According to Catholic Tradition, did God create people to be prophets or did He choose people to be prophets based on good works?

The Catholic Church teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that prophecy is a gift:

  CCC 2004 Among the special graces ought to be mentioned the
  graces of state that accompany the exercise of the responsibilities of
  the Christian life and of the ministries within the Church:

  Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us
  use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our
  serving; he who teaches, in his teaching; he who exhorts, in his
  exhortation; he who contributes, in liberality; he who gives aid, with
  zeal; he who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.1

  1. Rom 12:6-8.

This article Prophecy | New Advent says:

The gift of prophecy is an extraordinary grace bestowed by God. It has never been confined to any particular tribe, family, or class of persons. There is no distinct faculty in human nature by which any normal or abnormal person can prophesy, neither is any special preparation required beforehand for the reception of this gift.
Writing on the recipients of prophecy, Benedict XIV (Heroic Virtue, III, 144, 150) says: "The recipients of prophecy may be angels, devils, men, women, children, heathens, or gentiles; nor is it necessary that a man should be gifted with any particular disposition in order to receive the light of prophecy provided his intellect and senses be adapted for making manifest the things which God reveals to him. Though moral goodness is most profitable to a prophet, yet it is not necessary in order to obtain the gift of prophecy." He also tells us that the angels by their own natural penetration cannot know future events which are undermined and contingent or uncertain, neither can they know the secrets of the heart of another, whether man or angel.

Answer

From the foregoing, it is clear the gift of prophecy is an extraordinary grace bestowed by God upon whomever he chooses however unworthy (who is ever really worthy) they may be.

Did God create people to be prophets? God chooses or using Biblical and Church language, God chooses and calls whomever he chooses to whatever ministry he calls them to and this includes the prophetic ministry2.

Does God choose people to be prophets based on good works? From the foregoing, no he doesn't. Even devils may be the recipients of prophecy.

The initiative is always God's, his choice free and not dependent in any way on the recipient or their merits.

2. cf. Jn 15:15-17, I Cor:1:2, etc.

Endnote

In Num 11:29 Moses wished:

  29 But Moses said to him, “Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets, that the Lord would put his
  spirit upon them!”

Thanks to the gift of God the Father through His Son, Jesus, by the working of the Holy Spirit, all the baptized share in the prophetic mission of Christ beyond Moses' expectations.

  CCC 1268 The baptized have become "living stones" to be
  "built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood."3
  By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic
  and royal mission. They are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy
  nation, God's own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds
  of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous
  light."4 Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of
  all believers.

  3. 1 Pet 2:5.
  4. 1 Pet 2:9.


Does the Catholic Church teach that Jesus' Human Nature was created?

Human nature entails a human soul. When Christ became man, every aspect of His human nature was created:

  It is to be remembered that, when the Word took Flesh, there was no
  change in the Word; all the change was in the Flesh. At the moment of
  conception, in the womb of the Blessed Mother, through the
  forcefulness of God's activity, not only was the human soul of Christ
  created but the Word assumed the man that was conceived. (The Incarnation, The Catholic Faith)

The soul, as I understand it, is the rational substance that moves the body. See:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm


As a frequent competitor, I understand prayer as such following.

When I pray, I know that in whatever I do during the competition, God will be with me. As such, mishaps or any other unwanted disadvantages that may happen to me are voided. And thus I compete fairly with others with no disadvantages (such as sickness).

However God may not answer my prayer as it may be a lesson for me to learn.

God helps me with that, but as for the rest of the competition, it is up to me to accomplish it. God wouldn't want to intervene in order to help me win, because He wants to see me working hard and winning the competition in His will.

Competitions cannot be win by greed, as greed is sin. I pray to do my best of my abilities for all competitions.


How did Cain and Abel know to offer sacrifices before the Law of Moses?

That's a very good question.  Clearly there are a lot of details missing from the earliest parts of the narrative.  Remember that Genesis is traditionally attributed to Moses, who led the Israelites out of Egypt and gave them the Law of Moses.  Storytellers tend to explain unfamiliar concepts and not waste time explaining familiar ones, so it's reasonable to infer that Adam and his family were under a commandment from God to offer sacrifices in a similar, if not identical, manner to the rules about sacrifices in the Law of Moses.  Beyond that, the Bible is unfortunately silent.


What important Mormon doctrines are taught in the book of Mormon that we couldn't find in the Bible already?

First, I am slightly surprised that you've never seen Mormons use the Book of Mormon to teach/establish doctrine. (Talk to the missionaries; I bet they'll use the Book of Mormon quite extensively.)

This was a bit tricky to think of at first, since the Bible does indeed mention the main, important doctrines. Because of that, the Latter-day Saints use the Bible often in their studies and in church. However, there are many doctrines/principles are explained in the Book of Mormon that the LDS believe are not clear from the Bible alone:

The Apostasy and Restoration. The Bible does refer to an apostasy and eventual restoration, however, it is vague at best. The Book of Mormon clarifies that the Priesthood keys and fulness of true scripture will be taken from the Earth for generations, then restored through heavenly messengers in the last days to prepare for the second coming of the Savior. It even describes that a continent (America) will be set apart and preserved for the Restoration. (1 Nephi 13)
The Fall. While the Bible rehearses to us primary events of the placement of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and their subsequent choices, it isn't entirely clear why their choice to eat the fruit was important, or whether it was good or bad. The Book of Mormon drills the point home that the Fall of mankind was an essential part of God's plan: fully anticipated, with a redemption through the Atonement of Christ prepared for the salvation of mankind. (2 Nephi 2).
Life After Death. The Book of Mormon explains that death is not simply the transition from mortality to the eternal heaven/hell. We lose our physical bodies at death and enter the spirit world, where we remain until the resurrection and judgment, at which point, we eventually enter the kingdom prepared for us. (Alma 40; 2 Nephi 9).
The Purpose of Christ's Suffering in Gethesemane. The word "Atonement" appears dozens of times in the Book of Mormon, but at least it does show up once in the Bible. It is the central event of all the ages, and without it, we would be lost forever. The Book of Mormon clarifies this over and over, and helps us understand what really took place in the Garden of Gethsemane, and the far-reaching effects of His having completed the Atonement perfectly. (Mosiah 3; Alma 7)
The innocence of children. The Book of Mormon teaches that little children need no repentance, nor baptism, and that baptizing children is an evil abomination. Children are alive through the Atonement of Christ, and children who die before an age of accountability will be saved. (Moroni 8)
The Nature of God. The Bible documents the doings of God quite extensively, and the Book of Mormon more clearly explains His character and disposition. For example, in Ether 12, Moroni is comforted by the Lord who teaches him that weakness is a boon for coming closer to Him and remaining humble: that the Lord gave us weaknesses so He could draw us to Him and make us strong.
We are saved by grace after all we can do. Different Christian religions believe different things about the requirements for salvation. The Book of Mormon helps us understand that it is grace that saves us, after all we can do, and the Book of Mormon emphasizes that good works are necessary, but not sufficient, to gain salvation. We must truly become a new being through the Atonement of Christ. (See these passages; Mosiah 27; Alma 12)
The meaning of baptism. The Book of Mormon explains why the sinless Christ was baptized beyond simply "to be born again" -- and why each of us needs to follow that example. (2 Nephi 31)
The importance of religious freedom. The Book of Mormon teaches about good leadership and government, especially as it pertains to the free practice of religion. Latter-day Saints and the Church are thus strong advocates for religious freedom. (Mosiah 29)

Again, many of these are touched on in the Bible, but not wholly or completely enough to be unambiguous or not leave significant room for interpretation (hence the many different Christian denominations). But off the top of my head, these are the primary doctrines that are the least clear or mentioned in the Bible and the most clear and discussed in the Book of Mormon.


What does it mean for a priest 'to lose faith'?

In short, it sucks.  It sucks eggs. Really. It's like believing the Gospel, but not having any grace to go with it.

The biggest problem with "losing one's faith" is that your moral compass remains unchanged.  Unlike what I suspect many can do - namely ignore their own internal compass - priests are, by and large, a self-selected lot. People who are attracted to the priestly vocations have a strong sense of right and wrong, and at least in my case, I have a physical reaction to it. At the risk of having too graphic an image, when I act in a way that is contrary to my internal sense of ethics (call it the opposite of integrity), I feel that pain in my stomach that is felt when you need to throw up, but can't.  My heart pounds, my stomach turns, and I feel ill. Stressed seems so quaint a term.  Trust me, its physical.

Jeremiah 20:9 has the prophet telling God:

  But if I say, "I will not mention him or speak any more in his name," his word is in my heart like a fire, a fire shut up in my bones. I am weary of holding it in; indeed, I cannot.

For many of us, real honesty is fundamental to that integrity.  We cannot preach that which we do not believe, lest that feeling arise. Were losing that honesty and commitment to transparency and integrity something that was lost along with one's belief, it would be easy. We would merely be actors playing a part. Being a charlatan or a hypocrite would have no hold on us. But no, sadly, if its your job to preach and minister, you still have to do it.

I would suggest that there are three categories of "losing one's faith," and there are different effects of each.  Hebrews 11:6 says,

  "Who ever would come to God must

  believe that he exists and
  believe he rewards those who do good."

Using that verse as an outline, I would suggest that as Tolstoy said, "Happy [Christians] are all happy alike. But miserable [Christians] are each miserable in their own way."

Category 1a would be what is often called "the long, dark night of the soul."

Many Christian leaders, from Mother Teresa to Billy Graham echo the sentiment of the Middle Ages mystic who describe a period in which God seems to simply be silent. In these cases, the work of ministry is merely a drudge, devoid of the music that God brings.  I would argue this is the least "bad" of the categories of losing one's faith.  No one suggests that God is anything but silent. Your moral compass remains, your theology is in tact, and your ministry can continue as leader and teacher. Individually, it just becomes a matter of work like anything else. You do what you need to do, you don't violate your conscience, and you just eagerly anticipate God's return, both in your life and the next.
Category 1b would be the full on rejection of God's existence.

NPR had an amazingly good story about a Methodist minister who became an atheist.. In that story, she describes the same gut-wrenching feeling that I describe, and speaks of the consequences in her life.  She describes how she came to the rationalization that God is a myth. (If you will forgive the commentary, it seems a natural extension of too cereberal and metaphorical a faith.  It can be a very natural progression from mythic to myth.) In her case, she got up and addressed a convention of atheists, much to the applause of that body, but was then somehow astonished that her temporal boss - the Methodist bishop, fired her.  Grant you, if I spoke glowingly about a competitors product at the competitor's function and urged everyone to ditch my own company in favor of the competition, I would expect to be fired too, but I digress. The point is in that instance, she was able to find both solace and connection in a new group of "believers" (albeit atheist believers), and restore her sense of integrity.  For her, "losing her faith" was simply a job change, and in this day and age, job changes are easy.

In my case as a Baptist minister who found himself desiring a stronger liturgy, changing from the Baptist denomination to the Episcopal one was fairly easy.  I could preach as I wanted, and I could continue to minister. Different clothes but the same God. It doesn't turn your world upside down to modify your faith. It's different when it breaks.
Category 2 is the one that sucks the most.  It says, "God exists, but he is not good."

That is my current dilemma. I won't bore you with the details, but suffice it to say that the circumstances of my life have made it increasingly difficult to believe that God is good. I can only hold on secure in the knowledge that I am not yet ready to "curse God and die," but I'm beginning to like Job's wife a lot more than Job.

You see, it's real work to maintain a love for a God whom you secretly hate. A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. When a minister loses his faith, the job is the easy part.  Pastors, of course, tend to find alternative employment (I know of one who, after leaving his wife - my college friend and a girl I considered marrying! - became a used car salesman.  Talk about about transferrable skills!).  They do this because they cannot be honest with themselves in ministry.

No, the hard part isn't the money but the music.  You see, for me, God's love is like music. I can live without it, but life lacks color. It lacks joy. I know in turning my back on Him, I turn my back on myself too. I lack purpose, I lack ... music.  I am left only with that gnawing pit in my stomach: Insufficent to expurgate, but sufficient to cause distress. Were I able to deny the existence of God, I could rewrite my life. Absent that, I left in a state of limbo that churns against my very core.

In my case, I console myself with the last lines of "Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing."  The hymn writer himself was once a pastor, but also gave it up to, in his words, "chase after worldly things."  He so eloquently phrases it:

  Prone to wander, Lord I feel it - Prone to leave the God I love. Here's my heart, O take and seal it, seal it to thy courts above!

If only, I think. If only.  You can imagine how much it sucks to know the music, and yet be bereft of the assurance that it will come to pass. I personally tend to "blow hot and cold," preaching to myself (really the main I reason I preach!) the goodness of God, hoping only that I can convince myself of that fact.  If only I were a better preacher :)

So that, my friend, is what it means to lose one's faith. It is to choose a personal hell in which you get hit on both sides. You become your own worst enemy, and you cannot rest.

If you will forgive the Ferris Beueller riff, "I most heartily do not recommend it."


How widely held among Protestants is the belief that the authors of the books of James and Jude were half brothers of Jesus?

Many Protestant churches I've visited, myself included, believe that Jesus had brothers, four of them - named James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas - all of which we believe to be the authors of the Book of James and the Book of Jude. Some Protestants believe them to be children from Joseph's prior marriages (which I don't believe I've ever seen Scripture supporting), or being born after the birth of Christ.
Why? Let's look in to Scripture. First we start with Matthew 1:25, which indicates it very possible (and as Jews, very likely) that Joseph and Mary had other children:

"But he [Joseph] knew her [Mary] not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus."

Those familiar with the language at that time will tell you "knowing" a person, in this context, is referring to having intercourse. As Jews, and followers of the Law (which these same Protestants believe Mary and Joseph had to be in order to be so blessed), they would have been taught the Commandments given to Adam and Noah along with the Commandments laid out in Moses' books - the first two (Adam and Noah) containing the Commandment to "be fruitful and multiply".
We also see Jesus' brothers in John 7:1-10

After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jew's feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brothers therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brothers believe in him. Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is always ready. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brothers were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.

And again, this time with Mary, in Acts 1:14:

These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

This article sums up how our belief is different from that of Roman Catholics, and also references the verses you provided as well as the ones I cited in this answer:

Some Roman Catholics claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother. There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related, half-brothers.
A second Roman Catholic argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. An entire theory of Joseph's being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary is invented without any biblical basis. The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary. If Joseph had at least six children before he married Mary, why are they not mentioned in Joseph and Mary’s trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) or their trip to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or their trip back to Nazareth (Matthew 2:20-23)?


Does the love of God fulfil the Law, or keep the Law, or both? (Reformed view)

This is a struggle that a great many people are experiencing, and is the same struggle that the first century AD churches had to contend with the Judaizers.
Christ's love fulfilled the law (Matt. 5:17).
Rom. 13:8,

"Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law." (NKJV)

Paul addresses the issue in Galatians of trying to keep the law while being in grace under Christ's law.  The Judaizers had come back through the churches after Paul and the apostles taught the gospel of Christ, and were telling the new born Christians that they had to be circumcised first and then had to keep certain other Mosaic laws before they could be in Christ.
Their attempt to exist in both the death of the law, and the living grace of Christ defeats Christ's sacrifice for sin which was under the law.
So, Gal. 5:14 is the answer as you have noted above.  Loving one another is the fulfillment of the law.
Paul got so angry with those that had tried to damage the congregation in Galatia for teaching they had to be circumcised that he said he would rather they had been cut off.
Gal. 5:12,

"I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!" (NKJV)

Most people miss what Paul really meant.  Look at that verse in the ASV.

" I would that they that unsettle you would even [c]go beyond circumcision."

And, in the ESV:

"I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!"

In the Greek it meant to mutilate themselves.  In other words, Paul would rather the corrupting Judaizers had not only circumcised themselves, but had castrated themselves... cut it all off.
There is a very good analysis of Paul's letter to the Galatians, and this problem of today's Judaizers that are again teaching we have to keep the commandments of Moses' law.  See here.  It is a study in parts, one for each chapter.
Rom. 13:10,

"10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (NKJV)

Matt. 22:37-40,

"And Jesus said to him, `Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thine understanding --
38 this is a first and great command; 39 and the second [is] like to it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;
40 on these -- the two commands -- all the law and the prophets do hang.'"  (YLT)

We do not have to keep the Mosaic commandments.  Christ fulfilled all of them with His death on the cross.


Verse on evangelizing those in the Church first?

You may be thinking of Paul in his letter to the Romans:

Rom 1:16:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Rom 2:9-10:

9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.

Paul, who considered himself (confirmed by the other apostles) to be Apostle to the Gentiles, might have received the evangelizing priority of the Jews from Jesus himself.  This is in line with some gospel passages set before Pentecost, where Jesus and his disciples deliberately focused the announcement of the Kingdom only to the Jews, while making it clear that eventually the Gentiles will be included, as it's obvious from passages in Isaiah.
Relevant passages in Matthew about the priority of the Jews:

Instruction to disciples in Matt 10:5-6:

5 These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

What Jesus said to the Canaanite woman from the district of Tyre and Sidon in Matt 15:24:

[Jesus] answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

Matthew is written after Pentecost, several passages about evangelizing the Gentiles:
Matt 10:16-18:

16 “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. 17 Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues, 18 and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles.

Matt 12:15-21:

15 Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. And many followed him, and he healed them all 16 and ordered them not to make him known. 17 This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah:
18 “Behold, my servant whom I have chosen,
    my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased.
  I will put my Spirit upon him,
    and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles.
19 He will not quarrel or cry aloud,
    nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets;
20 a bruised reed he will not break,
    and a smoldering wick he will not quench,
   until he brings justice to victory;
21  and in his name the Gentiles will hope.”

John Piper wrote a thorough study on Rom 1:16, listing 6 ways on how the Jews have priority over the Gentiles, 3 ways on how the Jews don't have priority, as well as why Paul mentioned the topic in his letter.  From his website article To the Jew First, and Also to the Greek, the 6 ways that Jews have priority are:

They are the historic chosen people of God.

They are the guardians of God’s special revelation, the Old Testament Scriptures.

The Messiah and Savior, Jesus, comes to the world as a Jew to Jews.

Salvation is from the Jews, since everyone who is saved is saved by being connected to the covenant with Abraham by faith.

The Jews are to be evangelized first when the gospel penetrates a new region.

The Jews will enter first into final judgment and final blessing.

For more explanation on Jesus's ministry to the House of Israel first, see the gotquestions.org website article Why did Jesus say that He was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel (Matthew 15:24)?


Being flogged in the synagogues before the second coming?

It really does depend on your eschatological view. Futurists/Dispensationalist want to place passages like Luke 21:12 in the future before the second coming of Christ. However, Partial Preterists/Covenantalists as well as some Amillennialists (like myself) see passages Luke 21, Matthew 24 and Mark 13 as Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD only (much qualification needed). It should also be noted that not all Amillennialists thinks this way. Many of them do see a typological fulfillment in 70 AD whereas the full and final fulfillment will be realized before the second coming of Christ in the future. Either way, a good book to read on the Partial Preterist/Amillennialist position is Sam Storms book called 'Kingdom Come'.

As far as the beating in synagogues thing, the apostles were actually beaten a few times in the book of Acts at 5:40 and 16:22-23 which in some sense can be seen as a regulatory fulfillment of Matthew 10:17 as well as Luke 21:12 even though they weren't always exactly in the synagogues themselves which is a detail I don't think has to be perfectly fulfilled. Jesus' point was that they were going to be persecuted for their devotion to Christ which is exactly what happen to them. I hope that helps. :)


How does the Jehovah’s Witness view of who Jesus Christ is differ from Protestant Trinitarian Christology?

The Protestant Trinitarian view of Jesus Christ is that he is the only-begotten Son of God – begotten, not made.

JWs believe that there is no distinction between "begotten" and "made". Therefore, "begotten, not made" is meaningless for them.

  He is of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made.

The word "of one substance" (homoousios) is not found in the Bible and therefore not accepted by JWs. JWs believe that Jesus is "in the form of God" (Phil. 2:6) since he is a spirit being like the Father (John 4:24).

  He is the Word of God who was with God in the beginning and who is God (John 1:1).

As you know, JWs believe the the meaning of this verse is more accurately conveyed by the translation "the Word was a god", or "the Word was divine". (compare with John 1:18 - "no one has seen God at any time")

  He came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, and dwelt among us (John 1:14). He is both fully human and fully divine.

JWs believe that Jesus was fully human ("born of a woman", Gal. 4:4) when he was on earth, not "fully divine". There is no scripture that says "fully human and fully divine"; to the contrary, Phil. 2:7 says "he emptied himself, by taking the form of a slave, being born in the likeness of men." ("became human", NWT 2013). He became "like his brothers in all respects, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God." (Heb. 2:17)

  He was bodily resurrected from the dead

JWs believe he was resurrected with a heavenly spirit body, not his human flesh. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit God's Kingdom" (1 Cor. 15:50) Paul addresses the question of "with what sort of body" are the dead raised up at 1 Cor. 15:35-41.

Note that at John 20:26, "Jesus came, although the doors were locked", which would be impossible for a physical human body.

  and has ascended into heaven, from whence he came, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father. As he ascended into heaven, so shall he return, in great power and glory, and accompanied by all the heavenly hosts, to judge and to rule.

JWs agree with this.

JW answers to further questions:

Was he created? Yes.
Is he part of the One Being of God? No. (I do not believe that "part of" is even the traditional Trinitarian expression.)
When he came to earth was he God incarnate? No, for reasons given above.
Was he resurrected as a spirit creature or did he ascend into heaven with a physical body? He was resurrected as a spirit creature. Note that Jesus appeared with several different bodies after his resurrection:

Mary did not recognize him, thinking he was the gardener, until he said her name with his familiar inflection (John 20:15-16)
Jesus spent a whole day with two of the apostles, but "their eyes were kept from recognizing him" until he broke the bread and blessed it. Obviously, this body had no recognizable wounds on it. Then "he disappeared from them", which would not be possible for a normal physical body. (Luke 24:15-31)
At John 20:27, Jesus appears in a locked room, and now he has wounds in his hands, feet and side, specifically for Thomas' benefit (see v. 25).


What is the Biblical basis for the concept that Jesus spent time in Hell?

Yes!  Errr... NO!

There are three competing theories on this.

Jesus went to Hell with the damned.
Jesus went to paradise in Hades
Jesus went to heaven.

All of these beliefs are based on a few critical verses.

Verse 1: 1 Peter 3:18-20

In 1 Peter 3:18-20 (NIV), we see:

  18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.
  19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the
  imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God
  waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In
  it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,

This supports (pretty conclusively) beliefs 1 and 2 by stating that Jesus, in the spirit, went to speak to the "imprisoned souls".

Verse 2 Luke 23:43

We see in Luke 23:43 (KJV)

  43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou
  be with me in paradise.

This pretty conclusively states that he went to paradise.  This supports beliefs number 2 and 3.

Verse 3 Luke 23:46

Luke 23:46 (NIV) states:

  46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I
  commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.

The idea is that Jesus definitely didn't go to hell, since he committed his spirit into the Father's hands.  Therefore, this is used to support beliefs 2 and 3.

Vers 4 Ephesians 4:9

This verse is often used to say that Jesus "descended into hell" or "the depths" or something (NIV)

  9 (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the
  lower, earthly regions?

However this doesn't really hold water since the reference point of the ascension means that he really descended to earth.  Also, the translation "lower, earthly regions" supports the idea that he descended to Earth rather than other translations which state "lower earthly regions" (notice the lack of the comma, which is an invalid translation).

This verse is often used to support belief #1.

So, which belief is correct?  This is something that is difficult to see.

1 Cor. 13:12 (KJV)

  12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I
  know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

I should note another idea that supports belief #2 is the fact that there are two different words for "Hell".  One is the fiery pit referred to in Revelations and one is the place called "Hades".  Unfortunately, we don't have any good, solid definition for "Hades", so some have interpreted that as the "paradise" that Jesus was referring to on the cross.  This interpretation is used to support that second belief.

Read this article for much more information.


How close is the English word "father" compared to the original word used by Jesus in the Lord's Prayer?

Although Jesus was likely to have spoken Aramaic or Hebrew, the Gospels were preserved in Greek using the word πατήρ/πάτερ, as was noted in the comments; this became the Latin pater. In England up to the Reformation, liturgically the Lord's Prayer was always in Latin.

However, Wikisource has Old English (10th–11th century) and Middle English (14th century) versions†:

  Fæder ūre, þū þe eart on heofonum;
  Sīe þīn nama gehālgod,

  Oure fadir that art in heuenes,
  halewid be thi name;

The word was cognate with the modern English Father. Whether Fæder or fadir were as formal as "Father" is today is not easily discovered, but it's likely that they were not; children routinely addressed their parents as "Mother" and "Father" until comparatively recently, and OED does not have Dad/Daddy recorded until the 16th century.

† The later version is from Tyndale's Bible. The earlier source is not identified.


What is the Biblical definition of what makes one a Christian?

The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. (Acts 11:26, NIV)

Therefore, a Christian is a "disciple" of Christ. And a "disciple" of Christ is one who "believes Jesus and abide in his word" (John 8:31).

Therefore, one who does not believe Jesus or does not abide in the word of Jesus is not a "disciple" of Christian and not a Christian.


Does the Mormon Church endorse the children of narcissistic parents breaking off contact with them (not necessarily permanently/forever)?

Before I begin, please forgive my tardy response. While the Coronavirus has not touched my family, it has touched members of our community and we own and operate a store considered essential. It's been a lot of work and very distracting. Thank you for your patience. (And you should post a complete question here, not just a link back to the old one. Cheers!)
Your question piqued my interest on two levels.

I've been a pastor and had to deal with families suffering abusively manipulative relationships.

While not suffering full-blown NPD, my own father has some of the attributes, which allows me to relate.

My first reaction to your excerpted statement was that it seemed silly, but that's because I absorbed the information "backwards."  (*sigh*)  I hate imperfection, it's a pain in the neck.  As I thought about it more and read through the links you provided, I could comprehend something of the pain the ACoNs suffer and the difficulty they have trying to fulfill that necessary fifth commandment.
To begin, the Bible teaches a simple truth:

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26)
And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting. (Luke 18:29-30)

Christians are specifically required to separate themselves from the ungodly and follow Jesus. At first glance this would seem to be at odds with the commandment to honor our parents (Exodus 20:12), but this isn't so. Let's introduce the difference between forgiveness and consequence.

Of course, society needs to be protected from hardened criminals, because mercy cannot rob justice. Bishop1 [Christopher] Williams addressed this concept so well when he said, “Forgiveness is a source of power. But it does not relieve us of consequences.”  When tragedy strikes, we should not respond by seeking personal revenge but rather let justice take its course and then let go. It is not easy to let go and empty our hearts of festering resentment. The Savior has offered to all of us a precious peace through His Atonement, but this can come only as we are willing to cast out negative feelings of anger, spite, or revenge. For all of us who forgive “those who trespass against us,” even those who have committed serious crimes, the Atonement brings a measure of peace and comfort.  (Apostle James E. Faust, emphasis mine)

The reason forgiveness vs. consequence must be understood is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not believe mortal humans are on this Earth to suffer.  Quite the opposite, we believe that we "are, that [we] might have joy" (2 Nephi 2:25). It is difficult for a child to find joy when that child is not honored and respected by a parent. It is my opinion that this idea is reflected by 2 Corinthians 6:14, which happens to reflect the previous verses in Luke quite well.

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

While Paul originally intended that verse to apply to a married couple, I personally see no difference between that and the parent-child relationship.2  Children are not slaves to their parents.  Indeed, we very much believe it is the responsibility of parents to properly train, care for, and raise their children in a Godly manner.

And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents. … And they shall also teach their children to pray, and to walk uprightly before the Lord. (Doctrine & Covenants 68:25-28)

Basically, the gospel of Christ is not served if someone as an individual, or even society in general, lives in danger due to an unrepentant person.  My job as the victim of a crime or abuse is to forgive, to let the resentment pass, to love (meaning to seek the best welfare of the other, even before my own) — but this does not absolve the perpetrator of the crime.
Consider this, the Lord taught that we should forgive "seventy times seven" (Matt 18:21-22), which is usually interpreted as "always."  This is strengthened by Doctrine & Covenants 64:10-11,

I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. And ye ought to say in your hearts—let God judge between me and thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds.

But verses 12-14 read,

And him that repenteth not of his sins, and confesseth them not, ye shall bring before the church, and do with him as the scripture saith unto you, either by commandment or by revelation. And this ye shall do that God may be glorified—not because ye forgive not, having not compassion, but that ye may be justified in the eyes of the law, that ye may not offend him who is your lawgiver—verily I say, for this cause ye shall do these things.

The Lord, above all, is no fool and knows that there can and will be situations that are simply untenable. What, then, should happen if the sinner never repents?  It is for this cause that the Lord also taught in Doctrine & Covenants 98:39-46 that we are always to forgive people who repent, even if they repent over and over.  But if they do not repent, we are to forgive through three transgressions, but on the fourth, no. I strongly recommend taking the time to read those verses, but here's the salient part:

But if he trespass against thee the fourth time thou shalt not forgive him, but shalt bring these testimonies before the Lord; and they shall not be blotted out until he repent and reward thee four-fold in all things wherewith he has trespassed against thee. And if he do this, thou shalt forgive him with all thine heart; and if he do not this, I, the Lord, will avenge thee of thine enemy an hundred-fold; and upon his children, and upon his children’s children of all them that hate me, unto the third and fourth generation.3

Therefore (and with a MASSIVE disclaimer I'm going to make presently), the answer is yes, given that the child has made at least three sincere attempts to forgive and reconcile with the abusive parent, if the parent remains abusive (a transgressor), then the child is not dishonoring the parent by severing the relationship. That is the consequence of the parent's refusal to repent.

DISCLAIMER:
This answer, and the question itself, skirts dangerously close to this site's rules about offering pastoral advice (i.e., that we do not). Indeed, if I recall correctly, you had to rewrite your original post to get under that bar. I have provided an answer that reflects LDS theology—but there are two other aspects of that theology that must be considered.

LDS Bishops are common judges in Israel (Doctrine & Covenants 107:72, 74) and are authorized under Priesthood authority to judge a victim-child's actions and decisions in relation to the parents. No decision like this should be taken lightly or without counsel. Telling you "yes" without you realizing that no one can (or should) make that decision alone would be very irresponsible on my part. Obviously, I do not and cannot know enough about any situation you might be aware of to provide a one-size-fits-all answer.

A common question is "why does God allow bad things to happen to good people?" This is a spectacularly good question.  One answer is that He doesn't in all cases. For example, when asked if the dead workers under a fallen tower were sinners, the Lord responded (paraphrasing) "No, they died because the tower fell on them" (Luke 13:1-5).  Another is that good people are allowed to suffer to ensure judgement both for the good and the evil (Alma 14:8-11). The "right" decision in any situation like that posed in the question is complicated, but it can be thought of this way: if you personally choose to honor your parent, no matter how it hurts you and those around you, and your parent never repents, then you will be blessed in Heaven for your suffering and your parent judged for his/her wickedness.  On the other hand, if you follow the Lord's admonition and conclude that it's right to leave, you will be blessed in Heaven for that, too. The Lord respects responsible decisions, but usually doesn't quick (usually selfish) decisions.

Therefore, while LDS theology permits separation in the case you've presented, it does not encourage it.  Rather, the Lord has provideded authoritative counsel to help the victim of these circumstances make a responsible decision.4 To liken another scripture unto us… such a person would in no wise lose his/her reward.

Answers to Comment Questions
It appears you're looking for a clear-cut answer to a question that isn't clear-cut. Every situation involving emotional instability and abuse will be different and the presumptive solution will change. For some, the right answer will be to sever (and quickly!). For others, the right answer will be to not sever and bear the burden. For yet others, the right answer will be something in between. This is one of the reasons why counseling with both ecclesiastical leaders and professionals is so important — because in most instances involving narcissism, the answer will have more to do with the emotional, physical, and spiritual stability of the child-victim than it will the abusive parent.
At the risk of wresting the scriptures (2 Peter 3:15-16, Doctrine & Covenants 10:62-63, Alma 41:1), let me speak briefly about love—which is the basis for honoring one's parents.
The Lord commanded something very much contrary to the natural man: He commanded us to love everyone; our neighbors, strangers, even our enemies. Indeed, the apostle Paul taught that brotherly love should continue, suggesting that it's something we should always do. One of the fundamental doctrines of Christ's gospel is that to be disciples, we must love.
But, to use what I think is the simplest case, how does one love an enemy? What does it even mean to love an enemy? There are a lot of definitions of "love" out there and most of them are, frankly, wrong. Love is not sexual intimacy, though such intimacy may be a part of the experience of love.  Love is not blind devotion, though having faith in another may also be part of the experience of love.
It is my opinion (and it's important that you understand this, it is my opinion) that love is a choice. Usually, the choice to put the welfare (spiritual, emotional, and physical) of another before your own.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)

But when it comes to the victims of abuse, that choice becomes complicated. Choosing to preserve the relationship doesn't benefit the abuser in any way Christianity would recognize. I could certainly complicate the discussion (what if the victim-child is the bread-winner for the abusive parent? Severing the relationship may have severe consequences for the physical welfare of the parent). But that's why the need for counseling is so great—to be sure the needs of the child are balanced against the honors deserved by the parent in a Christ-centered way.
A student of the Bible would point out that I didn't reference the entire passage from Matthew 5.  Here it is:

Ye 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; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

In my opinion, a lot of people have lived their lives filled with unjustified feelings of guilt due to taking that last sentence out of context. It is obviously impossible to be as perfect as a resurrected, sanctified, exalted being like our Heavenly Father until we, ourselves, become resurrected, sanctified, and exalted. But remember the context: It's easy to love people who already love you.  You need to learn important skills.  You need to train important strengths. You need to learn to love people who do not love you. Doing this, you learn to live your life in a way our Heavenly Father lives His.  Doing this, you become perfected in (and justified by) the Gospel.
Hopefully, this helps you understand my second disclaimer.  Does our Heavenly Father choose not to love disobedient children? Of course He loves them—even when they make choices that push Him, His Son, and the Holy Ghost out of their lives.

Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.  If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. (Romans 12:17-21(17-18), take a moment to read the entire passage.)

No one is expected to live with a burden they cannot bear. Paul taught:

There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. (1 Corinthians 10:13)

In summary, for some, the path out is to let God judge the abuser and sever the relationship—but for all, if someone has made a responsible choice based on his/her love for their parent weighted against their right to have (Christian) joy in their lives, then the parent has been honored and the the victim-child is justified before the Lord.
Finally, I might be wrong, but you appear to be pressing me for a single, definitive answer.  If that's the case, you're not going to get one. There are people in the world with strong enough personalities that they can and should preserve the relationship in the hope of bringing the abusive parent to Christ (or assuring their judgement if the parent doesn't)—just as there are some who are not strong enough and must sever the relationship or risk cursing God and losing their own salvation. Where any specific victim-child sits in that spectrum is beyond the scope of this site.

1 LDS bishops and branch presidents are pastors.  Bishops preside over the common congregational units of the church.  Branch presidents over small, often rural congregations.  I was a branch president.
2 This kind of cross-interpretation is permissible based on 1 Nephi 19:23, "For I did liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning."
3 I respect the irony that this verse, if applied without likening the scriptures (see footnote #2) means that the victim-child would be cursed by God for acting as directed. I'm willing to go out on a limb and suggest that interpreting the Lord's commandments as "the blessings of the Lord will be removed and remain removed even if it affects later generations until repentance occurs" is fair. My colleagues will correct me if I'm wrong.
4 LDS Theology is strongly influenced by the idea of councils and counseling (e.g., compare Alma 37:37 with Doctrine & Covenants 1:38), both ecclesiastical and professional. However, a discussion about councils and counseling in the LDS Church is beyond the scope of this answer.


OK, you wanna go deep?  Here we go.
From the Apostolic Bible:

Love
The word being translated as "loved" here is ἀγαπάω (agapao).
Definition from Strong's Concordance (25):

to love; in the NT usually the active love of God for his Son and his people, and the active love his people are to have for God, each other, and even enemies
to love, value, esteem, feel or manifest generous concern for, be faithful towards; to delight in, to set store upon,

World
The word being translated as "world" here is κόσμος (kosmos).
From Strong's Concordance (2889)

world: earth, world system, whole universe; adornment. In some contexts, the world is simply the place where people live, in other contexts (especially in John), the world is a system opposed to God

Interesting points:  kosmos can be translated as the "whole universe".  Also, note that in John it's considered a "system opposed to God" in some contexts.
Believe
The Apostolic Bible translates this as "trusting", as you can see.  The actual word is πιστεύω (pisteuo).
From Strongs (4100)

to believe, put one's faith in, trust, with an implication that actions based on that trust may follow; (pass.) entrust

(emphasis added)
This is the key that I think you might be looking for.  This isn't just as simple as saying "Yeah, I believe that Jesus died for me."  This is to "put one's faith in".  This is a more active belief.
Nonetheless, I believe that if someone truly has faith in Jesus that their life will be impacted by it.  That's what separates out shallow "belief" from deep "belief".  It's that deeper belief/faith/trust that is what God wants from us.


What is the reason and meaning of the symbols on the garments worn by Temple-worthy LDS members?

I have no problem discussing this, because the promises made in a temple to not reveal certain things do not involve the Garment.
The language used in the Temple to explain the marks is this:

[The mark of the square] is placed in the garment over the right breast, suggesting to the mind exactness and honor in keeping the covenants entered into this day.
[The mark of the compass] is placed in the garment over the left breast, suggesting to the mind an undeviating course leading to eternal life; a constant reminder that desires, appetites, and passions are to be kept within the bounds the Lord has set; and that all truth may be circumscribed into one great whole.
[The navel mark] is placed in the garment over the navel, suggesting to the mind the need of constant nourishment to body and spirit.
[The knee mark] is placed in the right leg of the garment so as to be over the kneecap, suggesting that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is the Christ.

Source: http://ldsendowment.org
However, this interpretation of the marks was added by David O. McKay in the late 1920s. There's no documentation (that I'm aware of) that indicates whether this is his personal interpretation or was divinely revealed. Personally, I believe it's the former, because there was a slightly different interpretation that was given in the late 1880s:

According to a description by LDS Church President John Taylor in 1883, the "Square" represents "the justice and fairness of our Heavenly Father, that we will receive all the good that is coming to us or all that we earn, on a square deal", and the "Compasses" represents "the North Star". In addition to the Square and Compasses, Taylor described the other symbols as follows: the collar represented the idea that the Lord's "yoke is easy and [his] burden is light", or the "Crown of the Priesthood"; the double-knotted strings represented "the Trinity" and "the marriage covenant"; the navel mark represents "strength in the navel and marrow in the bones"; and the knee mark represents "that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ".

Source: http://wikipedia.org
Since these are symbols, their meaning is infinitely deep and subject to personal interpretation. When I think of the Compass and Square, I think of the geometer's tools and God's use of them in designing and constructing the universe. As for the navel and knee marks, I have no idea.


Why is the Bible a foundation of theological evidence?

Wow, this is a really fundamental question.  And the basic answer is, because the Bible is the foundation of Christian theology.

I hope that doesn't sound like a tautology.  What I mean by that is that the Bible is where we find the description of what Christianity is and what it's about.  The first few chapters of Genesis give us the creation of the world, the introduction to God and mankind, and the fundamental problems of our existence: sin and death.  The rest of the Old Testament teaches us about God's chosen people, his relationship with them and the covenants he made with them, and their history.  It places particular emphasis on how things worked out for them when they did and when they didn't live according to God's commandments.

And then we come to the New Testament, where the solution to the fundamental problems introduced in Genesis is given.  God sent his son, Jesus, to earth to pay the price of sin and overcome death, to make it possible for mankind to be restored to a perfect state through faith in him and his atonement.  It explains how Jesus did that, and what he taught us about how to live in order to make the atonement apply to us.  Then it continues on, showing the founding and early growth of the church that Jesus organized, based on the writings and the travels of the apostles that he ordained as leaders of the church.  They went around teaching people, organizing and building up the church, and clarifying various points of doctrine for people who didn't understand all the details.

This content makes the Bible a solid foundation for understanding the basis of Christianity and Christian doctrine, and the first authoritative place to look when searching for theological evidence on questions related to Christianity.


What is the difference between "Catechism" and "Canon Law" in Catholicism?

Yes, the Catechism and Canon Law are two separate things

The Catechism is a teaching tool for the bishops and various catechists to instruct the faithful.  (Why do we receive the Eucharist?  What makes Easter so special?)  The first Catechism worthy of the name came out of the Council of Trent (1545 - 1563).  The more recent one, linked to on-line with some frequency here, came out in the early 1980's though it was revised in the 1990's.  You could look up The Baltimore Catechism for an example of a common teaching tool in the US that is pre-Vatican II.

  CCC 5 "Catechesis is an education in the faith of children, young people and adults which includes especially the teaching of Christian doctrine imparted, generally speaking, in an organic and systematic way, with a view to initiating the hearers into the fullness of Christian life."

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3.HTM

The Canon Law is a rule book, a code of laws that are within the jurisdiction of the Church, that covers (for example) who may or may not marry a couple; what constitutes a valid marriage; what to do if there is a jurisdictional dispute between two different diocese; basic rules for building a church.

  During the course of the centuries the Catholic Church has been
  accustomed to reform and renew the laws of canonical discipline so
  that in constant fidelity to its divine founder, they may be better
  adapted to the saving mission entrusted to it. Prompted by this same
  purpose and fulfilling at last the expectations of the whole Catholic
  world, I order today, January 25, 1983, the promulgation of the
  revised Code of Canon Law. In so doing, my thoughts go back to the
  same day of the year 1959 when my predecessor of happy memory, John
  XXIII, announced for the first time his decision to reform the
  existing corpus of canonical legislation which had been promulgated on
  the feast of Pentecost in the year 1917. (From APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION SACRAE DISCIPLINAE LEGES)


Does Numbers 16 describe the first earthquake?

Maybe, maybe not.  Consider Job 9:6.

  Job 9:6 (DRA)
   6 Who shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.

Job is supposed to have lived around the time of Abraham, quite a while before the events that took place in numbers. Even if you consider Job to be a tall tale, its origin in oral tradition might suggest that Earthquakes are not new.

Earthquakes as a means of disposing with traitors to the faith, well that's different than flooding the Earth, and something new in God's revelation.

But alas, there is nothing new under the sun.


How does entertainment glorify God at all?

Entertainment is one way we relax, and the Bible does tell us to rest, in many places, including Exodus 20:8: "Remember the Sabbath."

Entertainment can also be a community-building event, although not as much so in the context of "self-entertainment," that you mentioned.

I would also say that many things are not purely entertaining, but also educational or enlightening.

Having said all of that, I think many of us take entertainment to extremes, to the point that it is no longer glorifying to God. I know I'm guilty of this at times.


Why is the Lord's Passion read on Palm Sunday (in the Roman Catholic tradition)?

The Passion is read "by anticipation" on Palm Sunday. Although that day begins joyfully with the ceremony of the palms, it ends with a "character of sacred gloom," as the liturgist Dom Prosper Guérenger, O.S.B., puts it in his The Liturgical Year (vol. 6), p. 200:

  The third part of to-day's service [for Palm Sunday] is the offering of the holy Sacrifice. The portions that are sung by the choir¹ are expressive of the deepest desolation; and the history of our Lord's Passion, which is now to be read by anticipation, gives to the rest of the day that character of sacred gloom, which we all know so well. For the last five or six centuries, the Church has adopted a special chant² for this narrative of the holy Gospel. The historian, or the evangelist, relates the events in a tone that is at once grave and pathetic; the words of our Saviour are sung to a solemn yet sweet melody, which strikingly contrasts with the high dominant³ of the several other interlocutors and the Jewish populace. During the singing of the Passion, the faithful should hold their palms in their hands, and, by this emblem of triumph, protest against the insults offered to Jesus by His enemies. As we listen to each humiliation and suffering, all of which were endured out of love for us, let us offer Him our palm as to our dearest Lord and King. When should we be more adoring, than when He is most suffering?

¹See the "Palm Sunday" section here.²cf. pp. 30-40 of this 1957 guide by Solesmes.³i.e., a high-pitched fifth


Was 'Jesus and the woman taken in adultery' in St. John a later addition, and does this invalidate infallibility?

Forgive me for answering my own question…

There are several scenarios I can think of regarding this passage.

John himself added this passage later on.
John told this story enough that later his followers thought it appropriate to add this passage to John’s account.
This account was so common among early Christians and fit so well at this point in John’s gospel that the early Christians felt is appropriate to add this story here.
John himself had written this account elsewhere, and his followers later combined it with the rest of his Gospel.

If any of these explanations are true, or something similar happened, it would not invalidate the truth of the account historically, or otherwise. Likewise, just because the very earliest manuscripts do not contain these words exactly it does not necessarily follow that it is not true or any less inspired.


Why were the Pharisees trying to trap Jesus? What were they trying to achieve?

For the Pharisees, Jesus posed a threat to their intellectual security and leadership.

The Pharisees were:

  An active, vociferous religious Jewish sect in the centuries before and after Christ appeared on earth. They represented by and large the intellectual sector of their people, because they were avid, contentious students and teachers of Jewish religious law. Their intensity and single-mindedness resulted in a harsh and uncharitable emphasis on the legal aspects of religion at the expense of charity and loving concern. Jesus represented a threat to their intellectual security and leadership. They baited him at every opportunity. they tried to trap him into wrong answers (Matthew 22:15-22). They proposed questions, hoping to prove contradictions (Matthew 23:34-40). They deplored the company he kept. They objected to his Sabbath activities (Mark 2:15-17; Mark 2:23-26). They even plotted against his life (John 11:45-54). Indeed they worked together with the priests and the Sadducees until their plotting culminated in his arrest and crucifixion (John 18:3). Their hostility, of course, was aggravated by the accusations that Jesus leveled at the Pharisees. He called them hypocrites (Matthew 15:7). He deplored their legalisms as rendering God's word null and void (Mark 7:13). Their self-righteousness he exposed in the parable of the Pharisee and the publican (Luke 18:9-14). The entire Chapter 23 of Matthew is a lengthy, detailed indictment of Pharisee mentality. Needless to say, all Pharisees were not fanatics. Gamaliel and Nicodemus were men who kept a sense of balance and were open to the development of Judaism (John 3:1-21; Acts 5:34-39). It is likely that many Pharisees became Christians. - Pharisees

They were to say the least, jealous of Christ's popularity. In trapping Our Lord in his own words, they could achieve that the Jewish people would not honor him as a holy rabbi or even worse get him executed by the Romans, which in fact they achieved when he was so horribly crucified. Hatred knows no bounds!


Is asceticism defendable under a Christian world view?

Jesus says in Luke 9:23,

  If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.

This is likely where asceticism originates from. However, verses such as 1 Timothy 6:17 say that "[God] richly provides us with everything to enjoy." Asceticism tends to forego enjoyment for self-inflicted suffering.

Perhaps one of the strongest Biblical passages against asceticism would be 1 Timothy 4:1-5.

  Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

Since your question focuses on the demoninational views and not my own, I've compiled a list of denominational opinions for you.

GotQuestions (non-denominational) suggests that self-denial to a degree is an extreme response to an otherwise accurate interpretation of the command, citing the above verses that reflect that God wants us to be blessed and enjoy our lives.

The people of the United Methodist Church seem to encourage frequent fasting, but nowhere near the degree of self-mutilation of sleeping in freezing temperatures.

The Lutheran Church seems to take a similar view according to The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod. The article cites how Luther "opposed artificial asceticism by showing that works cannot justify." Judging by Luther's early life and how he lived in extreme asceticism before rejecting such works and kickstarting the Protestant Reformation, it is reasonable to assume that "artificial asceticism" extends to doing things like sleeping outside during a blizzard (which Luther himself did multiple times almost to the point of death).

Pentecostals originally were heavily ascetic, but it seems that somewhat of a shift is being made away from such doctrine as a result of the Full Gospel Movement (specifically Prosperity Gospel, which holds that all financial and material gain is in accordance with God's will).

All in all, it seems that the proper way of life according to the Protestant interpretation of the Bible is to fast and abstain as necessary to grow closer to God, but don't hurt yourself.

God bless. :)

Sources (I can only post one link because StackExchange doesn't trust me yet.):

Luke 9:23 ESV

1 Timothy 6:17 ESV

1 Timothy 4:1-5 ESV

Got Questions on Asceticism

United Methodist Church
(Pastors debate value of Lenten sacrifices)

Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod

Pentecostal Asceticism and Prosperity Gospel: Civil Society and the Search for Development Alternatives in Cameroon (Page 80, found on Google Books), and ‘Winning Ways’: Globalisation and the Impact of the Health and Wealth Gospel by Stephen Hunt

I am Protestant.


How would Mormon christology be classified?

None of the above, Mormon christology is Mormonism.

Although this wikipedia article names The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as a modern Christian group which may be seen as espousing some of the principles of Arianism.

Latter-day Saints believe God the Eternal Father to be our literal father in Heaven, the father of the spirits of all mankind, just as literally as our fathers on earth are the fathers of our bodies. Jesus Christ is the eldest spirit child of our father in heaven, and only begotten in the flesh, chosen before the creation of the universe to be the saviour and redeemer of all mankind.

Below is an excerpt from chapter 4 of the LDS Sunday school doctrines of the gospel student manual.

  Jesus Christ, the Son of God

  Jesus Christ is literally the son of God the Eternal Father.

  Jesus Christ is the firstborn spirit son of God (see D&C 93:21; Colossians 1:13–15; Hebrews 1:5–6).
  Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God in the flesh (see JST, John 1:1, 13–14; 1 Nephi 11:14–22; Jacob 4:5, 11;
  Alma 5:48; D&C 20:21; 76:22–24).

  Jesus Christ is a being of glory, might, and majesty.

  Jesus Christ has a resurrected body of flesh and bones (see D&C 130:22; Luke 24:36–39; 3 Nephi 11:12–15).
  Jesus Christ possesses all power in heaven and on earth (see D&C 93:17; 100:1; Matthew 28:18; 1 Peter 3:21–22).
  Jesus Christ possesses a fulness of the perfection, attributes, and glory of the Father (see 3 Nephi 12:48; D&C 38:1–3;
  Colossians 1:19; 2:9–10; D&C 93:4, 12–17).
  Jesus Christ is the light and the life of the world (see D&C 88:5–13; 93:2, 9; John 1:4; 8:12; 3
  Nephi 9:18).


ΙΧΘΥΣ means fish in an old form of Greek. It now primarily refers to a particular Christian fish symbol. From Wikipedia:

  Ichthys (also Ichthus or Ikhthus /ˈɪkθəs/), from the Koine Greek word for fish: ἰχθύς, (capitalized ΙΧΘΥΣ or ΙΧΘΥϹ) is a symbol consisting of two intersecting arcs, the ends of the right side extending beyond the meeting point so as to resemble the profile of a fish, used by early Christians as a secret Christian symbol and now known colloquially as the "sign of the fish" or the "Jesus fish."

The word itself has symbolic meaning, though. Saint Augustine gives the following symbolic explanation in City of God:

  But if you join the initial letters of these five Greek words, ᾽Ιησοῦς Χριστος Θεοῦ υἰὸς σωτήρ, which mean, “Jesus Christ the Son of God, the Saviour,” they will make the word ἰχδὺς, that is, “fish,” in which word Christ is mystically understood, because He was able to live, that is, to exist, without sin in the abyss of this mortality as in the depth of waters.

For the symbolic meaning of fishes and the "fish symbol", you could ask:

Why are fish in general a Christian symbol?
What is the historical significance/origin of the fish symbol called "ΙΧΘΥΣ"?
Why is the fish often used as a symbol of Christ?


1st: God and Sacrifice

God's opinion about human sacrifice.
A quick google search for references about Human sacrifice show this.
Deuteronomy 18:10, 2 Kings 21:6

Also sacrifice in general is 2nd to the heart condition to the sacrificer.  (Hosea 6:6, 1 Samuel 15:22)

2nd: Sovereign

I am a calvinist.  Since that is the case i believe in God's sovereign power over all principalities and powers.  So the reason for Israel's defeat was in His providence.  He also only gave the Moabites into the hands of the kings during the battle, i do not believe it specified city destruction.

3rd:  The Ark

In I Samuel it describes a story where the Ark of the LORD is brought into the camp of Israel.  The Israelites shout with confidence!  But the Philistines hear this and it actually encourages them to such a degree that they go and conquer Israel.  But the reasoning for the defeat was the 'Lucky rabbit's foot' instead of holy fear and honor of God, His law, and His Ark.

--- The reasoning ---
God did not honor the kings (read a few verses before) and they went to battle further than God's hand of providence allowed.  I believe He, God, used the sacrifice to encourage the enemy troops to drive Israel from the city they were attempting to capture.  I believe God just used it as a turning point (its an emotional experience.  Try to imagine seeing your king sacrifice his son, the one to take the place of him.  This would be fuel for the fire.  Even if it was demonic powered, it is still within God's providence).

Obviously i am just a laymen, so my answer is to evidently needs to be taken with a grain of salt.  Please feel free to critique.

Sorry if this was a runon.  I did this in a work meeting :)


No. Jesus may not be considered Adam re-incarnate.

Yet it's not hard to figure out where somebody might have gotten that idea. This is just a case of not understanding the terminology being used. Somebody got some of the words cross-wired¹ without understanding the concept.

In Christianity Jesus is known as the "Second Adam" or "Last Adam" but the naming has nothing to do with reincarnation! The title refers to a role rather than a personal ID. As far as personas go they are actually quite different. Adam was a man like you or me. He died and stayed dead. Jesus was God himself who had taken on human form. God and man at the same time.

Adam was given specific assignments, he had a role to play in the created order.

He failed it. Spectacularly.

  Romans 5:12 (ESV)
  12  Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

The "Second Adam" Jesus came to set right what he first Adam messed up.

  1 Corinthians 15:22 (ESV)
  22  For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

Jesus not only did what neither Adam nor of his descendants could do (live in perfect obedience to God) but by taking on himself Adam's guilt he also reversed the process Adam started and provided a way for those who had rebelled (Adam and all us after him) to be reconciled back to God.

  1 Corinthians 15:45 (ESV)
  45  Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

When Christians talk about a  "Second Adam" it is not a reincarnation being talked about, but this principle of reversing the curse brought by the "First Adam".

¹ This could be intentional or accidental. History is full of deliberate miss-understandings of Christianity (e.g. the accusation of cannibalism in reference to communion) but I suspect this is simply a case of lack of knowledge. Rather that actually researching what is properly meant by various expressions, it is a natural tendency to run with them out of context. This tendency can not only result in very bad doctrine, it is the source of most of the worlds conspiracy theories.


Can our own spiritual gifts be given to others?

1 Corinthians 12 indicates in a number of passages that the gifts can only be given according to God's will - and His only (I'll cite 3). There are some indications as well that not everyone will have one of these gifts.

Mormonism, as well as some Charismatics and WoF teachers (all based on my experience with both FLDS/LDS as well as frequent interaction with Charismatics/WoF), teaches these gifts can be imparted with the laying of hands or made manifest through baptism. Important to note, however, that a very large majority of these focus on the speaking of tongues, and (from a Linguists perspective) many do not.

1 Cor 12:11 (Concerning Spiritual Gifts)

  "All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually has He wills."

12:18

  "But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as He chose."

12:27-28

  Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.

The Apostles, yes, were given the gift to pass on the Spiritual Gifts - and this, too, was a Gift from the Lord Himself:

Acts 8 we see a man try to use money to pay the Apostles to lay there hands on him, to which Peter replies, in verse 20:

  But Peter said unto him, "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money."

We see, through Scripture, that the gifts can only be made manifest by God's will. The Apostles, under very special command (Jesus, the Lord in the flesh), were able to impart these gifts by laying their hands on people.


How do Methodists understand the Apostle's Creed?

The Phrase "Holy catholic Church" does not refer to the Roman Catholic church, but to the "universal church", i.e. all true Christians, whatever earthly religious organization they belong to. The word 'catholic' just means universal. That and the "Communion of Saints" refers to a belief in the essential unity of all true Christians, whatever disagreements they currently have.

Methodists, along with most Christians believe in a God who is a Trinity; three persons in one God: Father, Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is as much God as the Father or the Son, and is believed in just as much.

EDIT: The text you quote is only the last part of the Apostle's Creed, the whole of which also includes statements of belief in the Father and the Son. The full text can be found here, in several very-close versions. The Church of England Common Worship version is probably closest to what Methodists would accept.


From where does the teaching on women in ministry come?

This appears to be a Jewish tradition rather than any precept of God, since the only Biblical reference I can find is in Paul's letter to Timothy:

1st Timothy 2:11 through 15  KJV

  Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Since Paul was a well schooled Pharisee, this might be a hold over concept from those teachings. Before the time of Jesus the Sanhedrin had so polluted Judaism, that many of the stringent restrictions were the ideas included at the desire of Religious leadership.

Some Denominations today hold on to this concept because it was espoused by Paul.


Why do Syrian Orthodox churches use only paintings and not sculptures, unlike Catholic churches?

I am, in fact a Catholic. I was intrigued by your question and so I decided to do some religious research with my Catechism books. So according to the books: The first commandment forbids the making or the use of statures and pictures only when they promote false worship. An example of this would be using a medal, not to remind us of a saint (Such as St. Maximilian Kolbe) but simply as a good luck charm.  It is right to show respect to the statues and pictures of saints, just as we would show respect of those whom we honor or love on Earth. Just as long as we don't give them the honor that belongs to God alone.

Just in case you're interested in that book it's called The New Saint Joseph Baltimore Catechism


What is the meaning of God's omni-powers?

I'm sure there are other references, but for example:

Omnipresence: Psalm 139:7-12 describes God being everywhere.

Omnipotence: I can't think of a Bible verse that says, "God is omnipotent". But Deut 4:37 (and many similar verses) talk about God's "might power". Gen 17:1 and others refer to God as "Almighty". Job 11:7b "Can you find out the limits of the Almighty?"

Omnibenevolence: Luke 18:19 "So Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.'"

I can't think of a verse for omniscience off the top of my head.

Omniscience: OT reference Psalm 69:5 - if He knows all our sins, He knows it all
and NT reference 1st John 3:20 comes right out and says that "...God is greater than our heart, and knows all things."


Vatican I defined it.
A true pope (not an antipope or heretic claiming to be the pope), when speaking on a matter of faith or morals (not economics or science) when speaking to the universal Church (not a letter to a friend) is guided by the Holy Spirit.

when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,

in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,


Is there any account of a religious marriage ceremony in the scripture?

Some time back I dug into this subject of weddings in olden Biblical days, just out of curiosity . This is summary of sort of what I found.

Bible speaks of three "C" of weddings: Contract, Consummation, Celebration. These same things exist today in modern marriages but the order and timing of each stage is different. Ancient Jewish weddings never involved a wedding ceremony like we see today with the bride walking down the aisle to be married in the synagogue.

In fact the present day "wedding ceremony" is something that did not develop for hundreds of years after Jesus rose from the dead. Modern Jewish weddings are as removed and different from the ancient Jewish marriage culture of the first century as Christian weddings are.

There were three states of a marriage in the Bible:

Stage 1: Signing the "ketubbah" contract (Creating the marriage bond)

The bride would chose her husband and her father would sign a legal contract with him called a "ketubbah".
Once this is signed the couple is 100% married but do not have sex yet.
Young children were often married, (arranged marriage) but did not consummate until of age.

Stage 2: The "chuppah": sexual consummation.

Up to 7 years later, the groom is able to raise the money as set out in the ketubbah contract and notifies the father of the bride, who then sets a date to consummate the marriage at the bride's home.
The bride waits with her maidens, for the arrival of the groom and his companions.
The couple enters the chuppah room and consummates the marriage while the companions of the bride and groom wait and celebrate outside or in the next room.
The groom hands the bloodied "proof of virginity cloth" to the witnesses chosen by the bride's parents, who then give it to the bride for safekeeping.

Stage 3: The wedding feast

After consummation, the entire wedding party walks to the house of the groom in a procession for a wedding feast.
At the conclusion of the wedding feast, the couple has completed the ancient ritual of marriage.

There was no "wedding ceremony" in the synagogue in  the first century, performed under a canopy where the bride and groom would hold hands and say, "I do" before an audience of friends and family. This didn’t develop for hundreds of years after Jesus died on the cross as the Passover lamb for the sins of mankind.

A few examples from OT:

The three stages of Isaac's marriage to Rebekah: Gen 24.

Contract (stage 1): Gen 24:33, Gen 24:51-53, Gen 24:57-58. An offer of marriage is proposed. The offer is accepted and Rebekah is married by contract. Gifts and money are given both to the bride and the parents of the bride. Notice that Rebekah was asked if she consented to the marriage.

Consummation (stage 2): Gen 24:64-67. Rebekah and Isaac go to the tent.

Celebration (stage 3): No mention of wedding feast, but one likely happened.

The three stages of Jacob's marriage to Leah: Gen 29.

Contract (stage 1): Gen 29:15-20. Jacob contracts to work for 7 in advance before he gets the girl.

Consummation (stage 2): Gen 29:21-26. Jacob pays the dowry price of 7 years and takes Leah into the tent.

Celebration (stage 3): Gen 29:27-28. He completed the 7 day wedding feast with Leah.

The three stages of Jacob's marriage to Rachel: Gen 29.

Contract (stage 1): Gen 29:27. Jacob contracts to work for 7 MORE years but gets to consummate the wedding at the before he pays the full dowry.

Consummation (stage 2): Gen 29:30. He took Leah into the tent at the beginning of the 7 day feast, then at the end of the 7 day feast he took Rachel into the tent.

Celebration (stage 3): Gen 29:27-28. The 7 day wedding feast was for both girls.

In Ten Commandment, God makes us aware that the adultery and fortification are something against God. This is the testimony by itself that all these three stages of wedding culminating into a marriage was according to God’s requirement. Otherwise there could be no meaning attached to the words adultery and fornication in the Law.


The article states that Christianity itself, particularly as it originally existed in the days of the early Church, meets the definition of a mystery religion, and that this was noted and remarked upon by one of the great early apologists, Justin Martyr.  And if the definition is that "participation is reserved to initiates," then Judaism meets the definition as well: Gentiles who had not converted could not take part in many of its sacred rituals, particularly ones that involved the Temple.  The Temple had an outer area known as the court of the Gentiles where outsiders could come, but beyond that, they were not welcome.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints claims to be the restoration of original Christianity, so it's not surprising to see such features as part of its theology.  Participation in sacred temple ordinances is "reserved to initiates," as the article describes it, and certain matters regarding temple ceremonies are not to be discussed outside of the temple.

However, there is an important distinction to understand:  to Latter-Day Saints, these matters are not secret; they are sacred.  I explained the difference in this question: the value of a secret is in exclusivity, whereas Latter-Day Saints actively invite and work to persuade all to come to the temple, but only once certain standards of preparedness, understanding, and spiritual maturity have been met.


What denominations obligate daily Bible reading and prayer?

Disclaimer: I am unsure whether this answer fits your intended meaning of "mandatory" or "obligatory".

LDS members are taught they should have daily scripture study and prayer. In fact, in the handbook for missionaries, "Preach my gospel", scripture study and prayer are listed in the chapter about commandments, to be taught to potential converts before their baptism [citation needed]. This normally means they will also invite people to commit themselves to have regular scripture study and prayer.

Our leaders, who we believe to be apostles of the same authority as the ancient ones, frequently tell us the same thing. This goes so far to specifically say we should make a habit of praying in the morning when we get up and in the evening before we go to bed [citation needed].

In D&C 20:47, when talking about the duties of a priest, the priesthood holders are explicitely told to make sure the families pray both openly (family prayer) and in secret (personal prayer).

So, we definitely think of regular prayer and scripture study as divine commandments.

Of course the reason why we need to be told these things so often is that many struggle throughout their lives to make such habits. There are no measures the church takes against people who neglect these things. A big part of the personal spiritual life, however, certainly lives off these things.


What is the basis of the LDS (Mormon) belief that the Apostle John never died?

There's an interesting passage towards the end of the Gospel of John, after Jesus's resurrection:

  John 21:21-23

  21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

  22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is
  that to thee? follow thou me.

  23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple
  should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If
  I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

Here, John seems to be saying "no comment" on a certain rumor that had gone around in the church, leaving it deliberately ambiguous.  The Book of Mormon actually gives an authoritative answer to the question, and this is where the LDS belief comes from.

From 3 Nephi 28:

  1 And it came to pass when Jesus had said these words, he spake unto
  his disciples, one by one, saying unto them: What is it that ye desire
  of me, after that I am gone to the Father?

  2 And they all spake, save it were three, saying: We desire that
  after we have lived unto the age of man, that our ministry, wherein
  thou hast called us, may have an end, that we may speedily come unto
  thee in thy kingdom.

  3 And he said unto them: Blessed are ye because ye desired this thing
  of me; therefore, after that ye are seventy and two years old ye shall
  come unto me in my kingdom; and with me ye shall find rest.

  4 And when he had spoken unto them, he turned himself unto the three,
  and said unto them: What will ye that I should do unto you, when I am
  gone unto the Father?

  5 And they sorrowed in their hearts, for they durst not speak unto
  him the thing which they desired.

  6 And he said unto them: Behold, I know your thoughts, and ye have
  desired the thing which John, my beloved, who was with me in my
  ministry, before that I was lifted up by the Jews, desired of me.

  7 Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death;
  but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the
  children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to
  the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers
  of heaven.

  8 And ye shall never endure the pains of death; but when I shall come
  in my glory ye shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye from
  mortality to immortality; and then shall ye be blessed in the kingdom
  of my Father.


What's the source of the "new world religion" memorandum signed in Strasbourg?

The document in the question is what is referred to in Wikipedia as 'complete bollocks', i.e. something so far detached from reality as to defy detailed refutation. The claims made in it are completely false.

For a look at reality, you can follow this link to a description of the real Eighth Pan-Orthodox Council, (which happened in Greece, not Strasbourg) and from there read the official documents in several languages.

Apart from the ridiculousness of some of the claims (such as the abolition of all national holidays, the involvement of the Pope and the EU) many of them were claimed to start in September 2016. This has not happened.


Sexual relations between close relatives was indeed permitted1 until the time of The Law, given through Moses. You can read about it in detail in Leviticus 18 but it is summarised in verse 6:

  No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.

Why was it forbidden? Possibly because of genetic problems that occur in offspring of close relations, though that is speculation - that chapter does not give any general reason.

1 As an example, Abraham was married to Sarah, his half-sister.

See also:

Was the marriage between Abraham and Sarah incestuous?
Did Adam and Eve's Progeny Commit Incest?


Famous theologians or saints who held that there were no valid Popes during the Great Western Schism?

According to William Morgan in "The Great Schism of the West and the Catholic Church Today," St. Vincent Ferrer did not recognize any of the claimants towards the end of the schism (source):

  Disaster struck for Papa de Luna when his most important supporter, St Vincent Ferrer, decided that he was pertinaciously dividing the Church, and so was a schismatic and no longer Pope. The miracle working Dominican saint never recognised the Urbanist claimants. Rather was he now a sedevacantist, looking to the General Council to resolve the Schism.


What does modern scholarship conclude about the shape of the cross and the method of crucifixion?

The Alexamenos Graffito - "Alexamenos worships his god".

Someone decided to mock Alexamenos with some graffiti at the Palatine Hill.  Christians, especially in the first and second centuries, were accused of worshipping a donkey, which is called "Onolatry".  Tertullian writes about this with reference to Christians.  Google "onolatry" and "Tertullian" to see what you get.  The point is, this picture is clearly intended to represent someone with a donkey's head being crucified with arms outstretched.  It is intended as an insulting parody of our Lord Jesus Christ.

  And set up over his head his accusation written THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.  (Matthew 27:37).

As David Reid amongst others has pointed out, if it had been a stake then the inscription would have been put "above his hands" and not "above his head".

Again David Reid says that usually JWs portray a single nail going through both hands. But we read in John's Gospel that Thomas said:

  Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails (John 20:25).

So there couldn't have been a single nail going through both hands.


When was the OT canon as used by Protestants finalized?

According to Talmud, the Tanakh canon (Protestant OT) was compiled in 450 BC, but modern scholars describe the development of the canon as a process occurring between 200 BC to 200 AD. First the Torah, then the Nevi'im, and then the latest is the Ketuvim.


What is the origin of the story of the Apostle John surviving being dipped in boiling oil?

The earliest extant reference to John being thrown in boiling oil from Tertullian, c. 200.  His casual mention of the event suggests that it was a widely known story during his day, although it is hard to say by what amount of time the story predates Tertullian.

If the story has any basis in fact, it is usually assumed to have taken place late in the reign of Domitian (81-96).  The only book of the New Testament that directly covers church history, The Acts of the Apostles, ends in about 61.  Assuming Johannine authorship of I John, II John, and III John, all three would predate the boiling incident.  The remaining Johannine literature - Gospel of John and Revelation - would not be expected to mention it either. Thus, we would not expect the story to be mentioned in the Bible, even if it is true.


"From a Fundamentalist Church standpoint, what is its equivalent of a catechumen?" In my experience in several Protestant churches, Sunday School is the place of catechumen for young ones. The parents drop off their children in age-appropriate classrooms and the children are taught Bible stories/lessons by teachers from a church-approved lesson plan.

The plan may include any mixture of Bible stories, memorization of verses, Q&A, singing, puppets, dress-up, skits and other lively interactions, all to help bring the Bible stories to life and help the children see the lesson is for them.

This takes place as the parents are edified by the pastor in the main sanctuary.


Did Jesus actually ever say "if you don't believe in me you will go to hell"?

Did Jesus actually ever say if you don't believe in me you go to Hell?

Yes, He did say this directly, without mincing words.  Bolded in the passage below.

  John, Chapter 3 (KJV)

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

  17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but
  that the world through him might be saved.

  18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth
  not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of
  the only begotten Son of God.

  19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world,
  and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were
  evil.

  20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to
  the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

  21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Note that it doesn't say "the punishment for not believing in me is an eternity in Hell.".  It says that everyone is condemned already, and that only through faith in Him can we escape. It's a subtle, but doctrinally important difference.


Why do some Christians (Coptic orthodox and catholic) kiss the priest's hand?

In Western Catholicism it is usually connected to the anointing of a newly ordained priest's hands with the Sacred Chrism. His hands have been set aside for God to do the Lord's work, and so some people (particularly in more traditional circles) kiss the hand. This is especially common with newly ordained priests, but also happens with priests in general sometimes.