrate could suppress heresy and control synods.  As a result, the Presbyterian Church in the USA (PCUSA) approved notable changes in 1789:1

20.4 – removal of "and by the power of the civil magistrate" regarding means of being called to account for sin
23.3 – near total rewrite, making the magistrate a "nursing father" rather than an authority over the church
31.2 – rewrite and consolidation into 31.1, for consistency with 23.3 and the magistrate's lack of power to call synods

The Associate Reformed Church modified the same sections in 1799, using different language but achieving similar results.2
The Cumberland Presbyterian Church
In the early 19th century, the Cumberland Presbyterian Church split from the PCUSA over issues similar to those of the Old Side–New Side controversy; it wanted to relax educational and doctrinal requirements for its pasters as they sought to minister in the frontier alongside the successful Methodists and Baptists.  They established a denomination in 1829, and adopted a Confession based on the 1789 American revision of Westminster but with a number of Arminian tendencies:3

Rewrite of Chapter 3, originally "Of God's Eternal Decree," including the complete ommission of sections 3–8.  The associated note says that Calvinists drive "rational, accountable man into the asylum of fate."
Modifications to chapters 9, 10, and 11 remove the doctrine of unconditional election, allow the possibility of entire sanctification, and indicate that all infants that die, not merely elect infants, are saved.

Expansion and modernization
The next round of significant modifications occurred in 1903, by the PCUSA.  A few years prior, in 1887, it had excised the last phrase of section 24.4, prohibiting marriage to a close relative of a deceased spouse.  But the changes of 1903 were more drastic:4

16.7 – softening of language regarding the sinfulness of the unsaved
22.3 – removal of the sentence declaring it sinful to refuse to make a just oath when required by lawful authority
25.6 – rewrite to remove explicit mentions of the Pope and Antichrist
34 – new chapter entitled, "Of the Holy Spirit," describing the role and work of the Holy Spirit
35 – new chapter entitled, "Of the Love of God and Missions," emphasizing God's desire that all be saved and the importance of missions

As an aside, not all bodies desiring these kinds of changes modified the WCF.   For example, the United Presbyterian Church of North America adopted a Confessional Statement in 1925 that was meant to supersede the original Westminster Standards where the two differed.5
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
The Orthodox Presbyterian Church split from the PCUSA in the midst of the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy; its leaders opposed the theological liberalization of the PCUSA.  As such, it rejected most of the changes made by its parent denomination in 1903, but accepted those made prior to that.  Its significant differences from the 1647 edition can be summarized as follows:

20.4, 23.3, and 31.2 – retain the 1788 American revisions regarding the civil magistrate
24.4 – retain the 1877 revision regarding remarriage
22.3 – accept the 1903 revision regarding refusing oaths
25.6 – excise the clause identifying the Pope as the Antichrist (not rewriting the entire section, as in the 1903 revision)

The OPC recognizes that these revisions are "not insignificant," but calculates that they only affect 145 of the 12063 words in the Confession, or 1.2%.6
Summary
It's certainly true that American Presbyterians have significantly modified the Westminster Confession; some much more so than others.  Over the years some denominations have seen fit to change even its language on major Reformed doctrines, whether to jettison them or soften them.  But, for what it is worth, the version used by the OPC (and, by extension, the PCA) has been less extensively modified.

Bibliography
For analysis of editions of the Westminster Confession prior to 1900, see B. B. Warfield, The Printing of the Westminster Confession, II.  He provides a listing of all changes, including minor ones, between the original 1647 and PCUSA 1896 editions on page 116.  His treatment of groups outside the PCUSA is less extensive; for example, he does not mention the Cumberland Presbyterian Church.
For a helpful treatment of the American revisions of 1788, see Lee Irons, "The 1788 American Revision of the Westminster Standards."  For analysis, see Hart and Muether, "Turning Points in American Presbyterians History, Part 4"
For more general treatment of major Protestant confessions through the early 20th century, see Philip Schaff's Creeds of Christendom, Volume III.
References

Irons.
Constitution and Standards, pages 94, 111, and 134.
Schaff, 3.3.2
Schaff, 4.1.3
Schaff, 4.1.5
OPC, "American Revisions to the Westminster Confession of Faith"


What do non-trinitarians mean when they call Jesus the "Son of God"?

I've come across a few different meanings. Here are three examples:

Adoptionism: Jesus was born just a man, but was adopted as God's own Son. There are a few reasons that are given for this (simply from God's grace; Jesus was the supreme religious expert for two examples). Those who defend this position often point to Jesus's baptism as the moment that this adoption took place.
Arianism: Jesus is from a divine substance like the Father, but of a different divine substance than the father. Obviously, the parts of the Nicene creed came from this, declaring that Jesus was begotten before all ages.
Unitarianism: Jesus is a religious exemplar, and we should aspire to have the religion of Jesus, not a religion about Jesus.

There are all manner of permutations of these ideas, as can be seen in the article on Wikipedia about Christological heresies.


What's the difference between a psalm, a hymn, and a spiritual song?

Paul's Greek was ψαλμοις, υμνοις and ωδαις πνευματικαις.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon (via Blue Letter Bible) has

  ύμνος, -ου, ο, in Greek writing from Homer down, a song in praise of gods, heroes, conquerors, [cf. Trench as below, p297], but in the Scriptures of God; a sacred song, hymn.

Thayer quotes Richard Chevinix Trench's Synonyms of the New Testament:

  ύμνος, ψαλμός, ωδή: ωδή is the generic term; ψαλμός and ύμνος are specific, the former designating a song which took its general character from the Old Testament "Psalms" (although not restricted to them, see 1 Cor 14:15, 26), the latter a song of praise. "While the leading idea of ψαλμός is a musical accompaniment, and that of ύμνος praise the God, ωδή is the general word for a song, whether accompanied or unaccompanied, whether of praise or on any other subject. Thus it was quite possible for the same song to be at once ψαλμός, ύμνος, and ωδή" (Bishop Lightfoot on Col 3:16). The words occur together in Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19. See Trench, Synonyms §78.

Psalm: a song from the Book of Psalms, often accompanied
Hymn: a song of praise, often unaccompanied
Song: any song


What is the framework and concise definition of the New Perspective on Paul?

The Hinge on the New Perspective of Paul Rests mainly on the new 15th century  understanding or reformers that Old Covenant Judaism was a “works based salvation.” The ‘New Perspective on Paul’, which is a protestant new prospective on how to understand the writings of the Evangelist Paul, who was a hightly learned Rabbi, understood the Old Covenant Judaism as one of Grace 1st, then Faith, through Circumcision and obedience to the ordinances of the Law to stay in that covenantal Relationship.

The works of E.P. Sanders "Paul and Palestinian Judaism" Comments of and relating to Covenantal Nomism. That Judaism
 Was a Grace based Covenant and that to enter into it one must be circumcised, pass on their faith to their heirs and do the works associated with the covenant to stay in covenant"

  E.P. Sanders “Covenantal nomism, in opposition to merit theology, is the belief that 1st century Jews in the land of Israel did not believe in works righteousness. Essentially, it is the belief that one is brought into the Abrahamic covenant through birth and stays in the covenant through works.”   Source wiki.  Also E.P. Sanders work  “Paul and Palestinian Judaism”

The realization that Paul was not speaking against all works but simply works of the Law is at the heart of New Pauline Perspective. It is plain (to those who fallow the new perspective) when understood in its historical context, that the reformers turned upside down the orthodox teachings of the church, reformers, who were rightly looking for reforms within the Catholic Church, made mistakes in their interpretations.  Abandoning the reality of who Saint Paul was, and the world he lived in, in unity by necessity of revolting, the sacred teachings preserved by the Church, and under the pressures of secular powers challenged and apposed by virtue of theses misconceptions, those sacred teachings were abandoned. Reforms were made within the church however that did not abandon the original interpretations.

  ling for reformation inside the Church
  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04437a.htm

The Framework of the New Perspective on Paul it that in opposition to the OLD Framework (Protestant) that Salvation in OLD Covenant Judaism was works based identifies that belief to be a false assumption and that Old Covenant Judaism is in fact and always has been, Grace Based, faith based and Obedience based.

In addition to this perspective which is a direct assault on precepts of the reformation, the new perspective on Paul suggests that Saint Paul, being a Jew with a 1st Century Jewish mentality, understood that you must enter into the New Covenant, Maintain your covenantal commitment, and remain in covenant in order to be Saved.


In which languages could the Tridentine Mass be said?

If by “Tridentine Mass” the O.P. means the Mass promulgated by Pope Pius V in 1570 (probably better termed the “traditional Roman Rite”), which was used widely in that form until the liturgical reforms after Vatican II (and is still used to varying degrees today), then the answer is that it is basically only used in Latin, with a small number of exceptions that I am aware of.
Although the Council of Trent did not expressly forbid translating the Mass into the vernacular, it did emphatically assert that the Mass need not be celebrated in the vernacular:

Si quis dixerit … lingua tantum vulgari missam celebrari debere …: anathema sit.
If anyone should say … that the Mass should be celebrated only in the vernacular language …, let him be anathema (Session XXII, Canon 9, my translation).

In practice, however, the liturgical books were only issued in Latin; therefore, this Mass was very seldom celebrated in any language but Latin.
I am aware of one historical exception: in the regions that were part of the old Roman province of Dalmatia (basically modern day Croatia), the Mass was often celebrated in Old Slavonic (which is, however, more or less the Slavic equivalent of Latin).
Mention should also be made of the Missal used in Catholic Anglican ordinariates, published in 2015, which is very close to the traditional Roman Rite. This rite is based on some versions of the Anglo-Catholic liturgy that are, in turn, based on the old Roman Rite.
(Naturally, it is also possible that individuals translated the Mass and celebrated in the vernacular without authorization.)


What determines when the Flores de Mayo and the Santacruzan festival will occur each year?

According to a page on the Northern Illinois University site, the festival concludes a Novena (nine days) of prayer.

The festivity commemorates the search of the Holy Cross by Queen Helena (Reina Elena) and her son, the newly converted emperor Constantine. After the Holy Cross was found in Jerusalem and brought back to rome, there was a joyful celebration for thanksgiving.
Nine days of prayer (a novena) in honor of the Holy Cross precedes the Flores de Mayo or Santacruzan. This festival was introduced by the Spaniards in the Philippines and has since become part of Filipino traditions identified with youth, love and romance.

The feast of the Finding of the True Cross as introduced by the Spanish would have been celebrated on May 3, which is when it appeared in the Galician calendar. The festival was suppressed when it was combined with the Roman celebration of the Triumph of the Cross (September 14) in Pope St John XXIII's New Calendar of 1960.
As the main procession in New York always occurs on a Sunday, the Novena of prayer would start nine or ten days prior to that — depending on whether the procession is on the last day of the novena or the day following it, celebrating its completion. This year, it fell on May 18; thus the novena would have started on either Friday 9 May or Saturday 10 May.
I would surmise that the novena starts on the Friday or Saturday following May 3, which would fix the final festival on the third Sunday in May.


Where do Catholics believe the historical narrative of the Bible begins?

The problem with that question is that it makes a very difficult assumption: that the Church has an official position as to when the historical begins. Frankly, it doesn't.

The Church's view of Genesis can be best summed up by, "it means what it means." Yes, that is tautology, but it is necessarily so — we know that the Bible is 100% accurate in faith and morals as intended by the author, but it is very difficult to narrow down the theology beyond that. Further, it is not impossible for the author to make an error in matters historical as history is not strictly limited by faith and morals. (Placement of the Medes in the book of Daniel, for example, is generally considered an anachronism, but it does make sense if taken more symbollically).

On a personal note: I view the histories as starting with the book of Joshua and continuing from there. For, while there is definitely som mytho-symbolic content in Judges, my reading is that, overall, the concern of the documents is the historical progression of the nation. Yes, that does omit the entire pentateuch, but, while I will not deny that there is most certainly history in those documents, picking apart history from legend in those five is a bit tricky.


What is the argument and Biblical basis that it is possible to know God from nature?

Well you have two questions here and there are opposite answers for each.
Can you know about God without the Bible or other believer? Yes according to the Bible you can.

Romans 1:20

  For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Psalms 19:1-2

  1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
     the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
  2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
     night after night they reveal knowledge.

But then comes the title question. Is it possible to KNOW God from nature? The answer is no.   Just like you can learn some things about my intelligence by looking at the way I code programs, you could never KNOW me just by looking at my code. In fact you could get the wrong idea about me completely if you only look at the actual code and don't read the comments in it! You've got to come to where I am if you want to know me. That's just logic, but what does the Bible say about that? How would we 'come' to God?

John 14:6

  Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

So you can know about God without help from the bible, but I don't think you can say you could KNOW God without either the Bible, or others who know Him, because in order to KNOW God you have to have faith in Jesus, and while the heavens openly and obviously declare the glory of God, they don't obviously announce the person of Jesus Christ.  However, that doesn't mean that if no Bible or christian is available you can't ever know Him, God said in several places those who seek Him will find Him.  For example:

Deuteronomy 4:29

  But if from there you seek the LORD your God,
  you will find him if you look for him with all your heart
  and with all your soul.

But if there is scripture or other christians available and you don't consult them, how could you claim to be seeking God with all your heart and soul?


Where do the names of books of Bible come from?

The various books get their names in different ways.  Most of the Old Testament books are named for their theme.  For example, the book of Genesis tells of the beginning (or genesis) of the world, and human history.  The book of Exodus tells of the story of the Israelites' exodus out of Egypt.  Psalms and Proverbs, are collections of, respectively, psalms (songs) and proverbs (wise sayings).  The books of Samuel, Ruth, Job, and many others, tell the stories of the people after which they are named.

In the New Testament, there are three main naming conventions.  Many books are named after their authors, such as the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, along with a few other letters (also called Epistles), which are named after their authors, such as James, and First Peter and Second Peter (he wrote two letters that are in the Bible).

Some of the other books in the New Testament are also letters, and are named after the recipient.  First Corinithians and Second Corinthians are the first and second letters written to the church in Corinith, for instance.  And Romans is a letter written to the church in Rome.  First Timothy and Second Timothy are both letters written to Timothy (who was a church leader at the time).

And finally, a few of the New Testament books are also named after their theme.  Acts portrays the "acts of the Apostles", and Revelation is a revelation of new insight (although the exact theme of Revelation is somewhat of a disputed issue--some say it's a revelation about the future, others say it's historical in content).