Is the OT unveiled in the entire NT or just the Gospels?

I think the whole NT reveals the old, particularly in explaining OT prophecy. Possible the best example is the Book of Hebrews, since it may well have been written for exactly that purpose. Some examples:

To which of the angels did God ever say,
"Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet"

Hebrews 1:13, quoting Psalm 110:1.
Then there is the account of Melchizedek in Hebrews 7, who as both King and Priest was an archetype of Christ. (This theme is carried on into subsequent chapters, the High Priest in chapter 8 and the Blood of a sacrifice (Christ in NT) in chapters 9 and 10.)
Finally (in this very brief overview of Hebrews), is the men and women of faith in chapter 11.
That's just one book!
Other examples I could mention are the imaginary of Ezekiel and Daniel coming back in Revelation, Paul explaining grace in Galatians 4:21-31 using the examples of Hagar and Sarah and Peter quoting proverbs in 2 Peter 2:22.
Finally (for my summary, there is of course much more), there is the promise of a New Heaven and a New Earth, first revealed in Isaiah 65:17 and 66:22 and then repeated by Peter in 2 Peter 3:13 and John in Revelation 21:1.
So, yes, the OT comes back time and time again in the NT. One might speculate it was planned that way. :)


How does a person determine whether they are a "false Christian" or "inconsistent Christian"?

First, there is a framework in the Bible to help believers identify themselves as being ‘genuine’ or not. However, although this framework is infallible to guide the elect into an 'assurance of salvation' it provides no reliable means to an unbeliever. A wicked soul can and will deceive themselves as part of the curse they are under. Secondly, this framework is ‘personal’ as it involves the ‘internal witness’ of the Holy Spirit and does not extend to an infallible judgment of another person's state.  There is a framework for that (for discerning the sate of others) but it is more general and less determinative primarily for the purpose of identifying false teachers. To answer your question then I will define the scope to be; “an individual who is trying to determine for their own conscience sake, whether they are really saved or no.”  I am answering as someone who firmly believes in once saved always saved. Naturally the question therefore as regarding whether my faith is genuine or not is the most important question I could ever ask myself.

In a nutshell: Anyone who has genuine faith in Christ by relying on his death, in order to be relieved from a genuine sense of condemnation and fear of eternal punishment for their sins and a corresponding genuine relief of that fear by faith, is most likely a genuine believer. The question therefore amounts to how can one determine ‘a genuine fear of hell’ and a corresponding ‘genuine relief and peace with God’ by trusting in his death for one’s forgiveness and justification.  To answer one first must be clear that such faith is truly in Christ and not based on works of the law, or practicing any religious rules under any Church claimed authority, effectively replacing faith in Christ with faith in Church, church doctrine, or church practice. In essence if one has never even accepted that a person can be saved by doing nothing more then simple faith, then they are automatically excluded from having any biblical assurance of salvation as they are trusting something in addition to a personal reliance on Christ's work. In addition anyone who has this genuine conviction that Christ’s death is sufficient to provide salvation apart from works of the law, baptism into a particular denomination, or any other external work, has only genuinely come to share in that faith if they are found to persevere to the end with it:

  We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end (NIV Heb 3:14).

Therefore one part of the framework is that ‘faith in Christ’ as a means to obtain peace from a fear of eternal damnation can’t be fully destroyed in one who has come to have it. Although this is only a guide it is very helpful because a person who thinks they had become a Christian but then falls into various sins and begins to deny that they had salvation and no longer has any relief of salvation and no longer feels any need for relief because they no longer fear eternal damnation for the guilt of their sin, which faith is to relive, has obviously never been saved in the first place.

We have now narrowed the question therefore to those who have fallen into various external, or internals sins, yet still fear eternal damnation and still find some measure of relief and hope that Christ has and does forgive them for their sin.  The question is while in this condition how can a person know if they have genuine faith, or no? One way to narrow the question further is to apply doctrinal tests. For example, if anyone denies a fundamental doctrine of the gospel, such as that “Christ is God and became man, and who died as an atoning sacrifice for sin". If they are to deny this type of doctrine then their faith is not in Christ as only God could have lived a holy life perfectly under the strict severity of the law and only a man could through blood be a proper sacrifice for human sin. Therefore such a faith could not be genuinely believing in Christ as a means of taking on the punishment of our sin, and no genuine relief could be obtained under the false doctrine.

  Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. (NIV 1 Jn 4:2–3).

Third, a person with faith has the Spirit of God, which means at a minimum they value God above all other things. It is impossible to genuinely believe in hell, one’s proper eternal damnation for the least sin and eternal salvation offered by simple faith in Christ and not secretly value Christ above any other thing. It is not rational to believe Christ and at the same time not value him above all things. Even the weakest believer must value Christ above all or they have never had any faith whatsoever.

We have now narrowed the question to this: For those believers who hold to the primary doctrines of the gospel such as original sin, the trinity, justification by faith in Christ apart from works, etc. and hold him in view as something more valuable then anything else and from fear of eternal damnation find some comfort and relief in his death so that they are not driven to insanity with the otherwise extreme fear that they would rationally hold under their conviction, if they were to fall into various sins, internal or external, how can they know if they have ever had genuine faith, or no?

We now come to a very personal aspect of the question. For outwardly no man would be able to determine who has genuine faith for the confession of the mouth is right, the person seems to have genuine faith, yet they may be not going to church for a long period, may be living in an adulterous relationship, etc.  For example there was a member of the Corinthian church that was having sexual relations with his father’s wife (I guess a kind of Mother in law). One would never know if this person had genuine faith but after being excommunicated from the church it turned out that his faith possibly was genuine and he repented of his sin. Yet, here we find another principle. When it is very unclear if a person is a Christian, or not, it is best to assume not and then the fear of hell will drive one back to the comfort and relief of salvation in Christ.

Still, the answer is not sufficient. For many who are backslidden may be so because there faith in Christ is weak and there fear of condemnation great.  From this weak faith they stumble into many sins and this only heightens their fear of hell so they try not to think about it. In such a case excommunication and warnings of hell only drive them deeper into despair, so they really need to be reminded of the free grace in Christ and find encouragement to go to him for relief of their fear. In this struggle, to differentiate the condemnation of the Devil who accuses the elect, versus the practical duty of one to encourage their own soul although eternally saved to fear hell more and to encourage ones return back to faith for relief, only the Holy Spirit’s internal witness can distinguish.  The fact is that those who have been regenerated by the Holy Ghost as a result of first being justified freely by the grace in Christ, through faith, apart from the works of the law, have an internal witness of the Holy Ghost. Not only so by the Holy Ghost is also the one who preserves correct doctrine in the mind of the believer. (1 John 2:20)

  The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. (NIV Ro 8:15–16)

The conclusion: The elect who have genuinely trusted in Christ receive relief from there dread of eternal damnation and consolation that is never fully destroyed. They therefore persevere and although possibly stumbling into various sins, they never loose that fear of hell and comfort of faith to rescue them from it and therefore return or keep returning to live a life not dominated by the sins they used to commit prior to believing in Christ. During the times when they are down and the conclusion is not clear they are willing to assume the worst and encourage themselves to fear hell in order to arouse their own soul into obedience to faith. However when being accused by the Devil and condemned and so discouraged and fallen into sin through doubt, the Holy Spirit himself will provide assurance so that faith is not snuffed out and a bruised reed not broken, with the final conclusion that the believer will always persevere with faith and be swallowed up in glory forever. Sometimes it is not clear and is not meant to be clear as God himself provides the assurance to the elect ensuring their perseverance.


Wasn't Peter just trying to avoid getting caught when he denied Jesus three times?

Reading related passages helps to understand Scripture; the sin was pride.

Peter's denying Jesus is set up by something that happened previous to that infamous denial during Jesus' night time interrogation. From the book of Matthew (26: 31-35):

  31  Then Jesus said to them, "This night all of you will have your
  faith in me shaken, for it is written: 'I will strike the shepherd,
  and the sheep of the flock will be dispersed'; 32  but after I have
  been raised up, I shall go before you to Galilee."  33  Peter said
  to him in reply, "Though all may have their faith in you shaken, mine
  will never be."  34  Jesus said to him, "Amen, I say to you, this
  very night before the cock crows, you will deny me three times."   35
  Peter said to him, "Even though I should have to die with you, I will not deny you." And all the disciples spoke likewise.

Peter talked a good game.  He boasted of his faith and love for Jesus.  And when it came to crunch time, he could not back up his words.
(Matthew, 26: 72-75)

  72  Again he denied it with an oath, "I do not know the man!" 73  A little later the bystanders came over and said to Peter, "Surely
  you too are one of them; even your speech gives you away."  74  At
  that he began to curse and to swear, "I do not know the man." And
  immediately a cock crowed. 75  Then Peter remembered the word that
  Jesus had spoken: "Before the cock crows you will deny me three
  times." He went out and began to weep bitterly.

Peter's sin was the sin of pride, as evidenced by his boasting to Jesus and the other disciples present.

Whether or not it was "some great sin" to react with fear, Peter's boast demonstrates the hazards of pride, and the other matter of walking the walk versus talking the talk.  While I've generally heard it taught (by clergy in various denominations) that this was a case of Peter's faith being put to the test -- as any of us can be presented with a test of faith -- there are many lessons to learn from this.

Pride goeth before a fall 1

One lesson is: don't write checks with your words that your faith can't cash.

Lesson two: don't boast

As the Apostle Paul cautions us: don't be boastful.  Peter was boasting about how strong his faith was when he'd no idea what test his faith was about to be presented with.  Jesus knew.
1 Corinthians 1: 27-31

  27 Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and
  God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong, 28 and God chose
  the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, to
  reduce to nothing those who are something, 29 so that no human being
  might boast before God. 30  It is due to him that you are in Christ
  Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, as well as righteousness,
  sanctification, and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, "Whoever
  boasts, should boast in the Lord."

Peter was boasting in Peter, not the Lord, and so had a fall.

1 A slight misquote of Proverbs 16:18

  Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall


What is the basis for King Melchizedek actually being Jesus? Where did this idea come from?

The chief basis for the belief is Hebrews 7:3, which says in the NET translation:

  Without father, without mother, without genealogy, he has neither beginning of days nor end of life but is like the son of God, and he remains a priest for all time.

Those who argue that he is Jesus say that a plain reading of the verse is that Melchizedek literally had no parents or ancestors, and that he never died and is eternally a priest.

Others would counter it by saying that he was a type of Christ, and that Hebrews is calling attention to his mysterious, spontaneous appearance in Genesis: no genealogical record, no record of his life beyond his interaction with Abraham. They also point out that Hebrews says he was made "like" the Son of God, not that he was the Son of God, which is a title that Hebrews reserves for Jesus.

As supporting evidence, proponents of the "Melchizedek = Jesus" view point out that only a few chapters after Abraham's encounter with Melchizedek, he meets someone who has traditionally been identified as a manifestation of God. So such encounters were not unheard of.

The origin of the belief is murky, but it seems to have been a minority opinion in relatively early times, and remains so today. It seems to not have a lineage per se, but rather that commentators and theologians arrive at the conclusion independently at different times. Its earliest mention that I could find is the fifth century.

According to Philip Edgecomb Hughes' commentary on Hebrews, Jerome asserted (in letter 73, to Evangelus) that Origen believed Melchizedek to be an angel and that he himself along with Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Apollinaris, and Eustathius believed him to be a human being and a type of Christ. Hughes adds Cyril of Alexandria and Epiphanius to the list. But Ambrose (according to Hughes) sometimes referred to Melchizedek as God, sometimes the Son of God, and sometimes a type of Christ. Epiphanius was an early writer who explicitly wrote against the idea of Melchizedek being a theophany; John Brown also mentioned that he was aware of the belief. Hughes identifies Cunaeus as a more recent proponent of the belief, along with J.B. McCaul and A.T. Hanson, about whom not much information is out there online. In addition to all this (just as a side note) there were various heretical sects that saw Melchizedek as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, and Jewish writers commonly identify Melchizedek with Shem.


If one's entry into the church is solemnized by baptism, then how does one leave the church?

There is no biblical precedent for formal disassociation with the church, other than excommunication.  Excommunication is a church censure for some gross act for which as Paul says, one must be "handed over to Satan," with the idea that the offender will repent and (hopefully) be reinstated.  1 Corinthians 5 goes into this. One might be excommunicated for blasphemy or active, persistent heresy, but it would be rare indeed for simple backsliding to be the cause.  In Amish circles, you might be shunned for for your behavior, but that is a different matter indeed from actual excommunication.

As a practical matter, excommunication in a body that is now a voluntary association is now thus a very rare thing.  It takes a special individual to voluntarily remain a part of a body that  has formally expelled him.  As such, while it is still "on the books" so to speak, it's rarely used.

Furthermore, since excommunication comes from the church rather than the individual, there is still the question of how one would leave voluntarily.  Indeed, many Christians - especially those who believe in eternal security aka 'perseverance of the saints' would say that once saved, you're always saved, and as such there is no ontological means by which one could renounce their salvation.

From 1983 until 2009, the Catholic church recognized defection from the same but has since rescinded it.

To fill this "gap", some atheists have created 'unbaptism certificates' and others have devised makeshift ceremonies, but these are mostly jokes. Indeed, probably the most famous - Count Me Out an Irish group -  formally closed its doors on August 8, 2013, because they acknowledged the church has no official means of voluntary departure. Madelyn Murray O'Hair in particular liked to issue 'debaptismal certificates'.

In practice, what most people do is simply stop attending church.  There have been no laws forcing compulsory attendance in a church in the US since the Bill of Rights, and I am unaware of any Christian country that still has any such laws on the books. (Muslims, different story, but no legally enforced Christian compulsion to attend service exists).

As far as one's reputation goes, that's strictly subjective.  Most Christians will "respect" anyone's decision to leave, but there's no way anyone would be happy about it.  If you're lucky, Michael W. Smith might write a sad song about you, but that's probably as far as it is going to go.


According to Roman Catholic teaching, did Martin Luther's alterations to the order of the Mass invalidate his consecration of the elements?

Martin Luther's alterations to the order of the Mass did not invalidate his consecration of the elements. If his Mass was invalid, it would have been through some other reason such as a lack of intention as is mentioned in Geremia's answer.

Unlike Pope Leo XIII's condemnation of all Anglican Orders due to a "defect in form" in his Apostolic Curae (De Ordinationibus Anglicanis) of September 15, 1896, one can not find a similar condemnation from Rome of Martin Luther's Mass due to the alterations he made to the liturgy.

  Apostolicæ Curæ presents a theological defense of this tradition of Vatican rejection of the validity of Anglican orders. It is based on the argument that the Church of England ordinal was defective in 'intention' and 'form'. By 'defect of intention' Leo XIII meant that by the omission of any reference to the Eucharist as a sacrifice and to a sacrificing priesthood in the ordination ritual of the 1552 Book of Common Prayer, the Church of England intended to introduce a radically new rite into England, one markedly different from those approved by the Roman Catholic Church. By 'defect of form' Leo XIII meant that the words of the Anglican ordination prayer, 'Receive the Holy Ghost', did not signify definitely the order of the Catholic priesthood with its power to consecrate and offer the body and blood of Christ in the eucharistic sacrifice. - Anglican Orders

This question deals more with form than with intention and as such one can not find any condemnation from the Vatican due to the alterations to the Mass by Martin Luther. Yes, he made changes to the Mass, but their form has never been condemned by any pope. His wording of the consecration remained valid. However, such was not the intention of the Church and such usage would make the celebration of the Mass illicit.

As said above, other factors could invalidate a Mass, such as matter and intention. Here is an excellent read: What Constitutes a Valid Consecration?

As for celebrating the Mass in other languages, Rome has allowed the Tridentine Mass to be said in various languages through the use of indults.

Here are a few concessions that have approved:

  a) During the fourteenth century the Roman Liturgy in its Dominican variant was translated into Greek for use by the Dominican missionaries in Greece.

  b) Permission had been granted to celebrate the Dominican Liturgy in the Armenian classical language in Armenia.

  c) At the end of the sixteenth century missionaries of India of the Latin rite were allowed to celebrate Mass in Syriac.

  d) In the seventeenth century the Discalced Carmelites were granted permission to use Arabic in their mission foundation in Persia.

  e) In the seventeenth century the Theatine Clerics were granted permission to use Georgian or Armenian in their mission foundation in Georgia.

  f) In the nineteenth century the Franciscans in the Holy Land were granted permission to use Arabic.

  g) In 1958, an indult was granted India to use Hindi.

  h) Five Latin priests in the Holy Land were granted permission to use Hebrew.

  i) In 1959, the Holy See renewed Germany's privilege to use the vernacular in the Epistle and Gospel after they are recited in Latin. - Liturgical Languages

Addendum: The "Question" of Lutheran Orders

  During the first years of the Reformation in Sweden, a validly ordained bishop continued ordaining after the split with Rome. But on the issue of the elimination of all sacrificial language, the reformed ordinals of Norway and Sweden were no different from their Anglican counterparts.

  Conclusion: the orders of even "high-church" Lutheran pastors and bishops must be held invalid in virtue of the same principles Leo XIII applied to Anglicans.


It's an attempt to show that the universe, and all it contains, is too orderly to have originated by chance with no intelligent guiding force.  It simply implies an intelligent Creator, not necessarily the God of the Bible.

In short, it's an argument for creationism, without naming the Creator explicitly, which is what Intelligent Design is.

It's not so much an attempt to prove his existence mathematically, it is, (depending on which side of the fence you sit on) more of:

using mathematics to imply His existence

or

use mathematics to show how His existence is implied by the evidence around us.


Denominational adherence to "The New Perspective On Paul"

The jury is still out on this one.

As a doctrinal perspective that is relatively new on the scene, theologians are still busy hashing out where they fall on the matter and denominations are examining how it compares to their established teachings. I know of no denominations that have officially embrassed it as their standard teaching. In fact I don't know of any yet who officially allow even partially, however there are quite a few thinkers these days that have gone this direction and many of the churches

While there may not be official adherence, there is certainly official rejection. Several denominations* have made statements against the teachings, and several have gone so far as to require all new ordination candidates to write their own refutations as part of their examination process.

* The OPC and several other Reformed / Presbyterian denominations.


During the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD the city was destroyed almost down to the bedrock with not a stone left atop another, just as Jesus had predicted. Jews were forbidden to enter the city for a long time afterward. This also applied to a small Jewish dissent group called "Christians". This forced everybody (who were alive) to leave Jerusalem and move to the next possible alternative, wherever that was.

Reason 1: St. Peter was in Rome. St. Peter and St. Mark went to Rome to help Christians there. The Catholic Church has always held that Ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia, et ibi ecclesia vita eterna, that is Where there is Peter there is the Church, where there is the Church there is life eternal!. [St Ambrose (d. 397 A.D.), Commentary on the Psalms 40, 30]

So where else can Christians go when they have nowhere else to go? There are plenty of Church Fathers like St. Jerome  (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]) and St. Irenaeus who give this as the reason.

Reason 2: Rome was the largest and most powerful City on Earth. Hence, it was the best possible place to spread the Gospel quickly, as it was the most connected city. Remember "All road leads to Rome".

Reason 3: Pre-existing infrastructure. When the emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the official state religion, all pagan temples in Rome were converted into christian churches which made Rome amicable to the Christian population.

Reason 4: Necessary to full-fill prophecy of Daniel. Some scholars like Dr. Scott Hahn interpret the prophecy in Daniel 7 as Rome to be the fourth kingdom and that Christ was to come, overthrow this kingdom, and establish an everlasting kingdom in its place. This is why the first thirty or so Popes kept coming back to Rome despite being martyred there.

Reason 5: Divine providence. As a Catholic, I personally believe the reason to be divine providence. If the Catholic Church is based in Jerusalem, then there would be unnecessary problems with other faiths which existed then and have come into existence since.


God does speak

This is a very interesting question.  Certainly God has spoken to people in the past in very specific ways.  To mention a few...

God told Moses to stretch out his staff over the Red Sea, and it parted.
God told Moses to strike the rock, and water poured out
God told the Israelites to go out to find the manna, and it was there (every day for 40 years)
God told Joshua to march around Jericho once a day for 6 days and then 7 times on the 7th day, and the walls fell.
God told Joseph to flee with Mary and Jesus, and he did and spared his family.

The Source of Subtle Feelings

However, these were never a subtle feeling, but a very direct command of God.  That's a very important distinction.  A subtle feeling is often attributed to divine guidance when it could be just what someone happens to want.  Perhaps some people want to feel like they are in such close communion with God that He is directing every aspect of their lives.  However, I do believe this could be true for some people.

Unfortunately, the only way to discern whether or not what someone claims is divine guidance is actually from God is to wait for the outcome.  If the waters part, the manna falls from heaven, water comes forth from the rock, walls fall, or peril is escaped, then it's probably from God.  However, sometimes there is no visible distinction in the outcome.  That doesn't mean there isn't one.  Perhaps God really is active in the situation.

However, never in Scripture does God command someone to do something that ultimately results in failure.

Responsibility

Perhaps the issue comes down to where the subtle feelings are directed.  If someone has a feeling and decides to do things in their own life accordingly, then they are ultimately responsible for those decisions.  It seems, though, that some people can make very poor decisions, all the while proclaiming they are following God's guidance, when they are only doing what they want to do.  The problem with this is that the feeling cannot be questioned, no matter how ridiculous, illogical, unwise, or even ungodly it is.  When a situation turns out really poorly, people sometimes attribute it to God wanting them to go through that.  However, that ends up meaning that God directs people to make unwise decisions, so that it may be better to reject the guidance of God at times--for your own good.

However, if someone comes to you and tells you that they feel God is telling them that YOU should do something, that can be problematic.  If it is to stop sinning, then that's probably fine.  If it's to make a seemingly foolish decision, I would encourage the person to pray that God would direct them personally rather than relying on the uncertain feelings of another.

Conclusion

Each of us is ultimately responsible for his own decisions, so we have to make the wisest decisions we can and then own them.  God can certainly lead people to do things, and we should certainly be open to His leading.  Yet, we should not use "divine guidance" as an excuse to fulfill our own desires or wishes.  If we say God is leading us, then we should be very certain that it is God and not our own desires or even wisdom.


How are conflicting views concerning latae sententiae excommunications resolved in the Catholic Church?

This is a basic case of basic canon law. There is no room for 'my opinion' or 'their opinion.'

Canon 1323.
The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:
1° a person who has not yet completed the sixteenth year of age;
2° a person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;
3° a person who acted due to physical force or a chance occurrence which the person could not foresee or, if foreseen, avoid;
4° a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;
5° a person who acted with due moderation against an unjust aggressor for the sake of legitimate self defense or defense of another;
6° a person who lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the prescripts of cann. 1324, §1, n. 2 and 1325;
7° a person who without negligence thought that one of the circumstances mentioned in nn. 4 or 5 was present.
Canon 1324.
§1 The perpretrator of a violation is not exempted from penalty, but the penalty prescribed in the law or precept must be diminished, or a penance substituted in its place, if the offence was committed by:
1° one who had only an imperfect use of reason;
2° one who was lacking the use of reason because of culpable drunkenness or other mental disturbance of a similar kind;
3° one who acted in the heat of passion which, while serious, nevertheless did not precede or hinder all mental deliberation and consent of the will, provided that the passion itself had not been deliberately stimulated or nourished
4° a minor who has completed the sixteenth year of age;
5° one who was compelled by grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, if the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;
6° one who acted in lawful self-defence or defence of another against an unjust aggressor, but did not observe due moderation;
7° one who acted against another person who was gravely and unjustly provocative;
8° one who erroneously, but culpably, thought that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in Can. 1323, nn. 4 or 5;
9° one who through no personal fault was unaware that a penalty was attached to the law or precept;
10° one who acted without full imputability, provided it remained grave.
§2 A judge can do the same if there is any other circumstance present which would reduce the gravity of the offence.
§3 In the circumstances mentioned in §1, the offender is not bound by a latae sententiae penalty.

You said,

On the other hand, the relevant authority (pope/bishop) does not accept his arguments and continues to put forth that the offender is excommunicated as long as the offense continues.

The pope may be the supreme judge (i.e. as to having final say, not as to be being the best or most prudent judge of matters), but he is a judge nonetheless: since latae sententiae is defined in canon law, commenting or declaring anything concerning that penalty stands or falls on whether it is what canon law prescribes, since "x falls under latae sententiae" is an assertion—the pope can't make something true by simply asserting it. If the pope says, 'the book of Genesis says in verse 78 of chapter 90...' there doesn't suddenly become a 90th chapter of Genesis because the pope asserted there is a 90th chapter of Genesis. Likewise, he cannot say 'x falls under latae sententiae' if he in fact does not according to canon law. Moreover, such a mistaken assertion does not automatically convert into a directly imposed excommunication (ferendae sententiae).
What you describe is simply a pope who is not going by canon law, which protects the assumed innocence principle when considering their subjective experience/declared motives (Can. 1234.8). To ignore a declared subjective motive is to ignore canon law 1234.

In such a situation, what mechanism is there to create clarity about the status (excommunicated or not) of the offender for himself and the public?

There is no other recourse (apart from making an argument from reason, perhaps) apart from simply pointing to established law.


In Catholicism, what are “all things visible & invisible”?

Everything that is that is not God. The physical universe. Humans. Spiritual beings (angels and demons etc).

CCC 325: The Apostles' Creed professes that God is "creator of heaven and earth". the Nicene Creed makes it explicit that this profession includes "all that is, seen and unseen".
CCC 326: The Scriptural expression "heaven and earth" means all that exists, creation in its entirety. It also indicates the bond, deep within creation, that both unites heaven and earth and distinguishes the one from the other: "the earth" is the world of men, while "heaven" or "the heavens" can designate both the firmament and God's own "place" - "our Father in heaven" and consequently the "heaven" too which is eschatological glory. Finally, "heaven" refers to the saints and the "place" of the spiritual creatures, the angels, who surround God.
CCC 338: Nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. the world began when God's word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history are rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun.

In this all the branches of Trinitarian Christianity are agreed.


Does the Chicago Statement meaningfully support a doctrine of Biblical inerrancy?

The standard answer to the questions you've raised—determining text of the original autographs from the copies that we have, and of translating the texts—is that they issues should be addressed with a commonsense approach to the problems, rather than by an appeal to a specific authority, and certainly not to a religious authority.

So for instance, the task of textual criticism can be carried out just as effectively by a non-believer, because the arguments invoked in that field are not religious in nature: they depend on assumptions about what kind of mistakes are likely to occur when copying a text (any text) by hand, and how those mistakes are likely to be corrected by later copyists.

By the same token, translations can be evaluated from a strictly secular perspective—as of course a translation of any book would be.

The extent to which “everyday Bible-readers” engage with these issues will of course depend on the person. For evangelical scholarship, the key point is that in principle the decisions made are accessible to anyone's scrutiny. A person who was concerned about different translations could simply read several translations, to see how important the differences are. Textual criticism would be harder to get into, but a good study Bible has comprehensible footnotes about those things.

Perhaps the most succinct summary of the state of affairs comes from Mark Noll's book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, where he comments that evangelicals, or at least fundamentalists, have basically accepted a scientific approach to the Bible. They're willing to collect the individual facts and synthesize them for themselves—or to trust experts to do that work for them. I believe he was speaking specifically to problems of theology, but the comment is no less applicable to issues of translation and textual criticism.


Earlier use of this argument for the necessity of evil?

You are right that the idea of evil as the absence of good is traditionally associated with Augustine. As far as I understand your specific idea, you are positing that 'absence of good' is necessary for anything that is not God, or that nothing aside from God can be wholly good.

This reminds me, more than anything else, of the Gnostic world-view, wherein all created beings emerge as "emanations" from the Godhead, and are more and more corrupted as they get further out from the source, like light from a candle in a dark room. In particular, the material world is inevitably impure (but can be transcended through spiritual discipline, perhaps thanks to some spark of goodness from above that is embedded in each human soul). There are many nuances within Gnostic traditions, and a lot of mystical / esoteric stuff, but this is the broad thrust.

In relation to Christianity, there is a fascinating history of conflict - though as usual, we almost always get the orthodox perspective, which may not be entirely fair to what actually happened. The problems early Christians encountered with Gnosticism include:

Inherent sinfulness of the world, perhaps created by Satan / the Demiurge versus God's love for the world - he created it, nurtures it, and considers it good.
Unimportance of moral behavior in the physical realm versus Obligation to behave correctly and do good works
God as pure inaccessible Spirit versus Christ incarnate as a man (living, suffering, dying)
Esoteric practice (levels of initiation into mystical secrets) versus Exoteric (proclaim the gospel to all)

Ultimately, the difference in Christology was the key marker of Gnosticism as heretical. The Gnostic version of Christianity held to docetism whereby the incarnation was an illusion, the true Christ being only spirit. This belief is contrary to certain passages in Scripture which we believe to have been explicitly written against Gnostics (e.g. 1 John 4:2), and it was definitively rejected at the first ecumenical councils.


Why isn't there a Joseph Smith Translation of Luke 23:43?

A short answer is (probably not the only potential answer here), there is evidence that the Joseph Smith Translation manuscript had not yet quite reached a state that Joseph Smith felt comfortable to submit to be published before Joseph Smith was killed.  There is evidence Joseph Smith was working on the manuscript up until his death and ample evidence that he and other church leaders had every intention of publishing the new translation very soon, but that Joseph Smith was killed before declaring the manuscript ready to publish.  Thus, there is the possibility of what we now view as "missed retranslations" would have been included in the final manuscript and that the manuscript as we have it now is incomplete as far as what Joseph Smith would have had published.
Also, the first quote listed below, that Joseph Smith did not correct all the verses he could have corrected, for whatever reason.

Some articles on this subject.
From the December 1972 Ensign, an LDS church magazine, an article by Robert J. Matthews, Assistant Professor of Ancient Scripture Brigham Young University states:

It is evident from the manuscripts prepared by the Prophet and his scribes, and also from the statements by the Prophet himself, that he did not correct all of the passages that could be corrected in the Bible. Hence, the new translation is not finished. It is not a perfect Bible.

An article from the 1980 Liahona (another church magazine) with no stated author says:

Although the major portion of the work was completed by July 1833, he continued to make modifications while preparing a manuscript for the press until his death in 1844, and it is possible that some additional modifications would have been made had he lived to publish the entire work.

And then a January 1983 Ensign article, again by Robert J. Matthews, provides even more details than either of the previous two articles on the subject of the possibly unfinished manuscript:

Although the Prophet states that the translation activity was “finished” on 2 July 1833, the manuscript was not ready to be given to a printer. During the remaining eleven years of his life he continued to revise and add to the text and to make other editorial refinements to prepare the document for printing.
...[I]n June 1844, the Prophet lay dead, felled by assassins’ bullets, and the JST was not yet published. The Doctrine and Covenants was nearly ready for a republication at the time of his death and came forth from the press in September 1844. The JST would probably have been next, but the Prophet had been unable to get it published. He worked diligently on it during the closing years of his life when time would permit.

Robert Matthews then (in the same article) provides context for how finished the manuscript likely was at the time Joseph Smith was killed.

There has been an assumption that the JST was deliberately not published because it was grossly unfinished. That assumption is not based on all of the facts. The epistles of the First Presidency and of the Twelve as published in the History of the Church and the Times and Seasons, some of which are cited in this article, lead to the unmistakable conclusion that the intention was to publish. ...The basic conclusion seems to be that the work of translation was acceptable as far as the Lord required it of the Prophet at that time, but the manuscript was not fully prepared for the press.
Perhaps one reason for the feeling about the “unfinished” nature of the JST has been a statement by President George Q. Cannon in his Life of Joseph Smith the Prophet: “We have heard President Brigham Young state that the Prophet before his death had spoken to him about going through the translation of the scriptures again and perfecting it upon points of doctrine which the Lord had restrained him from giving in plainness and fulness at the time of which we write [2 February 1833].” (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1958, p. 148.)
We note, however, that what is referred to is the nature of the translation as it existed in 1833. During the eleven years of his life after that time, the Prophet apparently did much of what he desired to do with the JST. The original manuscript tends to bear this out, since it shows an original draft and a later more complete revision, clarified in language and thought, and versed and punctuated. That the work was not perfected is clear. But it is equally clear that it was nearer the stage necessary for publication than casual observers have realized. We must also recognize that although the manuscript was ready for publication, this does not prevent more information from being added when the Lord desires to reveal it.


Do those who pray to saints ascribe to them the quality of being able to hear many people at once?

Time has no meaning in heaven, there is probably a more precise Thomistic answer for this question bit that should suffice.  If time is meaningless then "at the same time" is meaningless. I'll get confused if I write any more about that.

Is it possible, O Lord, that, since thou art in eternity, thou art ignorant of what I am saying to thee? Or, dost thou see in time an event at the time it occurs? If not, then why am I recounting such a tale of things to thee? Certainly not in order to acquaint thee with them through me; but, instead, that through them I may stir up my own love and the love of my readers toward thee, so that all may say, "Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised." I have said this before and will say it again: "For love of thy love I do it." So also we pray -- and yet Truth tells us, "Your Father knoweth what things you need before you ask him."
Consequently, we lay bare our feelings before thee, that, through our confessing to thee our plight and thy mercies toward us, thou mayest go on to free us altogether, as thou hast already begun; and that we may cease to be wretched in ourselves and blessed in thee -- since thou hast called us to be poor in spirit, meek, mourners, hungering and athirst for righteousness, merciful and pure in heart. Thus I have told thee many things, as I could find ability and will to do so, since it was thy will in the first place that I should confess to thee, O Lord my God -- for "Thou art good and thy mercy endureth forever."
St. Augustine of Hippo - Confessions Book 11, Chapter 1.

We not only believe that the saints can hear and deliver our prayers to God. We believe all the angels and all the saints are present at every Mass.


Is the enemy a creator relatively the same as God and creator of what?

Psalms 33;6

By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

There is only one creator, God.

I Peter 5;8

Be sober, be vigilant; because your advesary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

In your own strength, you cannot defeat the devil.  You must be born again as Nicodemus.

John 3;5

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of  the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 6;11

Put  on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

To what degree and what manner is the enemy a creator?

Ezekiel 28;15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

The angel, Lucifer, is a creature and has no power to create.

How can we defeat him in this life?

I John 5;18  We know that whoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

The enemy only has power over the  unbeliever.

II Thessalonians 2;8,9,10

And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

It is impossible for man, on his own, to defeat the devil. Man must be born again.

John 12;31 Now is the judgement of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.


How Does Catholicism Refute the Reasons Muslims Claim That Jesus Was Not Crucified?

Muslims say that Christians changed the words of Jesus over time, hence inserted false statements into the Bible where Jesus claimed to be God. (See http://www.answering-islam.org/Morin/changed.html) This claim was made long ago, before the discoveries of ancient Bible manuscripts, hymnals, fragments, the Dead Sea Scrolls and other strong evidence that no changes have been made except minor typos and a few passages that may or may not have been in the originals, none of which change any doctrines of Christianity, especially the divinity of Christ and the reality of the crucifixion and resurrection.

Some Muslims hold to the swoon theory (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swoon_hypothesis) - that Jesus was still alive when taken down from the Cross, but had passed out and looked dead. The flow of water from Jesus' side described in the Gospel of John when he was stabbed with a spear indicates that he had suffered pericardial effusion (see http://www.compellingtruth.org/blood-water-Jesus.html). You can't survive that. Such a telling detail is strong evidence of eyewitness testimony, not a later invention by someone who had never witnessed a real crucifixion.

As for why people were crucified, the Romans executed thousands of people using this method, including common criminals. Claiming to be a God might upset the Romans, who maintained that Caesar was a God.


Does Roman Catholic doctrine teach that Christ no longer has a body that possesses flesh?

I don't understand how a body can exist without flesh, But a simple answer to your question is NO, It does not. It is actually the opposite. It is condemned as a heresy in the Catholic Church if one claims that Jesus is in heaven without his body/flesh. This concept falls into variation of different heresies Docetism, Apollinarism, Manichaeism etc.,

Catholics believe that Jesus is present with his flesh in Eucharist. And he is present in the Eucharist as he is present in the Trinity, i.e, with his flesh but his glory hidden to naked eye.

UPDATE:

In Luke 24:39, Jesus himself says that he has σάρκα That should end the discussion whether Jesus has σάρκα or not.

With regards to what the Catholic Church teaches, I think what St. Gregory Nazianzen was saying here with respect to "Flesh" is not to be taken as the nature of flesh but fallen state of flesh. In Jesus's second coming, he is going to come with a body that is not bound by natural laws. That is he is not going to fall to earth because of gravity. Christ's body after Resurrection is "of the same nature, but differed in glory." St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica answers the question of Whether Christ's body rose again entire(with flesh and bones)?:

  Flesh and blood are not to be taken there for the nature of flesh and blood, but, either for the guilt of flesh and blood, as Gregory says [Pope St. Gregory, Moral. in Job 14:56, or else for the corruption of flesh and blood: because, as Augustine says (Ad Consent., De Resur. Carn.), "there will be neither corruption there, nor mortality of flesh and blood." Therefore flesh according to its substance possesses the kingdom of God, according to Luke 24:39: "A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have." But flesh, if understood as to its corruption, will not possess it; hence it is straightway added in the words of the Apostle: "Neither shall corruption possess incorruption."


You can interpret the story of Adam and Eve literally. What you're attempting to do is what all scientists do, assume that the situation today has always been the same and estimate incorrectly.

What you fail to realize is that DNA has probably been copied a few trillion times from cell to cell to cell to human to cell to human. All things copied tend to break down, become unstable and begin to produce error.

If the DNA was perfect (containing not a single error), as we can expect it to be, in Adam and Eve's time, or even in Noah's time, then this would not be a problem. Modern science has already learned that every human being on the planet contains genes from one dominant male and one dominant female.

  New DNA studies suggest that all humans descended from a single
  African ancestor who lived some 60,000 years ago. To uncover the paths
  that lead from him to every living human, the National Geographic
  Society launched the Genographic Project, headed by Spencer Wells. (link)

The particulars could very easily be up for debate, but the premise that a single male and single female were the start of it all, is truly the only evidence that we have.


What innovations in ethics occurred within Christendom during the 9th Century?

To start with, Charlemagne banned work on Sundays in 789.

  In the West, Emperor Charlemagne in 789 banned work on Sunday as a violation of the third commandment of God. In 1234, under Pope Gregory ІХ, the law of Sunday rest became a universal practice in the Latin Church. - The History of Sunday Observance

Charlemagne once elevated to the dignity of Holy Roman Emperor, imposed Gregorian Chant as the norm for ecclesiastical chant throughout his kingdom.

At his request, Pope Hadrian I sent monks from Rome to the court of Aachen to instruct his chapel's choir in 774. This event helped spark the spread of traditional Gregorian chant through the Frankish churches. In 789, Charlemagne also issued a decree to his empire's clergy, instructing them to learn (and sing properly) the Cantus Romanus, or Roman chant. Music schools were also founded under Charlemagne's reign, and monks transcribing music helped preserve the Gregorian chant into the present day.

  Scholars debate whether the essentials of the melodies originated in Rome, before the 7th century, or in Francia, in the 8th and early 9th centuries. Traditionalists point to evidence supporting an important role for Pope Gregory the Great between 590 and 604, such as that presented in H. Bewerung's article in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Scholarly consensus, supported by Willi Apel and Robert Snow, asserts instead that Gregorian chant developed around 750 from a synthesis of Roman and Gallican chant commissioned by Carolingian rulers in France. During a visit to Gaul in 752-753, Pope Stephen II had celebrated Mass using Roman chant. According to Charlemagne, his father Pepin abolished the local Gallican rites in favour of the Roman use, in order to strengthen ties with Rome. In 785-786, at Charlemagne's request, Pope Hadrian I sent a papal sacramentary with Roman chants to the Carolingian court. This Roman chant was subsequently modified, influenced by local styles and Gallican chant, and later adapted into the system of eight modes. This Frankish-Roman Carolingian chant, augmented with new chants to complete the liturgical year, became known as "Gregorian." Originally the chant was probably so named to honour the contemporary Pope Gregory II, but later lore attributed the authorship of chant to his more famous predecessor Gregory the Great. Gregory was portrayed dictating plainchant inspired by a dove representing the Holy Spirit, giving Gregorian chant the stamp of holy authority. The myth of Gregory's authorship is popularly accepted as fact to this day.

  Gregorian chant appeared in a remarkably uniform state across Europe within a short time. Charlemagne, once elevated to Holy Roman Emperor, aggressively spread Gregorian chant throughout his empire to consolidate religious and secular power, requiring the clergy to use the new repertory on pain of death. From English and German sources, Gregorian chant spread north to Scandinavia, Iceland and Finland. In 885, Pope Stephen V banned the Slavonic liturgy, leading to the ascendancy of Gregorian chant in Eastern Catholic lands including Poland, Moravia, Slovakia, and Austria. - Gregorian chant

Charlemagne made reforms within the Church:

  Unlike his father, Pepin, and uncle Carloman, Charlemagne expanded the reform program of the church. The deepening of the spiritual life was later to be seen as central to public policy and royal governance. His reform focused on the strengthening of the church’s power structure, advancing the skill and moral quality of the clergy, standardizing liturgical practices, improving on the basic tenets of the faith and moral, and rooting out paganism. His authority was now extended over church and state; he could discipline clerics, control ecclesiastical property, and define orthodox doctrine. Despite the harsh legislation and sudden change, he had grown a well-developed support from the clergy who approved his desire to deepen the piety and morals of his Christian subjects. - Church Reform

Charlemagne standardize silver currency in his day.

As Charlemagne conquered Western Europe, he recognized the need for a standard currency. Instead of a variety of different gold coins, his government produced and disseminated silver coinage that could be traded across the empire—the first common currency on the continent since the Roman era. The currency’s system of dividing a Carolingian pound of pure silver into 240 pieces was so successful that France kept a basic version of it until the French Revolution.

  Europe was entering its fourth century of the "Dark Ages" when Charlemagne was born in A.D. 742, a time marked by frequent warfare, few important cultural achievements and the virtual cessation of learning. Charlemagne became ruler of one of those kingdoms in Germany in A.D. 768 and immediately set about expanding his territory. Through the course of more than 50 battles, most of which he led in person, he'd conquered almost all of mainland Europe. Everywhere his rule was established, Charlemagne instituted the same reforms, creating a common identity in people from eastern Germany to southern Spain. Commerce boomed. One of the most important changes Charlemagne made was abandoning the gold standard and putting all of Europe on the same silver currency. Trade became easier and the continent prospered, aided by laws that took some power away from the nobles and let the peasantry participate in commerce. The lower classes benefited in other ways under Charlemagne, who was frustrated with the nobility's sense of entitlement and had deep sympathy for the peasants, according to historians. Among other legislation, all local regional governors were subject to regular inspections by royal emissaries to make sure no injustices were being done. Educational reform was also high on Charlemagne's agenda. The progressive leader loved to learn, historians say, and so encouraged schooling throughout his kingdom in his chosen lingua franca, Latin. - How Charlemagne Changed the World

More information may be gleaned from the following articles:

Early Medieval Ethics
Alcuin (Catholic Encyclopedia): An eminent educator, scholar, and theologian born about 735; died 19 May, 804. He came of noble Northumbrian parentage. While returning from Rome in March, 781, he met Charlemagne at Parma, and was induced by that prince, whom he greatly admired, to remove to France and take up residence at the royal court as "Master of the Palace School".


What qualifies the 3 entities of the Trinity as one?

There are not three entities or beings—three Gods. There are, within, or intrinsic to, the one God (or rather the one God is definitionally in some respect three; namely, He is tri-personal) three 'somethings.' They happen to be revealed to be quite Personal.

Put simply, 'trinity' describes something of the intrinsic nature of God; 'one' describes the numeric total of essences that are called God and have the attributes of God: there being but one, (Deut 6:4) who is known variously by titles YHVH, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, etc.

So they are one because they are intrinsic to each other and co-definitional (like how, analogically, 'Father' is meaningless without 'Son')—each no less than the other being definitional to the one essence of God: God is eternally three in some sense, yet in that He is but one, only God, He is one and only.

The name or title 'God' can, then, understandably, and readily, be attributed to any of the Persons of the Holy Trinity because each is no less God than the other, since they are God for the same ultimate reason: their essence, nature, being is one and the same: the divine and eternal, ineffable Deity, the only true God.

Scripture happens to use a convention whereby the Father, since He is the ontological beginning of the Godhead (not the temporal—the Son and the Spirit are not created, especially since they are eternal, but rather 'Son' simply 'logically' or 'onotologically' follows 'Father' and so forth: the economy of the Godhead is such that the Son and the Spirit recieve being God from the Father, not that they are created) is used to simply refer to the one God. But since the Son and the Spirit are directly of the same substance of the Father, they are just as much God as He: there was no time when the Father was God without the Son and the Spirit being God.

There is 'one' God because 'one' describes not the number of Persons God has, naturally, but the number of Gods. There is but one God, who is, eternally, tri-personal. And ineffable, so that all excercises in forcing God to conform to the current human understanding of the world etc. is quite futile. In fact, we only know God by analogy alone.


How do Catholics defend the apparent errors found in the deuterocanonical books?

"Condones the use of magic"

Tobit is the subject of an extensive commentary by Venerable Bede, who is accepted as a Church Father by both east and west.  He explains that Tobit is to be understood in an allegorical sense and not a literal/historical sense.  Regarding things like smoke from a burnt entrails driving away evil spirits being "superstitious" and having "no place in the word of God", we might likewise expurgate the account of Jesus healing a blind man by spitting on dirt from the Gospels (John 9:6).  In Tobit, the passage regarding the fish entrails is not given as general advice, as one might find in Proverbs, but is specific direction given to Tobit by an angel for occasions specific to him.  There are many other examples in the Old Testament and New of men directed to use created matter for spiritual purposes.

"Salvation by works"

The two verses cited state that alms deliver one from sin and death.  They do not say that alms bring about forgiveness of sin. One might consult here:1

Proverbs 10:2

  Treasures of wickedness profit nothing: But righteousness delivereth from death.

The author of the article emphasizes 1 John 1:7 here (the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin), but fails to acknowledge the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:36-41) and completely ignores Revelation 20:12:

  And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

"Money as an offering for the sins of the dead"

The author attacks 2 Maccabees 12:43:

  And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin
  offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful
  of the resurrection

The author comments:

  Can anyone truly accept that money isn't offering for the sins of dead
  people?  Such a superstitious and unbiblical concept has no place in
  Scripture.

The concept can be considered as "having no place in Scripture" and "unbiblical" only if one chooses to exclude 2 Maccabees itself from Scripture.  This is a non sequitur.  2 Maccabees was designated for inclusion in the Old Testament canon in the 85th Apostolic Canon as well as by the Council of Carthage of 397 in the west (Canon XXXIII), later ratified in the east as well.

Augustine wrote an entire commentary on the passage attacked by the author as follows, with an acknowledgement that the teaching is unique.  His introduction reads:

  In the books of the Maccabees we read of sacrifice offered for the
  dead. Howbeit, even if it were no where at all read in the Old
  Scriptures, not small is the authority, which in this usage is clear,
  of the whole Church, namely, that in the prayers of the priest which
  are offered to the Lord God at His altar, the commendation of the dead
  hath also its place.  But then, whether there be some profit accruing
  unto the soul of the dead from the place of its body, requires a more
  careful inquiry. And first, whether it make any difference in causing
  or increasing of misery after this life to the spirits of men if their
  bodies be not buried, this must be looked into, not in the light of
  opinion however commonly received, but rather of the holy writ of our
  religion.2

The balance of the essay can be found here.

"Historical Errors"

The author cites "wrong historical facts" in three verses within the books of Judith and Baruch.  Eliminating these books on this basis alone would probably also lead to the elimination of:

The Gospel of Luke, which maintains that Arpachshad was the grandfather of Shelah (3:35-36), since Genesis teaches that Arpachsad was the father of Shelah
The Book of Numbers, which states that the Nephilim survived the flood (13:33), contrary to Genesis 7:21
1 Chronicles, which incorrectly lists Timna and Amalek as sons of Eliphaz, contradicting Genesis 36:11ff.
The Book of Revelation, which leaves out the tribe of Dan (7:4-8)
etc.

1 All of the Bible quotes - including 2 Maccabees 12:43 - are taken from the King James Version (which originally included the deuterocanonical books, or "Apocrypha")
2On Care to Be Had for the Dead


What is the historical evidence of people gagging, retching, dry heaving and vomiting during exorcisms?

I basically agree with Ken Graham's answer. However, based on some research by Kristen Herdman, it seems like the idea of vomiting during exorcisms is certainly pre-modern.
Research by Herdman
In a MA Thesis by Kristen Herdman (Herdman, 2016), Gregory of Tours (†594) is quoted a couple of times, giving instances of vomiting during exoricisms:

In chapter eight of the Vita patrum, Gregory describes such an
event in the life of Nicetius of Lyon:

Very recently three women coming from the land of Berry, tormented by demons, were on their way to the basilica of St. Martin, and they entered this church. Immediately they clapped their hands together and cried out that they were tortured by the power of St. Nicetius. They threw up out of their mouths I know not what foul substance, mingled with blood, and they were immediately freed from the spirits that had possessed them.

A similar event is described in Gregory’s account of the life of Nicetius of the Trevari:

God also gave [Nicetius] the grace of healing. As he was walking one day around the church of St. Maximin the bishop, in the fore court of which three possessed men rested, overcome by sleep after many convulsions. Seeing them fast asleep, he made over them the sign of the cross, and immediately they woke up, uttering great cries, and suddenly vomiting, they were delivered.

All emphasis mine. Herdman cites these examples on p. 32 from James, 1991. pp. 62 and 107-108 respectively.
She goes on to write:

The examples provided by Gregory have parallels in medieval visual art. In many images of exorcism, a demon is depicted as emerging from the mouth of the afflicted individual, drawn out by the power of the exorcist. In regard to this
imagery, Nancy Caciola writes,

The central element in accounts of demonic possession is the sense that the afflicted individual has incorporated a foreign being within herself... their exit point is the victim’s mouth, a detail that suggests the need for a specific bodily opening. … Seldom were unclean sprits envisaged as numinous forms wafting out the victim. Rather, they crawled out from an orifice: usually though not universally, the mouth.

A case can be made that vomiting (rather than other forms of manifestation) has a theological significance, so the actual historical occurrence of vomiting cannot be demonstrated beyond doubt merely by the report of Gregory (since the report may be theologically motivated), accordingly, Herdman states

The biological functions of the mouth make it a clear threshold between
the interior and exterior of the physical body. It is transformed into a passage by
breathing, eating, and even vomiting—the mouth allows matter to be taken in and
to be expelled. The latter of these functions becomes a classic hallmark of
possession throughout the Middle Ages and has even persisted into contemporary
horror films. In the late Middle Ages and into the Early Modern period, a
possessed person may be observed to vomit foreign matter, such as a great
quantity of pins or paper.

For this, she cites Levak, 2013, who writes:

A recurrent element in many narratives of possession was the vomiting or extrusion of alien objects. Pins and needles were the most common materials, but the list of ejected substances includes nails, glass, blood, pottery, feathers, coal, stones, coins, cinders, sand, dung, meat, cloth, thread, and
hair.

Herdman has plenty more to say, and I encourage you to give the referenced section of her Thesis a read. However, I wish to particularly emphasize the main theological theme associated with these vomitings:

When the former demoniacs vomit, the audience is assured that what was torturing the afflicted from the inside has been forced out.

vomiting is depicted as a physical purging closely associated with the expelling of the demon from the body.

Scripture
A possible (albeit partial) basis for oral expulsion of demons during exorcism is Revelation 16:13:

And I saw, coming out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs. (ESV)

Speculation about Dry-Heaving
Up to this point the discussion has centered on vomiting. However, what about dry-heaving? There are a number of points to consider.

Firstly, dry-heaving obviously accompanies vomiting. But which of the two is more notable and worth mentioning in passing? In a sense, the dry-heaving is simply part of the process of vomiting. It could be argued that a mention of vomiting therefore implicitly includes dry-heaving as well.
This is especially the case for foreign objects, which are not as easy to vomit up as simple bile, and may require additional dry-heaving beforehand.
Given the theological motivation to emphasize the expulsion of the demon: and thereby symbolically the expulsion of material (be it of human or foreign origin), it is not particularly surprising that dry-heaving was not recorded (even when assuming vomiting was an occurrence during historical exorcisms).
On the other hand, modern exorcisms are not "independent" of historical exorcisms, in the sense that beliefs and expectations about what will occur during an exorcism are going to be shaped by the cultural depictions of historical (and fictional) exorcisms. So it could be argued that many of these dry-heaving episodes which are not accompanied by actual vomiting are more self-induced (perhaps unconsciously).
Proper vomiting is not really possible without having food in the stomach, especially when dehydrated. So dry-heaving would be the alternative.
If the exorcist is explicitly requesting vomiting, then dry-heaving and gagging is the way it appears when someone is attempting to comply with that request.

I cannot offer a definitive answer on the question of dry-heaving, but all things considered it does seem somewhat suspicious when such a thing is not accompanied by actual vomiting proper in these modern cases. My perspective is that there may be a psychological factor at play (see point 4).

References
Caciola, N. (2003) Discerning Spirits: Divine and Demonic Possession in the
Middle Ages. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. p. 41.
Herdman, K. (2016). Effugatis Daemonibus: Possession and the Body in Gregory of Tours' Vita patrum. pp. 31-37.
Electronic Thesis downloaded from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_olink/r/1501/10?clear=10&p10_accession_num=case1459539746
James, E. (1991) Gregory of Tours: Life of the Fathers. Liverpool University
Press.
Levack, B. P. (2013) The Devil Within: Possession & Exorcism in the Christian West.
New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 9.


Jesus, as recorded by John, became flesh (John 1:14).  There could not be a plainer statement.  But John continues to regularly demonstrate Jesus’ humanity:

Attended social functions (John 2:1-11)
Became angry & passionate (John 2:12-25)
Nicodemus saw Him as a man (John 3:1-21)
Tired, hungry & thirsty (John 4:1-42)
Jesus referred to Himself as a man (John 8:40)
Jewish leaders definitely saw Jesus as a man (John 10:33)
Wept with human passion (John 11:1-57)
Prays for divine strength (John 17)
Feels pain and bleeds (John 18:12ff)
Pilate said, "Behold the Man" (John 19:5)
Called, “The Son of Man” (John 1:51, 3:13, 5:27, 6:27, 53, 62, 8:28, 9:35, 12:23, 34, 13:31)
Dies (John 19:17-42), etc, etc.

In fact, the doctrine of Jesus’ humanity is so important that anyone who denies it is called antichrist! 1 John 4:3, 2 John 7.


What's the difference between resurrection and reincarnation?

Reincarnation involves living again, but having another life in a new body, as a new person/being.

On this one, Wikipedia is as good a source as any.

  Reincarnation is the religious or philosophical concept that the soul
  or spirit, after biological death, begins a new life in a new body
  that may be human, animal or spiritual depending on the moral quality
  of the previous life's actions. This doctrine is a central tenet of
  the Indian religions.1 It is also a common belief of various ancient
  and modern religions such as Spiritism, Theosophy, and Eckankar and is
  found in many tribal societies around the world, in places such as
  Siberia, West Africa, North America, and Australia.2

Resurrection involves living again in your own body (or perhaps a glorified version of it), as yourself.

And again with the Wikipedia definition.

  Resurrection (anglicized from Latin resurrectio) is the concept of a
  living being coming back to life after death. It is distinguished from
  resuscitation (see below), and is a religious concept used in two
  distinct respects: a belief in the resurrection of individual souls
  that is current and ongoing (Christian idealism, realized
  eschatology), or else a belief in a singular "Resurrection of the
  Dead" event at the end of the world. The Resurrection of the Dead is a
  standard eschatological belief in the Abrahamic religions. In a number
  of ancient religions, a life-death-rebirth deity is a deity which dies
  and resurrects. The death and resurrection of Jesus is the central
  focus of Christianity.


What is the Biblical basis for a Heavenly Mother?

In the Bible there are various mentions of goddesses and female idols worshipped by the pagan nations surrounding the Israelites—which, of course, are rejected as false gods.

By contrast, references to the God of the Israelites (which Christians see as the true God) are overwhelmingly male.

Still, there are a few passages scattered throughout the Bible that suggest or attribute to God female characteristics, including some that present God as a mother.

The first passage suggesting that God has female attributes occurs in the very first chapter of Genesis:

  So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27)

In saying that God created humankind male and female in the image of God, this passage suggests that both male and female reflect the nature of God. In other words, this passage suggests that God encompasses both male and female qualities and characteristics, and that we humans get both our maleness and our femaleness from corresponding attributes of God. We are not merely created male and female by God, but created male and female in God's image.

Next, from the Psalms:

  As the eyes of servants look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the Lord our God, until he has mercy upon us. (Psalm 123:2)

Here God is compared both to a master (male) and a mistress (female), to which servants look.

Next, from the Prophets:

  For thus says the Lord: . . . As a mother comforts her child, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem. (Isaiah 66:12–13)

Here the Lord speaks of being like a mother to the Israelites.

Next, from the Gospels:

  "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!" (Matthew 23:37)

See also the parallel passage in Luke 13:34.

Here Jesus, speaking from the perspective of his eternal divine nature, compares his desire to care for Jerusalem to a hen gathering her chicks under her wings. This is a clear example of God presented as a mother to God's children.

And finally, a somewhat obscure and surprising one from the book of Revelation:

  And I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the seven lampstands one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girt about the breasts with a golden girdle. (Revelation 1:12—13, italics added)

I am purposely using an old-fashioned translation (the Jubilee Bible) because it uses the word "breasts" rather than the now archaic word "paps" (meaning "nipples" or "breasts") used in the King James Version, or the word "chest" used in many modern translations.

The Greek word is μαστός (mastos). While this word can be used to mean a man's nipples, it is the usual Greek word for a woman's breasts. See, for example, Luke 11:27; 23:29.

There are more ordinary Greek words for "chest" that could have been used in Revelation 1:13.

One of them is κόλπος (kolpos), traditionally translated "bosom."

But the obvious word to use would be στῆθος (stēthos), traditionally translated "breast" (in the archaic sense of "chest"), and in modern translations as "chest." This, in fact, is the word used in a very similar passage later in Revelation:

  After this I looked, and the temple of the tent of witness in heaven was opened, and out of the temple came the seven angels with the seven plagues, robed in pure bright linen, with golden sashes across their chests. (Revelation 15:5-6, italics added)

The fact that in describing the figure of Christ in the vision the writer of Revelation did not use the more obvious and common word for "chest" that he used later in the very same book to describe the placement of sashes worn by angels, but instead used the word for the female breast or the male nipple, suggests that the figure of Christ in the vision conveyed to the person who saw and recorded it a sense of motherly nurturing and care, similar to Jesus' earlier image of God's care for Jerusalem as being like a hen gathering her chicks under her wings.

Conclusion

This is not an exhaustive list of female and motherly images of God in the Bible. A quick Internet search will turn up various lists of them. But these five examples should be enough to show that although God is overwhelmingly presented as a male figure in the Bible, there are places where the Bible speaks of God as being motherly, and having other female attributes.


What is the basis of the teaching that souls in purgatory can intercede for the living?
First of all, we must remember that there are three divisions that make up the Communion of Saints: the Church Triumphant (those in heaven), the Church Suffering (those in purgatory) and the Church Militant (those among the living on earth).
The Church ultimately has not ruled definitively on this matter. The faithful are allowed to have differing opinions one way or the other. St. Thomas Aquinas believed that, although the souls in purgatory “are above us on account of their impeccability”, they nonetheless “are not in a condition to pray” for those on earth. Other theologians and Doctors of the Church have disagreed with St. Thomas’ assessment. In the first place, St. Robert Bellarmine sees the souls in purgatory as being more than capable of praying for us, as they have greater love for God than we possibly can on this earth, given their close proximity to heaven, not to mention that they are ensured that they will enter heaven eventually. However, he denies that the Church Suffering are aware of our condition and circumstances on earth as the Church Triumphant are (De Purgatorio, Book 2, Chapter 15).
The Church refers to the souls in purgatory as the Holy Souls in Purgatory, since their salvation has been assured., although their souls must be purified from the remaining residue  of sin committed while on earth! Thus, in the mind of the Church the Holy Souls in Purgatory are saints and the Church has gone to such depths in this idea as to attribute a feast in their honour known as All Soul’s Day (November 2nd), following the
Feast of All Saint’s Day (November 1st). In Roman Catholicism, the Feast of All Souls if a feast of 2nd order and is a day of solemnity in some areas and Religious Orders.
The Church equally teaches that the Holy Souls in Purgatory cannot pray for themselves. While in purgatory, Divine Justice purifies souls, the burning pain of waiting can be extinguished by suffrages, that is, by the prayers and sacrifices of the living still on earth.
However, the Souls in purgatory are considered Holy Souls (Saints), their intercession on our behalf is considered possible because they still form part of the communion of saints and all biblical support that refers to the communion of saints applies to them.

Can the Holy Souls help us?
The Church's most respected authorities have explained that, although the Souls in Purgatory cannot pray for themselves, they can intercede for the living. Saint Alphonsus stated:
They are unable to pray or merit anything for themselves, yet, when they pray for others, they are heard by God.
Saint John Vianney, the Cure d'Ars, wrote:
If one knew what we may obtain from God by the intercession of the Poor Souls, they would not be so much abandoned. Let us pray a great deal for them; they will pray for us.
The Church teaches:
"We believe that the multitude of those gathered around Jesus and Mary in Paradise forms the Church of heaven, where in eternal blessedness they see God as he is and where they are also, to various degrees, associated with the holy angels in the divine governance exercised by Christ in glory, by interceding for us and helping our weakness by their fraternal concern" (Paul VI, CPG § 29).

The souls in purgatory are part of the Communion of saints:

The communion of saints is the spiritual solidarity which binds together the faithful on earth, the souls in purgatory, and the saints in heaven in the organic unity of the same mystical body under Christ its head, and in a constant interchange of supernatural offices. The participants in that solidarity are called saints by reason of their destination and of their partaking of the fruits of the Redemption (1 Corinthians 1:2 — Greek Text). - The Communion of Saints

The Church is the family united in prayer! The saints pray for us and we pray for them, whether in Heaven or Purgatory. In return they pray for us!
Let us remember that St. John states that the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders presented the prayers of the faithful to God.

8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people. - Revelation 5: 8

The people of God includes both the living and the dead!

3 Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all God’s people, on the golden altar in front of the throne. 4 The smoke of the incense, together with the prayers of God’s people, went up before God from the angel’s hand. - Revelation 8:3-4

Elisha the Prophet is considered a Saint in the Catholic Church and yet his body was the biblical story of a resurrection! Thus the saint obtain miracles through their intercession with God’s permission.

20And Elisha died and was buried. Now the Moabite raiders used to come into the land every spring. 21Once, as the Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders, so they threw the man's body into Elisha’s tomb. And when he touched the bones of Elisha, the man was revived and stood up on his feet. 22And Hazael king of Aram oppressed Israel throughout the reign of Jehoahaz.… -
2 Kings 13:21

On both sides of the coin, the Church has a position on each each side of it. We pray for the Holy Souls in purgatory and they pray for us.

Our Lady, the Liberator

Our Lady Liberator of Purgatory Souls Medal
Yet they pray for us!

Holy Souls in Purgatory Medal


Where did the religious symbol of the 'halo' come from?

First you should read The Wikipedia article on the halo to get a good idea of the use of the halo in the past. You will see that it was indeed used by the Romans and possibly the Greeks as well as in Asian art. Wikipedia states (without citation) that it was first used in Christian art around the 4th Century. Roman art in particular used the halo to indicate divine personages, and initial use on Christian art was restricted to Christ. Given Christianity's intimate association with the Roman Empire in the 1-3rd century it is unlikely that the use of the halo was independently invented by Christianity.

The next thing you should realize is that the halo is simply an artistic convention. Early art was much more 'representational' than modern art. It was not intended to imply that holy figures literally had a glow around their head. It simply indicated who in the picture were 'holy' or 'divine' characters. Because of this it makes no sense to read anything into Christian artists use of the convention - it's simply a way to convey meaning to the the viewers of the art. It would make no more sense to denegrate Christian art for using it than to condemn a Christian comic book-writer for using 'speech bubbles'.

The halo fell out of favour when art transitioned to more realistic conventions.


Is there a projection of when Bible translation into all the languages of the world will be complete?

According to Wycliffe, this is the state of Bible Translation today:

  The worldwide status of Bible translation (2012):

  6,800+ ...the number of languages spoken in the world today

  Under 2,000...the number of languages without any of the Bible, but with a possible need of a Bible translation to begin

  about 209 million...the number of people who speak the less than 2,000 languages where translation projects have not yet begun

  Over 1,500...the number of translation programs where Wycliffe and its partners are currently at work

  1,275 ...the number of language groups that have access to the New Testament in their heart language

  518...the number of language groups that have access to the entire Bible in the language they understand best

  over 7 billion...the population of the world

  Although Bible translation is progressing at a more rapid rate today than ever before, an overwhelming amount of work has yet to be done.

From Wycliffe's own "2000 languages without a Bible" statistic, one can derive the fact that there is a finite number of languages into which the Bible could be translated.  Between SIL and Wycliffe, the support infrastructure needed to learn, translate, and produce Bibles in every language exists, assuming the necessary resources were available.  Given sufficient resources, there is no particular reason to see these as anything other than an exercise in parallelization, meaning 2000 dedicated individuals, willing to learn a language then translate the Bible into it, and then distribute it.  This could, in theory, be done in a generation.

To this, I also add information from New Tribes Mission - a missionary organization that works primarily amongst indigenous tribes in New Guinea, a place where lots and lots of tribal languages exist. I know, in speaking with missionaries who deal with Wycliffe and SIL, that the typical progression of a mission is as follows.  Note, much of this is shown in the video 'EE-TAOW' which describes the process:

1 - 3 years assimilating into a tribe, in order to understand the language, mores, and stories important to the tribe.  Little evangelization is done at this point
3 - 5 years in, initial converts are made, as the Bible is presented orally - presenting the narrative of Scripture from end to end, culminating in the wonderful news of the Gospel.
5 - 20 years, grooming leaders within the group who can further continue the work of the Gospel, as well as work with the missionary in providing a good, written translation of Scripture, assuming that literacy within the target groups warrants one.

The problem, of course, is that just having a bible in your language does not always mean you have a good Bible in your language - words change, concepts don't always match, etc...  And, it doesn't always mean you can read it.  There are all sorts of reasons why the answer of "20 years and 2000 missionaries" isn't really accurate, but hopefully, this at least brings an order of magnitude to the task.


According to SDA can all pastors forgive sin, or just the original twelve apostles?

I'm not of the SDA church, but because you ask about SDA opinion specifically. I can tell you adventists cite Mt. 9:3 || Lk. 5:21 to demonstrate that the Catholic Church's claims to forgive sins constitutes "blasphemy":

Jesus. . said to the paralytic, ‘Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.’ Then some of the scribes said to themselves, ‘This man is blaspheming.’ (Mt. 9:2-3)

Then the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, ‘Who is this who is speaking blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?’ (Lk. 5:21)


Key Old Testament Prophecies Jesus Fulfilled?

1A) Psalm 22 ~1,000 B.C. (NASB)

  Death: "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?... [I am] despised by the people. All who see me sneer at me... saying, “Commit yourself to the LORD; let Him deliver him; Let Him rescue him, because He delights in him.”... I am poured out like water, And all my bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; It is melted within me. My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And my tongue cleaves to my jaws; And You lay me in the dust of death. For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet... They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots..."

  Resurrection: "But You, O LORD, be not far off; O You my help, hasten to my assistance... I will tell of Your name to my brethren; In the midst of the assembly I will praise You... You who fear the LORD, praise Him;... And stand in awe of Him, all you descendants of Israel. For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard... The afflicted will eat and be satisfied; Those who seek Him will praise the LORD. Let your heart live forever!"

  Legacy / Destiny: "All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD, And all the families of the nations will worship before You. For the kingdom is the LORD’S And He rules over the nations... All those who go down to the dust will bow before Him... Posterity will serve Him; It will be told of the Lord to the coming generation. They will come and will declare His righteousness To a people who will be born, that He has performed it."

1B) Isaiah 53 ~700 B.C. (NASB)

  Life and Sacrifice: "...He grew up before Him like a tender shoot... He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief... Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed... the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
  So He did not open His mouth. By oppression and judgment He was taken away;
  And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off out of the land of the living... His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth."

  Reward: "But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; ...the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great... Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors."

Wow.  (I will assume the reader can make a few connections here; there are a LOT of fulfilled prophecies just from these two passages.)

Proof of Authenticity?

I am tempted to start talking about the testimony of historians, logic based on the life choices of the Apostles, the conversion of Saul, the impossibility of pulling off a resurrection hoax... but at the end of the day, there is no "natural" argument for which skeptics will not have a counterargument.  So here is my real answer:

2) If you want to know if God is real, or if Jesus is the Messiah, or if the Bible is trustworthy, or how to be saved... ask Him.  If you sincerely seek Him, you can bet you will find your answers.

  "For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened."  (Matthew 7:8, NASB)

I know this doesn't satisfy the desire for a rational proof, but in my opinion, the desire itself is based on flawed logic.  It assumes spiritual truth is knowable through natural reasoning, which it is not.

  "Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe."  (1 Corinthians 1:20-21, NASB)

While God is patient with us and sometimes willing to humor our requests for signs and proof, ultimately He requires faith.

  "At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants."  (Matthew 11:25, NASB)


Sisters giving the concluding talk in a sacrament meeting, where did my source go?

I believe you have misremembered in this case.

LDS First Presidency letters to all members used to be available at http://www.ldschurchnews.com/letters, which now redirects to Deseret News. It seems http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/letters has the former content of that site.

The First Presidency never issued a general statement on women giving or not giving the last address of a sacrament meeting.

FYI, two points about this tendency:

It is highly customary for talks from visiting authorities such as High Councilors or Stake Presidents to come at the end of a meeting. These are always men.
For the rest of the of the time, as you pointed out, it is most common for men to give the last address, though there's no policy for or against this. There's no real reason other than habit.

Another gender-based order (this time, in reverse) that is common in some places is for men to give the invocation, and women to give the benediction -- thus allowing women get the last last word ;)


There are six approved litanies within the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. There are no officials rules as to how to pray any of these litanies. That said, however, there are a few traditional ways of praying them.

For example the Litany of the Saints is usually chanted while kneeling during the Mass of Ordination or a solemn profession of a religious. It may be chanted or recited while making a procession as on Rogation Days.

The Litany of Loreto may be said privately or in public as a novena either recited, sung or chanted as the circumstances call.

I know of several monastic communities that will make a procession on the Feast of the Assumption and will chant the Litany of Loreto (in Latin) and end the procession at a statue of Mary (all the time remaining either walking or standing). If remaining in a church, these same communities will take the traditional posture of kneeling while reciting this litany. Once again this is only a traditional way of praying any of the litanies and the faithful are quite free to choose otherwise.

One last note: Please make sure to conclude the Litaniae Lauretanae with the appropriate closing prayer according to the liturgical season (Christmas, Easter, Advent, etc.).


How is it that someone who lived thousands of years ago can "represent" me?

I didn't get to vote or have any say in my forebears leaving their homelands and emigrating to the United States (or, The New World, as it was then known in Europe); nor did I have any say in whether or not to participate in their bloodline. Yet they represented me when they did it.

If we take the Bible to be God's word, and we believe that God cannot lie, then we also have to believe that Adam and Eve were the first people on earth, and that they had the choice to not sin - but of their own free will chose to disobey God.

It is not "Christianity" which says we are sinners because of Adam's sin, it is the Bible that says such:

  Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned

& here:

  For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.

& here:

  all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God


Why does God use an army of Angels to fight against evil when he could do it himself?

God graciously allows the Angels to fight the battles with the Devil and his demons. God is omniscient and already knows who will be successful in every battle between The Arch Angel Michael and Satan and his rebellious Angels.

If God himself were to oppose Satan it would not be a battle since God is omnipotent. There are other factors which need be considered also, God does not unleash all of his Angels against them either. We know this because only one third of the Angels rebelled with Satan.

  Revelation 12:4 KJV  And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

With a two to one advantage it would have been a short war.

So it seems that God is even gracious to his enemies, which may give some insight to:

  Matthew 5:43 and 44 KJV have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

and also:

  Luke 10:19  Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

Unless I am mistaken when Jesus refers to the enemy he is referring to the Devil.