How do Protestants interpret Malachi 1:11 and Isaiah 66:20-21?

Unlike in Catholicism, there is no unified and singular Protestant body of doctrine, so a “Protestant answer” to your question cannot be given. I can, however, provide an answer given by the popular Protestant theologian, scholar, and commentator Matthew Henry who in his commentary of Malachi 1, says:

  In these verses, they are charged with ingratitude, in that they were not duly sensible of God’s distinguishing goodness to them; and such a charge as this may well be called a burden, for it is a heavy one. God asserts the great kindness he had, and had often expressed, for them (Mal. 1:2): I have loved you, saith the Lord. Thus abruptly does the sermon begin, as if God intended, whatever reproofs should be given them, to reconcile them to his love, and to take care that they should still have good thoughts of him. As many as I love I rebuke and chasten. Thus kindly does the sermon begin. God will have his people satisfied that he loves them and is ever mindful of his love.

Malachi prophesied to the Priests of Israel. The priesthood of the Levites is important; it is a type that precedes the priesthood of the Church in Messiah, the priestly nation. Where the priesthood of the Levites was from patronage and has ended, the priesthood of the Church is from God and lasts forever. As in all things, the priesthood according to the law has passed away, and the priesthood that comes by faith endures, in the same way that Messiah is not a priest in the order of Levi, as he is not a descendant of Levi but of Judah and indeed a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. The Lord was rebuking the priests for the disdain with which they carried out their duties that God gave them as a blessing to them; it was their allotted inheritance.

  They question his love, and diminish the instances of it, and seem to quarrel with him for telling them of it: Yet you say, Wherein hast thou loved us? As God traces up all his favours to them to the fountain, which was his love, so he traces up all their sins against him to the fountain, which was their contempt of his love. Instead of acknowledging his kindness, and studying what they shall render, they scorn to own that they have been beholden to him, challenge him to produce proofs of his love that are material, and think and speak very slightly of the instances they have had of his kindness, as if they were so few, so small, as not to be worth taking notice of, and no more than what they had sufficiently made returns for, or at least than he had sufficiently balanced with instances of his wrath.

Henry continues to make his point, which is what I believe you are after here:

  He declares his resolution both to secure the glory of his own name and to reckon with those who profane it. Those who put contempt upon God and religion, and think to run down sacred things, let them know that they shall not gain their point. God will magnify his law and make it honourable, though they [the priests to whom Malachi prophesies] vilify it and make it contemptible; for (Mal. 1:11) from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles.

And so The Lord in this prophecy contrasts the contentious priests who are sons of Abraham with the Church, that is the Church of Messiah that is later to come, who are not even sons of Abraham by birth and will yet honor him in the way the he desires. This is how the prophecy is fulfilled in Christ. Malachi is saying to the Levitical priests who will not carry out their allotted inheritance that the Church of Messiah, made up of all the nations, will be faithful in theirs.


Why do Daily Office readings in the BCP 1928 sometimes repeat?

I'm not a scholar of liturgical history, but the lectionary for Sunday's readings and weekday readings have followed separate cycles probably since 1561.  Additionally, both cycles lean towards giving readings appropriate to the season.  As a result things get repeated for the benefit of those who normally only show up on Sundays.

If you want to learn more, I recommend checking out haligweorc a blog by Derek Olson who really is a scholar of liturgical history among other things.


Was removing one's shoes a special sign of respect?

Regarding the importance of shoes:

Taking off your shoe and giving it to someone was a sign of redeeming and changing in the ancient world.

You can find more in

Ruth 4:7 KJV

  Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming
  and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off
  his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour: and this was a testimony in
  Israel.

Regarding being barefoot:

Being barefoot actually had a lot of different meaning in ancient times.

As a sign of mourning:

2 Samuel 15:30 KJV

  And David went up by the ascent of mount Olivet, and wept as he went
  up , and had his head covered, and he went barefoot: and all the
  people that was with him covered every man his head, and they went up,
  weeping as they went up .

As a sign of humility:

Isaiah 20 KJV

  In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of
  Assyria sent him,) and fought against Ashdod, and took it; At the same time spake the Lord by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go
  and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from
  thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot.And the Lord said,
  Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years
  for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia; So shall the king
  of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians
  captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks
  uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.  And they shall be afraid and
  ashamed of Ethiopia their expectation, and of Egypt their glory.  And
  the inhabitant of this isle shall say in that day, Behold, such is our
  expectation, whither we flee for help to be delivered from the king of
  Assyria: and how shall we escape?

Please consider reading this regarding The Role of the Shoe in the Bible.


In view of Mark 9:1 why say the kingdom of God will come at Jesus' second coming?

To understand this verse you must have a clear understanding of what "The Kingdom of God" actually is.  A King's kingdom is where he is obeyed completely.  His rule and reign are complete.  So when Jesus uses this term it can easily be misinterpreted to mean a coming "thing" or heaven or some other such distant and more nebulous unexplained item.

The more scripturally congruent interpretation is the one above.  Using those terms it is easy to see in Matthew 6:10

  Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

or in Matthew 6:33
But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

Here in Matthew 7:21

  Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of
  heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

shows that entering the kingdom of God is not possible without repentance, which is also congruent with Luke 13:3 and 13:5

  No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.

In Matthew 13:45-46 there is further congruence

  Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine
  pearls, who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all
  that he had and bought it.

Clear after you apply the correct logical premise by comparing it to related passages in scripture.


Has there ever been an exorcism conducted by the Mormon Church?

Exorcisms aren't recorded in the LDS Church, in fact the ordinance itself isn't even documented, it's known unofficially as one of the, "Unwritten Ordinances" of the church, along with dusting your feet (see Matt 10:14) and other similar ordinances.

There are many stories which exist as Mormon urban legends, mostly involving missionaries serving in highly superstitious societies. I heard many serving as a missionary, one particularly prominent tale is of a, "haunted house" somewhere in South America, the juste of the story is there were many evil spirits dwelling in a single residence, and when the Elders commanded them to leave there was audible screaming and all the windows and doors in the house opened and slammed shut.

I myself was called to the homes of a couple families of ethnic origin (Haitian and Puerto Rican) because of paranormal activity. One was on account of a sighting of an evil spirit flying around in a kitchen, sticking it's tongue out at people, the other was to the home of a woman who was acting... not like herself/possessed. Both were very unsettling experiences, but neither resulted in casting out devils, though the thought had crossed my mind, instead we offered a blessing on the homes, which seemed to suffice in both instances.

The only officially documented instance of an exorcism is found in, History of the Church Volume 1:82-83, and is recorded because it was the first miracle performed in the restored church (read The Knight Family: Ever Faithful to the Prophet). The account goes like this:

  April 1830 In the month of April, 1830, Joseph Smith was visiting at
  the house of a Mr. Joseph Knight, at Colesville, Broome County, New
  York. This gentleman had rendered the prophet some timely assistance
  while translating the Book of Mormon, and he was anxious that Mr.
  Knight and his family should receive the truth. While in Mr. Knight's
  neighborhood the prophet held a number of meetings. Among those who
  attended regularly was Newel Knight, son of Joseph Knight. He and the
  prophet had many serious conversations on the subject of man's
  salvation. In the meetings held the people prayed much, and in one of
  the aforesaid conversations with the prophet, Newel Knight promised
  that he would pray publicly. When the time came, however, his heart
  failed him, and he refused, saying that he would wait until he got
  into the woods by himself. The next morning when he attempted to pray
  in the woods, he was over-whelmed with a sense of having neglected his
  duty the evening before, in not praying in the presence of others. He
  began to feel uneasy and continued to grow worse both in body and
  mind, until upon reaching home his appearance was such as to alarm his
  wife. He sent for the prophet, who, when he came found Newel in a sad
  condition and suffering greatly. His visage and limbs were distorted
  and twisted in every shape imaginable. At last he was caught up off
  the floor and tossed about most fearfully. The neighbors hearing of
  his condition came running in. After he had suffered for a time the
  prophet succeeded in getting him by the hand, when Newel immediately
  spoke to him, saying he knew he was possessed of the devil, and that
  the prophet had power to cast him out. "If you know I can, it shall
  be, done," replied the prophet; and then almost unconsciously he
  rebuked Satan and commanded him to depart from the man. Immediately
  Newel's contortions stopped, and he spoke out and said he saw the
  devil leave him and vanish from sight. (Joseph Smith Healings/Miracles)

The rest are kept secret, as are most miracles performed under the authority of the Priesthood.

  36 And he charged them that they should tell no man... (Mark 7:36)


According to Roman Catholic doctrine, does the incorruptible body possess blood?

The issue is the use of the words substance and substantial, and applying a modern meaning to them.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, following the doctrine expounded at the Council of Trent, says

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206

But just because the "substance" of the bread is changed into the "substance" of the Body, and the "substance" of the wine is changed into the "substance" of the Blood, it doesn't mean that the species of the bread has changed.
St Cyril of Jerusalem (313–386) wrote in his Catecheses, quoted by Pope Paul VI in Mysterium Fidei:

Instructed as you are in these matters, and filled with an unshakeable faith that what seems to be bread is not bread — though it tastes like it — but rather the Body of Christ; and that what seems to be wine is not wine — even though it too tastes like it — but rather the Blood of Christ … draw strength from receiving this bread as spiritual food and your soul will rejoice.
Catecheses, 22.9 [myst. 4] PG 33.1103

All the documents of the Church are written in Latin and then translated into other languages. In recent years, there has been a tendency to use Latinate words in English which are cognate with the original Latin text, even though their meaning has shifted since they were originally adopted in English. This particularly afflicts substance which came to English from Norman French, where it had already acquired a different nuance of meaning from Classical Latin. OED has, in its etymology:

physical existence, matter, (in theology) essence (all late 12th cent.)
classical Latin substantia ... underlying or essential nature ...

By the late twelfth century, substance had a meaning very close to its modern English meaning. But the Latin substantia, which is translated as substance, means something different. Thus it's wrong to impute a physicality of flesh to the bread, or of blood to the wine. But even though the bread remains in its species of bread, it nevertheless becomes, in its underlying or essential nature, the Body of Christ (perhaps it might even be said to have two natures in much the same way as Jesus himself had two natures in hypostatic union). The Church teaches transubstantiation; it does not teach transpeciation, where bread is changed into meat.
It is in this way that

The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.207
CCC 1377

The Eucharistic presence of Christ is not derived from his glorious body (which may or may not have blood): it's derived from his earthly body, which definitely was flesh and blood.

CCC 1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different."190

It is Christ's offering of his earthly self on the Cross which is united with the offering on the altar.
Now, this may not actually answer the question "Does the incorruptible body possess blood?" but that's because it answers the secondary question "How can Roman Catholics drink Jesus' blood in the Eucharist?" The Eucharist does not depend on the nature of the incorruptible body.

190 Council of Trent (1562) Doctrina de ss. Missae sacrificio, c. 2: DS 1743; cf. Heb 9:14,27.
206 Council of Trent (1551): DS 1642; cf. Mt 26:26 ff.; Mk 14:22 ff.; Lk 22:19 ff.; 1 Cor 11:24 ff.
207 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1641.


It seems that the Catholic Answers website misattributed the quote to Pope Clement I.
The quote appears in Chapter 11 of the Epistle to Diognetus (AD 80-130), which can be read at the New Advent website: The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus.
The entirety of Chapter 11 with your quote highlighted:

I do not speak of things strange to me, nor do I aim at anything inconsistent with right reason; but having been a disciple of the Apostles, I have become a teacher of the Gentiles. I minister the things delivered to me to those that are disciples worthy of the truth. For who that is rightly taught and begotten by the loving Word, would not seek to learn accurately the things which have been clearly shown by the Word to His disciples, to whom the Word being manifested has revealed them, speaking plainly [to them], not understood indeed by the unbelieving, but conversing with the disciples, who, being esteemed faithful by Him, acquired a knowledge of the mysteries of the Father? For which reason He sent the Word, that He might be manifested to the world; and He, being despised by the people [of the Jews], was, when preached by the Apostles, believed on by the Gentiles. This is He who was from the beginning, who appeared as if new, and was found old, and yet who is ever born afresh in the hearts of the saints. This is He who, being from everlasting, is today called the Son; through whom the Church is enriched, and grace, widely spread, increases in the saints, furnishing understanding, revealing mysteries, announcing times, rejoicing over the faithful, giving to those that seek, by whom the limits of faith are not broken through, nor the boundaries set by the fathers passed over. Then the fear of the law is chanted, and the grace of the prophets is known, and the faith of the gospels is established, and the tradition of the Apostles is preserved, and the grace of the Church exults; which grace if you grieve not, you shall know those things which the Word teaches, by whom He wills, and when He pleases. For whatever things we are moved to utter by the will of the Word commanding us, we communicate to you with pains, and from a love of the things that have been revealed to us.

Other quotes concerning the Word of God in the Early Church Fathers period can be found at the Christian History for Everyman website.


Do heterodox have a guardian angel as well? (Eastern Orthodox perspective)

Of course.  God does not have one oekonomia for Orthodox Christians and another for non-Orthodox.

The Orthodox doctrine of guardian angels is witnessed in the Old Testament as well as in the teachings of Jesus, both of which precede the foundation of the Christian Church.  The Psalms witness:

  He shall give his angels charge over thee, to guard thee in all thy ways  (Psalm 90:11 LXX; Q. 105, The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Philaret).

Christ taught that each one of us has a guardian angel:

  Take heed that ye not despise not one of these little ones: for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of My Father, Who is in heaven (Matthew 18:10; Q. 106, The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox Church).

The latter passage was spoken in regard to unbaptized Jewish children.

Regarding the applicability of Met. Philaret's catechism, he states that his catechism is addressed to "every Christian", not just Orthodox Christians (Question 1).  Question 106 (and answer reads):  "Has each one of us his guardian angels?  Without doubt.  Of this ye may be assured from the following words of Jesus Christ ..."

Furthermore, the more recent Orthodox Dogmatic Theology of Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky states (p.123):

  The Orthodox Church believes that every man has his own guardian
  angel, if he has not put him away from himself by an impious life.

It was brought to my attention that a particular Russian Orthodox priest published on his website an explanation:

  In the prayers for the making of a catechumen, we pray “Yoke unto
  his/her life a radiant angel…” From this point onwards, we certainly
  have a guardian angel who protects us in ways we cannot fully
  understand.

which leaves the impression that there is some Orthodox teaching that one only receives a guardian angel if one enters the Orthodox Church.

The statement is correct in explaining that our guardian angel protects us in ways we cannot fully understand upon entering the Church (although technically, catechumens are still "outside" the Church), but the priest would not have meant that one doesn't even receive a guardian angel until that point.  There is a belief, however, that once one is joined to the Church, spiritual things change in many respects.  Another Orthodox theologian, Dumitru Staniloae, writes:

  In the Church, a communion is brought about not only among her visible
  members, but with the angels as well.  The *sobornicity** of the
  Church takes in the angels too.

(* Sobornost is a slavic term meaning something like "spiritual community").

Evagrios the Monk wrote, as Fr. Dumitru quotes, "Know that the holy angels encourage us to pray and stand beside us, rejoicing and praying for us" ("On Prayer", The Philokalia, Vol. 1, p.65); and "If you pray truly, you will gain assurance; angels will come to you as they came to Daniel, and they will illuminate you with knowledge of the inner essences of created things" (Ibid.).


What is the purpose of degrees in the Knights of Columbus?

To teach Catholic gentlemen to be true Catholics, loyal to the Holy Father, the Magisterium of the Church and to aid fellow Catholics in diverse situations, such as widows. Things that Knights of old would look upon as an honour to fulfill.

The degrees taken emulate these facts, in their ceremonies (which the formalities are not publicly known so as to make the new recipients learn the Gospel message in a very unique manner).

The Knights in their degrees learn charity, unity, fraternity and patriotism!

  Types of Membership

  Knights

  New candidates begin their journey to Knighthood by completing the First Degree ceremony where they learn the lesson of charity. Following the First Degree ceremony, a candidate is considered a Knight of Columbus and can participate in all council activities. First Degree members are encouraged to attain the Second and Third Degrees, which teach the lessons of unity and fraternity. Upon taking the Third Degree, a member receives full honors of Knighthood and is “Knighted.”

  Privileges of Third Degree membership include the ability to serve as a local council officer, and admission to state and Supreme Council business meetings. First and Second Degree members can attend the state and Supreme Council meetings, but they are not allowed in the business sessions.

  Members who have been in the Knights for one year and have attained Third Degree membership are eligible to join the Fourth Degree Knights.

  Fourth Degree Knights

  On February 22, 1900, the first Fourth Degree exemplification or degree ceremony was held in New York City. The Fourth Degree imparts a lesson on the virtue of patriotism. The primary purpose of this degree is to foster the spirit of patriotism in members and the community at large and encourage active Catholic citizenship. Today there are some 300,000 Fourth Degree Knights out of the total 1.6 million member Knights of Columbus.

  Local units, called assemblies, draw their members from Knights of Columbus councils. The qualifications for membership in the Fourth Degree are: membership in the Knights for at least one year and being a Third Degree Knight.

  A Fourth Degree Knight may become part of the assembly’s color corps. These members are recognized widely by their distinctive attire of tuxedo, feathered hat (chapeau), cape and sword. These members regularly take part in civic events such as parades and wreath-laying ceremonies, and at ecclesial functions at Catholic churches. The various colored capes and chapeau feathers denote different officer positions within the Fourth Degree.

Wikipedia explains it as follows:

  The order is dedicated to the principles (Degrees) of charity, unity, fraternity, and patriotism. The first ritual handbook, printed in 1885, contained only the first two Degrees teaching unity and charity. The third Degree, espousing fraternity, was adopted in 1891.

  The Fourth Degree, which is dedicated to patriotism, was adopted in 1903. Members of the Fourth Degree join assemblies which are separate from ordinary councils. Assemblies may form color guards, which are often the most visible arm of the Knights, to attend important civic and church events.

A longstanding tradition is coming to an end on July 1 as the Knights of Columbus discard the ceremonial capes and plumed chapeaus of its Fourth Degree members.

  Purpose of the Colour Corps

  When knighthood was in flower, knights carried the sword to defend their God, their Church, their country and their fellow man according to the code of chivalry. Today, Sir Knights wear regalia and carry the sword to honor Christ and His apostles, especially on religious and civic occasions specified in this manual. Hence, the primary purpose of the Fourth Degree is to encourage active Catholic citizenship and foster the spirit of patriotism in members and the community at large.

  The Color Corps members exemplify all the principles of our Order:

  Charity - by the gift of their time and energies necessary to practice, perfect and perform the ceremonials and sword drill;
  Unity – by the united efforts of Sir Knights to practice and perfect a coordinated drill for the good of the Church and the Order;
  Fraternity – by expressing an “Esprit de Corps,” sharing a common desire for drill excellence and camaraderie; and
  Patriotism – by performing precision drill as a salute to God and to country and visually exhibiting a love for both.

  The public appearance of Fourth Degree Knights as a Color Corps at religious and civic functions is an important activity of each assembly.  By these public demonstrations, their loyalty and patriotism bring credit to themselves and to the Knights of Columbus. - The Colour Corps of the Patriotic Degree


Why John the Baptist did not follow Jesus?

You ask preferably from a Catholic perspective.  Sorry I cannot meet your preference, I am (Reformed) Baptist.
John the Baptist had a very important Commission from God, so important it was prophecied at least 400 years earlier in the Old Testament (Malachi 3:1 & 4:5-6). And the Father did not want him to leave his task, and neither did our Lord Jesus.
Jesus humbly allowed John's ministry to come to an end before taking up the same message as John (cf Matt 4:17 with Matt 3:2).  In waiting for the end of John's ministry Jesus did not try to out-shine John or compete against him; and in taking up the same message after the end of John's ministry Jesus endorsed John.
He praised John in Matt 11:1-19 despite John's uncertainty (Matt 11:3) which probably arose because John did not observe Christ's ministry.  God did not call John to observe Christ's ministry, but called him to fulfil his own.
Though the religious leaders & pharisees rejected John, very many of the common people believed he was from God (Luke 20:4-6).
It was doubtless easier for them to believe that John was a prophet of God than that Jesus was the Messiah. John was the sort of man who they recognised as being a man of God, and "Old Testament religious", being ascetic, similar in lifestyle and clothing to Elijah.
And the people had wrong views of what the Messiah would be like - expecting a military ruler (another like King David) to deliver them from the Romans and conquer the Gentiles.
Jesus, on the contrary, was meek, a "glutton" and a wine-drinker, and a friend of tax collectors (who were working for the Romans) & sinners (Matthew 11:19). Probably, none of these were recognised by the people as the kind of attributes the Messiah would have.
So those who heard John's endorsment of Jesus were helped to believe in Jesus, (& Jesus's endorsment of John also helped the people to be more positive about Jesus (Luke7:29,30)).
Another evidence of John's great influence on the common people can be seen in Josephus's history "Antiquities 18.5.2" which was published about 93 AD :-

But some of the Jews believed that Herod’s [Herod Antipas] army was destroyed by God, God punishing him very justly for John called the Baptist, whom Herod had put to death. For John was a pious man, and he was bidding the Jews who practiced virtue and exercised righteousness toward each other and piety toward God, to come together for baptism.

For thus, it seemed to him, would baptismal ablution be acceptable, if it were not used to beg off from sins committed, but for the purification of the body when the soul had previously been cleansed by righteous conduct. And when everybody turned to John—for they were profoundly stirred by what he said—Herod feared that John’s so extensive influence over the people might lead to an uprising (for the people seemed likely to do everything he might counsel). He thought it much better, under the circumstances, to get John out of the way in advance, before any insurrection might develop, than for himself to get into trouble and be sorry not to have acted, once an insurrection had begun. So because of Herod’s suspicion, John was sent as a prisoner to Machaerus, the fortress already mentioned, and there put to death. But the Jews believed that the destruction which overtook the army came as a punishment for Herod, God wishing to do him harm.

"The testimony of Josephus reminds us that the memory of John lasted a long time after his death."

( See https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/john-the-baptist )
John must have been famous and must have had a very big influence upon the people for this to be written more than sixty years after his death.
The ministry of John the Baptist was rejected by the Pharisees and religious leaders who of course also rejected Christ. This proves that their rejection of Jesus was inexcusible.  Their rejection was not because they had trivial prejudices concerning the style of Christ's ministry, they didn't reject him because they couldn't see how his non-ascetic ways could be of God: they rejected him because they didn't want God.  This is proven because the one who was ascetic they also rejected (Luke 7:28-35).


What does the Bible verse saying "don't boil a goat in its mother's milk" mean?

One of several Jewish interpretations of this verse may be found here: http://thetorah.com/meat-and-milk-origins-in-the-text/

The one that appeals to me is that it was misinterpreted and originally meant that you should not wait until a young goat has been weaned before bringing it for sacrifice of first fruits.

Another idea with no evidential support is that it is forbidding a pagan practice common at that time.


What evidence is there to suggest that denominations have different epistemological preferences?

This is a good question.  It is commonly understood that different denominations exist because of different beliefs, but in fact I think the asker alludes to something more accurate: each denomination doesn't merely have a different set of belief, but a different emphasis on which epistemological area is of greatest importance.  I think there is merit in this idea.

The evidence is disappearing with time as more denominations have embrace the idea that faith in Christ, as evidenced by a Christ-centered life, is the most important area of belief (enough that for many and ever more pastors differences in other areas of belief are relatively of little consequence).

So if you want to look at  different epistemological preferences (as opposed to different beliefs) I think you have to go back and look at the origin of each denomination.  When Martin Luther nailed the 95 theses to the door of his local church the main contention was that men didn't need other "God-ordained" men to be saved.  From that "saved by Grace lest any man boast" became their clarion call.  This belief was adopted by most Protestants but with each reformation into another faith you will find there was in general an emphasis on a certain doctrine above all others with which they contended most fervently.


What is the difference between God and the Spirit of God?  What is the difference between Christ and the Spirit of Christ? What is the difference between the Father and the Son?
We could go on and on.  If we understood this perfectly, we would be God and that is untrue so we can never understand this question finally.
The church fathers simply asserted (in their desperation to say something) that all three are of the same substance but different in function.  I am unaware of any better (although hopelessly inadequate) statement.
The Bible is far more interested in explaining the Character of God as loving, kind, gracious but just (and our need to emulate that Character).  It makes almost no attempt to explain the substance and makeup of God but simply asserts God's existence: "In the beginning God ..." Gen 1:1.
The closest the Bible comes to explaining anything about God is "God is Spirit"; but in reality, that tells us very little.


When will be the end of the Catholic Church on earth by definition?

The papacy will last until the end of the world, as the First Vatican Council said in Pastor Æternus (July 18, 1870), ch. II, "On the Perpetuity of the Primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman Pontiffs":

  That which the Prince of Shepherds and great Shepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ our Lord, established in the person of the blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution, necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church; which, being founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the world.

If the papacy "will stand firm to the end of the world," so will Church Militant (the Church on earth), as the papacy without the Church would be an absurdity.

Perhaps a more interesting question would be: "Will there be a pope at the time of the end of the world?" I believe this is still an open question.


Yes
The word conscience comes from the Latin conscire, a compound of con (with) and
scire (to know), meaning “to know together with,” “joint knowledge with another.”
Your conscience is your ability to know right and wrong in connection with the laws of God that have been written upon your heart at your new birth of the Holy Spirit. Heb. 8:10-11
Your conscience is the result of God's breath and life within you.

Genesis 2:7 (NIV)
7 Then the LORD God formed a man[a] from the dust of the ground and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a
living being.
Job 32:8 (NIV)
8 But it is the spirit in a person,     the breath of the Almighty,
that gives them understanding.
Proverbs 20:27  (NIV)
27 The human spirit is the lamp of the LORD     that sheds light on
one’s inmost being.

The prophets relied on their consciences

Romans 2:14-15  (NIV)
14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature
things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though
they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the
law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing
witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times
even defending them.)
Romans 9:1 NIV
I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it
through the Holy Spirit—
2 Corinthians 1:12
Now this is our boast: Our conscience testifies that we have conducted
ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, with
integrity and godly sincerity. We have done so, relying not on worldly
wisdom but on God’s grace.

Weak consciences
Your conscience can become weak and defiled if you do not keep it clean.

1 Corinthians 8:7
But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so
accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of
it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is
weak, it is defiled.
Titus 1:15
To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and
do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and
consciences are corrupted.

Here's a great article if you want to get into some really deep reading regarding your conscience.


Is there a basis for Christian holidays in the Bible?

Neither Easter, nor Christmas, nor any other Christian holidays that I am aware of are mentioned in the Bible.  Many of the traditions we adhere today are, indeed, pagan in origin.

There's plenty of material on the web to support this.

ChristianAnswers.Net discusses the origin of the name Easter, as well as the Easter Hare (the original Easter Bunny), and Easter Eggs.

You've already covered Christmas trees, and it's already been covered in this question.

However, this doesn't mean that it's wrong to celebrate them.

Christianity isn't about strict observance of rituals.  Celebration is a gift given by God.  What could be more natural than to celebrate the Savior that gave His all for us?


Why are archdeacons (Anglican, Catholic, or Orthodox) called "The Venerable"? What is the origin, in Latin and English, of this title?

Why are archdeacons (Anglican, Catholic, or Orthodox) called “The Venerable”? What is the origin, in Latin and English, of this title?

I have yet to find a source where where Catholic or Orthodox archdeacons are addressed as “Venerable”.

This is a Iliad address used in the Anglican Church for certain archdeacons and priests.

An archdeacon historically was the incumbent of an ecclesiastical office dating back to antiquity and up to the fifteenth century of great importance in diocesan administration, particularly in the West.

First a little history on the subject of archdeacons:

  The term "archdeacon" appears for the first time in Optatus of Mileve's history of Donatism of about 370, in which he applies it to someone who lived at the beginning of that century. From the office of the diaconus episcopi, a deacon whom the bishop selected to administer the church's finances under the bishop's personal direction, the office of archdeacon gradually developed, as certain functions were reserved to him by law. These functions included not only financial administration but also the discipline of the clergy, and examination of candidates for priesthood. From the 8th century, there was in the West a further development of the authority of the archdeacon, who now enjoyed a jurisdiction independent of the bishop.

  Large dioceses had several archdeaconries, in each of which the archdeacon (usually by now a priest), had an authority comparable to that of the bishop. He was often appointed not by the bishop but by the cathedral chapter or the king. However, from the 13th century, efforts were made to limit their authority. This was effected in part by the institution of the new office of vicar general. In 1553, the Council of Trent removed entirely the independent powers of archdeacons. Those who had been in charge of different parts of the diocese gradually ceased to be appointed. Only the archdeacon associated with the cathedral chapter continued to exist as an empty title, with duties almost entirely limited to liturgical functions.

  The title of archdeacon is still conferred on a canon of various cathedral chapters, and the word "archdeacon" has been defined in relation to the Latin Catholic Church as "a title of honour conferred only on a member of a cathedral chapter". - Archdeacon

The Catholic Church no longer employs the title of archdeacons anymore, but the Orthodox Church still has archdeacons.

Archdeacons are commonly named and addressed a Venerable in the Anglican Community. This address stems for the authority and respect that the faithful have in regards to other priests and deacons.

  Archdeacons serve the church within a diocese by taking particular responsibility for buildings, including church buildings, the welfare of clergy and their families and the implementation of diocesan policy for the sake of the Gospel within an archdeaconry. An archdeaconry is a territorial division of a diocese; these vary in number according to the size of the diocese and in a few cases an assistant bishop in a diocese will also fulfil the duties of an archdeacon in part of it, as in the Archdeaconry of Bodmin 1953–62 (the Archdeaconry of Bodmin is one of two archdeaconries in the Diocese of Truro). Recently, this type of dual role has only existed in the Bishop suffragan(-Archdeacon) of Ludlow.

  An archdeacon is usually styled The Venerable instead of the usual clerical style of The Reverend. In the Church of England the position of an archdeacon can only be held by a priest who has been ordained for at least six years. (This rule was introduced in 1840; the requirement that an archdeacon be in priest's orders was enacted in 1662.) In the Church of England, the legal act by which a priest becomes an archdeacon is called a collation. If that archdeaconry is annexed to a canonry of the cathedral, the archdeacon will also be installed (placed in a stall) at that cathedral.

  In some other Anglican churches archdeacons can be deacons instead of priests; such archdeacons often work with the bishop to help with deacons' assignments to congregations and assist the bishop at ordinations and other diocesan liturgies. The Anglican ordinal presupposes that the functions of archdeacons include those of examining candidates for ordination and then presenting them to the ordaining bishop. In some parts of the Anglican Communion where women cannot be consecrated as bishops, the position of archdeacon is effectively the most senior office a female cleric can hold: this being the current situation, for example, in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney. - Archdeacon (Wikipedia)

The term venerable seems to stem from England during the 16th century. No title of venerable in reference to an archdeacon can be found in England prior to the reformation.


Why did "versus populum" (instead of "ad orientem") become commonplace after Vatican II?

No Vatican II document said that priests must face "toward the people" (versus populum). In fact, all Masses today can be celebrated ad orientem ("toward the east," the same direction the people face, which is toward the tabernacle).
During the aftermath of Vatican II, Otto Nussbaum's study, which concluded that versus populum was the norm in the first four centuries of Christianity (although this is disputed), influenced many modernists today who want to return Christianity to its "primitive roots." Versus populum is also in accord with Vatican II's relative anthropocentrism.
From the FIUV position paper "4: Liturgical Orientation":

Missale Romanum (2002), Institutio Generalis no 299:

‘Altare exstruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile circumiri et in eo celebration versus populum peragi possit, quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit.’ (‘Let the main altar be constructed separate from the wall so that one can easily walk around the altar and celebrate facing the people—which is desirable wherever possible.’

‘Quod’ (‘which is’) naturally refers to the first clause of the sentence, not the second, which is subordinate to it. See C.M. Cullen and J.W.  Koterski ‘The New IGMR and Mass versus populum’ Homiletic and Pastoral Review June 2001 pp51-54.


Isn't Israel the firstborn Son of the Lord?

Abraham's first-born son was Ishmael; but God referred to Isaac as Abraham's only son in Genesis 22:12:

Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me
your son, your only son.

Abraham sent his first-born son, Ishmael, away, making Isaac his only son - his only legitimate son, just as God sent his first-born son, Israel, away (after Israel sinned and sinned and sinned again), making the Lord Jesus Christ his one and only son - his one and only legitimate son, the Messiah.
Just as Isaac was the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham, the Lord Jesus is the fulfillment of his covenant - with Abraham and with all of humanity. And we know that Isaac is symbolic of Jesus as a sacrifice, with Abraham's righteous willingness to sacrifice his own son as God did for us.
There is also a recurring theme of the second-born claiming the birthright that the firstborn rejects, or displacing the firstborn - see Esau and Jacob, Perez and Zerah, and later Jacob putting Ephraim ahead of Manasseh. To some extent this applies to Cain and Abel - the firstborn sins and is exiled, and the second-born does what is right.


Trinity, is the son of GOD, GOD himself/itself?

The confusion lies in that Jesus is God however God consists of Father, Son, and Spirit.  There is a distinction and a unity.

Here is a small subset of some of the verses that help us understand

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
  was God.John 1:1

  But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. Hebrews 1:8

  Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all
  the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care
  for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. Acts
  20:28 ESV

  For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the
  government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called
  Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
  ISA 9:6


Does being a Christian mean being a Bible literalist?

In the strictest sense, I would doubt anyone is truly a literalist. For example, when Jesus says that he is the door, it would be a difficult position to hold that Jesus literally is made of wood and swings on hinges.

What most people mean, on the other hand, when they speak of belief that the Bible is "literally true", is merely that what is claimed in the Bible is true, with an allowance for figurative language.

I am not aware of a direct claim or command in scripture that belief in its truth is requisite for salvation. On the other hand, as God is a talking god, to love the Lord is no less than to love his words, so if someone establishes a pattern of rejecting God's word without repentance or movement toward it, I would begin question his or her grounds for assurance of salvation.


What is the earliest written surviving liturgy?

The first source for the history of the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist is obviously the account of the Last Supper in the New Testament. It was because Our Lord told us to do what He had done, in memory of Him, that Christian liturgies exist. Despite the  differences in the various Eucharistic liturgies they all obey His command to do "this," namely what He Himself had done. A definite pattern for the celebration of the Eucharist had developed within decades of the death of Our Lord, a pattern which was carried on well past the conclusion of the 1st century, and which can still be discerned clearly in the finalized Roman Mass of 1570.

The earliest and most detailed account of the Eucharist is found in St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, which, of course, predates the Gospels, and was written in Ephesus between 52-55 A.D. Scholars agree that the Consecration formula used by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 11, quotes verbatim from a stylized formula already in use in the Apostolic liturgy. St. Paul's account reads:

  "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you,
  that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed, took
  bread, and giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: This is
  My Body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the
  commemoration of Me. In like manner also the chalice, after He had
  supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in My Blood: this do
  ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of Me. For as
  often as you shall eat this Bread, and drink the Chalice, you shall
  show the death of the Lord, until He come.
        Therefore whosoever shall eat this Bread, or drink the Chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and of the Blood
  of the Lord." [1 Cor: 11: 23-27].

Throughout the first century or so after St. Paul's description of the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist there can be found written fragmented accounts of how the early liturgical celebrations developed.    Most of these accounts are the testimonial fruits of of religious intolerance and/or persecution.

One account comes from Pliny (C. Plinius Caecilius, c. 62-113).  About the years 111-113 he writes as the young governor of Bithynia to his master, the Emperor Trajan, to ask about what he should do to Christians. He describes what he has learned about them from Christians who had apostatized under torture. Referring to his apostate informers, he recounts what the apostates revealed about Christian worship:

  “They assert that this is the whole of their fault or error, that they
  were accustomed on a certain day to meet together before daybreak and
  to sing a hymn alternately to Christ as a god, and that they bound
  themselves by an oath (sacramento) not to do any crime, but only not
  to commit theft nor robbery nor adultery, not to break their word nor
  to refuse to give up a deposit. When they had done this, it was their
  custom to depart, but to meet again to eat food - ordinary and
  harmless food however.”

The earliest account of a finalized liturgy is given to us by St. Justin Martyr (100–165). In his apologetic account of Christian life to the Roman hierarchy he describes the Christian liturgy of the Early Church in his First Apology (ca. 150) (Chapter 65):

  “But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has
  assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are
  called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty
  prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized person, and for
  all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we
  have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens
  and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an
  everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another
  with a kiss. There is then brought to the president (i.e. presiding
  Presbyter) of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water;
  and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the
  universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and
  offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to
  receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the
  prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent
  by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to
  γένοιτο (so be it). And when the president has given thanks, and all
  the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us
  deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine
  mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to
  those who are absent they carry away a portion.”

Although the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist has has somewhat changed extrinsically since the Last Supper, its basic components and movements have remained very similar to the liturgy described above in Justin Martyr’s apologetic account – especially in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.  The current ordinary form of the Latin Mass is synonymous to his liturgy in almost every aspect.


What is an overview of resurrection events in the New Testament?

For an overview of sorts, one could look to the Diatessaron of Tatian.  It is an early harmony of the Gospels - written in Syriac, probably in the 2nd century - that was the basis for a respected Gospel commentary by Ephrem the Syrian.  [If I am not mistaken, the oldest Latin Gospel manuscripts in existence are in the form of a Diatessaron, but I might be recalling incorrectly.] The Resurrection accounts are in Sections 52 through 55, starting here.  New Advent provides links to all of the actual Gospel verses indicated.

Another approach might be to consult the Eusebian Canons, compiled in the early 4th century, which cross-reference Gospel passages to one another.  This is not an overview as requested, but could serve as a tool for creating one's own overview if the Diatessaron is found lacking.  The only online version of the Eusebian tables I am aware of is here.


What Bible translations are accepted by the Southern Baptist Convention?

The Southern Baptist Convention, while the highest authority within the Southern Baptist church, is not technically an authority amongst Baptists.  It functions as a voluntary association with which member churches may choose to associate, but cannot dictate terms to anyone.  While it does approve changes to the "Baptist Faith and Message," these are to be taken as guidelines not at odds with the local autonomy of the church.

Within the Baptist Faith and Message (the closest thing Baptists have to a creed), it simply says:

  The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

The BFM itself is silent on which versions are "approved."

That said, I suspect the question wants to know what translations are preferred.  Here, any major translation would suffice,  I propose the following list to help you figure out which ones are most likely:

Conservative to Evangelical:  English Standard Version (ESV), NIV, HCSB (if you went to Dallas Theological Seminary)
Moderate to Scholarly: NRSV, RSV
Moderate to Gender-inclusively liberal: TNIV
Super-traditional: King James Version.  Maybe New King James, if they're feeling special.
Conservative but Scholarly: The Amplified Bible.
When the Preacher wants to make a point: NLT, "The Message"

Perhaps more useful would be the ones Baptists would be very unlikely to use:

New Jerusalem Bible, Duoay-Rheims:  perceived as too Catholic
New World Translation: restricted to the Jehovah's Witness
Makes most conservatives barf:  The Living Bible, Readers Digest Condensed, Good News Translation.


What is the purpose of the rosary and why do some differ in the amount of beads they contain?

What is the purpose of the rosary and why do some differ in the amount of beads they contain

The traditional 15 mystery rosary containing 150 Hail Marys symbolizes or represents the 150 Psalms in the Old Testament. In the Middle Ages many could not read. Thus as the intellectuals of the Church could pray the 150 Psalms, the poor and uneducated prayed the Rosary in its’ place.

Why do we pray the rosary?

The simple answer is: Catholics pray the rosary because it’s a powerful prayer to God, through His Most Holy Mother, Mary and a great way to contemplate the sacred mysteries of our faith.

  Praying the rosary has been a tradition in the Church for a long time. It’s a bit fuzzy who made it more formal; some say it was St. Dominic and others say it wasn’t. What really matters is that this prayer is super powerful.

  The rosary begins with the recitation of the Apostle’s Creed, an Our Father, three Hail Mary’s and a Glory Be. Then there are five decades which each begin and end with an Our Father and Glory Be, and have ten Hail Mary’s in between. When you pray the rosary, you meditate on the events in Jesus’ life. There are the joyful, luminous, sorrowful, and glorious mysteries.

  Rosaries are not just decorations. Battles have been won because people prayed the rosary! There have been hearts converted, and impossible intentions answered too. Your life can only be blessed if you start praying the rosary. - Why Do Catholics Pray the Rosary?

That’s right battles have been won praying the Rosary.

  On October 7th, 1571 a fleet of ships assembled by the combined forces of Naples, Sardinia, Venice, the Papacy, Genoa, Savoy and the Knights Hospitallers fought an intense battle with the fleet of the Ottoman Empire. The battle took place in the Gulf of Patras located in western Greece.  Though outnumbered by the Ottoman forces, the so-called “Holy League” possessed of superior firepower would win the day. This victory would severely curtail attempts by the Ottoman Empire to control the Mediterranean, causing a seismic shift in international relations from East to West. In some respects, and I do not want this claim to be overstated, the world that we know came into being with this victory. This event is known to history as the “Battle of Lepanto.”

  Pope Pius V, whose treasury bankrolled part of this military endeavor, ordered the churches of Rome opened for prayer day and night, encouraging the faithful to petition the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary through the recitation of the Rosary. When word reached the Pope Pius of the victory of the Holy League, he added a new feast day to the Roman Liturgical Calendar- October 7th would henceforth be the feast of Our Lady of Victory. Pope Pius’ successor, Gregory XIII would change the name of this day to the feast of the Holy Rosary.  - Our Lady of the Rosary and the Battle of Lepanto

Each decade (10 bead section) of the Rosary commemorates a certain mystery of the faith.

  The Mysteries of the Rosary are meditations on episodes in the life and death of Jesus from the Annunciation to the Ascension and beyond. These are traditionally grouped by fives into themed sets known as the Joyful (or Joyous) Mysteries, the Sorrowful Mysteries, and the Glorious Mysteries.

  Pope John Paul II, in his apostolic letter Rosarium Virginis Mariae (October 2002), recommended an additional set called the Luminous Mysteries (or the "Mysteries of Light").

  Joyful Mysteries

  The Annunciation. Fruit of the Mystery: Humility
  The Visitation. Fruit of the Mystery: Love of Neighbour
  The Nativity. Fruit of the Mystery: Poverty, Detachment from the things of the world, Contempt of Riches, Love of the Poor
  The Presentation of Jesus at the Temple. Fruit of the Mystery: Gift of Wisdom and Purity of mind and body (Obedience)
  The Finding of Jesus in the Temple. Fruit of the Mystery: True Conversion (Piety, Joy of Finding Jesus)

  Sorrowful Mysteries

  The Agony in the Garden. Fruit of the Mystery: Sorrow for Sin, Uniformity with the Will of God
  The Scourging at the Pillar. Fruit of the Mystery: Mortification (Purity)
  The Crowning with Thorns. Fruit of the Mystery: Contempt of the World (Moral Courage)
  The Carrying of the Cross. Fruit of the Mystery: Patience
  The Crucifixion and Death of our Lord. Fruit of the Mystery: Perseverance in Faith, Grace for a Holy Death (Forgiveness)

  Glorious Mysteries

  The Resurrection. Fruit of the Mystery: Faith
  The Ascension. Fruit of the Mystery: Hope, Desire to Ascend to Heaven
  The Descent of the Holy Spirit. Fruit of the Mystery: Love of God, Holy Wisdom to know the truth and share it with everyone, Divine Charity, Worship of the Holy Spirit
  The Assumption of Mary. Fruit of the Mystery: Union with Mary and True Devotion to Mary
  The Coronation of the Virgin. Fruit of the Mystery: Perseverance and an Increase in Virtue (Trust in Mary's Intercession)

  Luminous Mysteries

  The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan. Fruit of the Mystery: Openness to the Holy Spirit, the Healer.
  The Wedding at Cana. Fruit of the Mystery: To Jesus through Mary, Understanding of the ability to manifest-through faith.
  Jesus' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God. Fruit of the Mystery: Trust in God (Call of Conversion to the Messiah)
  The Transfiguration. Fruit of the Mystery: Desire for Holiness.
  The Institution of the Eucharist. Fruit of the Mystery: Adoration.

Satan truly hates this prayer.

  The Rosary is a weapon. And it is a big chance of salvation. Satan, terrified, cursed it, when asked by exorcists what he was most afraid of. It has been the most important prayer in lives of many saints and the blessed. Probably also because it is an exceptionally difficult prayer.

  “Give me an army saying the Rosary and I will conquer the world” – Blessed Pius IX said one day. This way the helmsman of the Catholic Church expressed the power of this prayer. After all it is not any abstract power but a totally real one. On many levels. It was probably the Rosary that rescued that Franciscan monastery in Hiroshima from destruction after its bombardment. The powerful bomb, which wreaked havoc in the city in 1945, turned out to be weak confronted with Our Lady’s intercession. On the other hand, one of the shepherd children to whom Our Lady of Fatima appeared, was saved precisely thanks to the Rosary. Mary, asked by Francisco if he would go to heaven, answered: “You must say many rosaries”. He obeyed the Queen of the world and moved the beads with his fingers regularly. - Rosary: a powerful weapon against Satan and a chance of salvation

Historically there are several different types of rosaries. A Rosary may be made of one; five; fifteen; or even Twenty beaded sections? These are only the most common or well known ones.

  Many of us are familiar with the standard, five decade rosary, the centuries-old favorite devotion of Roman Catholics throughout the world. An ornate crucifix on a strand of rosary beads is an image that most associate with devout and faithful prayer. But sometimes confusion arises with other terms, such as “chaplet” or “Franciscan rosary.” Aren’t they all the same? Well, not quite. The term rosary is used for various sets of prayers counted on beads, but the prayers may vary from those used in the Dominican Rosary – the most widely known form of the rosary. Additionally, there are some rosaries that use the standard prayers, but serve a specific purpose, like the wedding rosary. Here is some clarification on some of those different rosary terms.

  Five Decade Rosary

  The five decade rosary is the one most people picture when they hear the word rosary. It consists of a crucifix, then a short set of 5 beads, for praying the Our Father, 3 Hail Marys, and a Glory Be, and then a rosary center, followed by a loop of 5 decades (sets of ten beads) to count the Hail Marys prayed as one meditates on the mysteries of the rosary, with a bead for praying the Our Father between each decade. This traditional rosary (both the physical strand of beads and the prayer) is also known as the Dominican Rosary, due to St. Dominic’s role in encouraging and spreading devotion to the holy rosary at the request of the Blessed Mother.

  Franciscan Rosaries

  The Franciscan Rosary can refer to two different rosaries associated with the Franciscan order. One is the Franciscan Crown, sometimes called a seven decade rosary. As the name suggests, it consists of 7 decades, rather than 5, plus two additional Hail Mary beads, for a total of 72 Hail Mary beads. When praying the Franciscan Crown rosary, one is to meditate on the seven joys of Mary, one joy per each decade. The seven joys are the Annunciation, the Visitation of Mary to Elizabeth, the Nativity of Jesus, Epiphany, the presentation of Jesus in the temple, the Resurrection of Jesus, and the Assumption & coronation of Mary.
  The Franciscan Rosary can also refer to a fifteen-decade rosary. Prior to 2002, when Pope John Paul II instituted the addition of the 5 luminous mysteries, the three sets of the mysteries of the rosary (glorious, sorrowful, and joyful) added up to a total of 15 mysteries. When one would pray a fifteen decade rosary, all fifteen mysteries were meditated upon. One could simply use a standard size rosary and continue around the loop to pray the full fifteen, or now twenty, decades, but a strand of rosary beads consisting of 15 decades of beads was common as well. Franciscan rosary is also a term that may be used to describe a standard five decade rosary with a Franciscan Tau cross in place of the crucifix many are accustomed to seeing.

  Chaplets

  The word chaplet simply comes from the French word for Rosary, which is chapelet, but the term has now come to be associated with specific sets of prayers, intended to ask the help of Mary, Jesus, or the saints. The standard five decade rosary is in fact a chaplet, but chaplets can vary in size, in pattern or grouping of beads, and in the prayers said on each bead. Typically, the basic prayers, such as the Hail Mary and Our Father are still recited, but chaplets commonly also include prayers to a specific image of Christ or Mary, a particular saint or angel, or a litany. Often, a chaplet is based on a certain intention, and so prayers to the patron saint of that intention or subject will be included.

  One of the most common chaplets in recent years is the Chaplet of Divine Mercy, a chaplet Jesus instructed St. Maria Faustina to pray. It can be said anytime, especially for the dead or dying, but is also often said as part of the Divine Mercy novena which lasts from Good Friday to Divine Mercy Sunday. Another popular chaplet is the St. Joseph Chaplet, a set of prayers asking for the protection and intercession of St. Joseph.

  Servite Chaplet or Rosary

  Though it can be prayed by anyone, the Chaplet of the Seven Sorrows of Mary is especially connected to the Servite Order (also called Servants of Mary) and so this unique chaplet is commonly referred to as the Servite Rosary. Rather than decades, it consists of seven sets of seven beads; the sets of seven beads are called ‘weeks.’ Where the Franciscan Crown is focused on the seven joys of Mary, the Servite chaplet is focused specifically on the seven sorrows, or dolors, of Mary. These are the prophecy of Simeon, the flight into Egypt, the loss of Jesus in the temple, Mary meeting Jesus on the road to Calvary, the Crucifixion, Jesus being taken down from the cross, and the laying of Jesus’s body in the tomb. The intent behind the Servite rosary is a devotion to Mary and the real pain she suffered in watching and sharing in Jesus’s pain, as we are called to share in Jesus’s suffering as well.

  Wedding Rosary

  The wedding rosary, also called a lasso, or lazo, rosary is an over-sized rosary formed of two rosaries joined together at the center. The lasso rosary will share a crucifix, the first five beads, and the rosary center, with two, rather than one, loops of 5 decades each. The lasso rosary is part of a wedding ceremony, especially in Hispanic culture, where the loops of the rosary are put over the head of the bride and groom by the priest. This is symbolic of the joining of the two in God; their prayer lives will now be joined as well. Since the rosary is to be placed over the heads of both the bride and groom, the beads are typically oversized with larger spaces between beads in order to make the rosary long enough. While the use of the lasso rosary is largely figurative, it can also be used after the wedding for the husband and wife to pray the rosary together.

  One Decade Rosary

  The one decade rosary is, as it sounds, a rosary consisting of only one decade. They are sometimes called pocket rosaries or tenners. The idea behind the one decade rosary is that it is easy to carry around and use for prayer. After the crucifix on a one decade rosary, the initial 5 beads (for saying the Our Father, 3 Hail Marys and a Glory Be) are commonly represented with only one bead. After the rosary center is one decade, one set of ten beads. Some chaplet instructions come with a one decade rosary, and you can also use a one decade rosary to pray five, or even the full 20 mysteries, by circling around and using the ten beads to count for as many decades as needed. The one decade rosary closely resembles the prayer beads or prayer ropes which have been in use in the Eastern churches (both Catholic and Orthodox) from the earliest years.

  There are also a few specific types of one decade rosaries:

  Auto Rosary:

  This one decade rosary is the same as one described above but with one difference. Rather than a continuous unbroken loop, there is a clasp in the middle of the set of ten beads. This is in place so that the rosary may be hooked around a rearview mirror, and used for prayer in the car. The clasp is also useful for clipping the rosary to the steering wheel while praying so you do not drop the beads while driving.

  Rosary Bracelet:

  This is a one decade rosary meant to be worn on the wrist. The bracelet varies slightly from the appearance of the standard one decade rosary. The rosary bracelet has one decade plus one Our Father bead, but rather than a center and a dangling crucifix, there will often be a miraculous medal and small, charm sized crucifix or cross hung together, or a cross shaped bead in place of the hanging crucifix. The bracelet is not intended to be a fashion statement but rather a way to easily bring a rosary with you, to be used for prayer. In the Middle Ages and beyond, it was not uncommon for people to hang a rosary from their waist, which they could easily reach for and use to pray with at any time. Many religious orders still do this, but for many other people, hanging a long rosary from their waist would be impractical. However, the rosary bracelet can be worn easily and so it can be used anywhere as a prayer aid.

  Rosary Rings and Finger Rosaries

  A rosary ring can be an actual wearable ring, or it can also be a small, mini one decade rosary to tuck into a wallet or purse, or on a key ring. These non-wearable rings are also called finger rosaries. Similar to the bracelet, there is a crucifix, followed by ten little bumps or beads for the decade. The idea of a small, easily transportable rosary one could reach for and pray with anytime stands true for the rosary ring as well. - What Are the Different Types of Rosaries?

On October 16, 2002 Pope St. John Paul II, in his Apostolic Letter Rosarium Virginis Mariaeadded the Luminous Mysteries  to the centuries old 15 decade Rosary, making it now a 20 decades long Rosary. Catholics are not obliged to say the 20 decade Rosary, but are freely encouraged to do so.

A 20 Decade Rosaries


Why do most Catholic Churches not say the Nicene Creed anymore and instead say the Apostle's Creed?

I have been a practicing Catholic for 65 years and in all those years in multiple parishes and different dioceses I have NEVER heard the Apostles Creed used in place of the Nicene Creed except since the 2011 change made it optional for Lent and Easter seasons.  I have lived in Europe for a few years and
never heard the Apostles Creed used in place of the NiceneCreed there either.  I am puzzled by so many responses that attest to
the contrary.


Examples of people who fell from grace and earned it back?

The closest thing to a real concise example is the parable of the prodigal son.

The story is found in Luke 15:11-32

The story starts with the son demanding his share of the inheritance, so, unfortunately, it is a difficult case to make that he found favor with his father in the first place.

The son then leaves his father's house and squanders the inheritance and eventually ends up poor and eating pig slop. While finishing up a big bowl of the stuff he remembers that his father's servants eat better than this, so he decides to go back, ask for forgiveness, and offer to work as lower servant for his father.

  But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

Upon seeing him, the father immediately favored his son once more, or rather, never ceases favoring him in the first place.

The father's great cause for celebration is reveled in the last sentence:

  We had to celebrate and be glad, because [my son] was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.

A great cause for joy, indeed.


What is an overview of Protestant explanations of the difference between dead faith and perfect faith in James 2?

The Protestant ‘Westminster Confession of Faith’ was drawn up in 1647-8 and a very considerable collection of Protestant denominations subscribe to it, so I will simply quote from this book for classes studying it. The relevant Articles are quoted, followed by the author’s further clarifications as to what the Articles mean.

  XIV. OF SAVING FAITH
  1.  The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in
  their hearts…
  2.  By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the word, for the authority of God himself speaking
  therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular
  passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands,
  trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for
  this life and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving
  faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for
  justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the
  covenant of grace.
  3.  This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong; may be often and many ways assailed and weakened, but gets the victory...

The author of the Study Guide then explains (with regard to faith)

  …there can be no true repentance without faith in Christ… In the realm
  of faith, as in that of repentance, some have intruded the doctrine of
  human ability and merit. But as John Murray has said, ‘Faith is not
  something that merits the favour of God. All the efficacy unto
  salvation resides in the Saviour. As one has aptly and truly stated
  the case, it is not faith that saves but faith in Jesus Christ;
  strictly speaking, it is not even faith in Christ that saves but
  Christ that saves through faith’ (Redemption Accomplished and Applied,
  p. 139).

That is a typically Protestant view of saving faith, perfect faith – as opposed to a ‘dead’ faith. Perfect faith acts in accordance with God’s commands. Christians have different degrees of faith, some are weak in faith, yet “he who has begun a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus” – Philippians 1:6.  Now here is the view of good works, as related to such a living, saving faith:

  XVI.  OF GOOD WORKS
  1.  Good works are only such as God hath commanded in his holy word, and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men out
  of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intention.
  2.  These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidence of a true and lively faith: and by them believers
  manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their
  brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the
  adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are created in
  Christ Jesus thereunto; that, having their fruit unto holiness, they
  may have the end eternal life.
  5.  We cannot, by our best works, merit pardon of sin, or eternal life, at the hand of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is
  between them and the glory to come, and the infinite distance that is
  between us and God, whom by them we can neither profit nor satisfy for
  the debt of our former sins… as they are good, they proceed from the
  Spirit; and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled and mixed with
  so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the
  severity of God’s judgment.
  6.  Yet notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in him…

The author of the Study Guide goes on to ask,

  What are ‘good works’?  …It is commonly thought that anything done out
  of charity or kindness qualifies as a ‘good work.’ But according to
  the Scripture it is not so. Two requirements are set forth in
  Scripture in order that a work may be truly ‘good’. (1) It must be in
  conformity with the revealed will of God… (2) It must also spring from
  a ‘good conscience’. It must be that which is done with sincerity of
  heart as an act of service to God… The Christian’s ability to do good
  works is not of himself but only of the Holy Spirit who dwells in him…
  But to say that the generative source of all our good works is God is
  in no way to suggest that negligence, slothfulness, or carelessness is
  excusable, as if we were not bound to perform any duty unless we feel
  a special motion of the Holy Spirit directing us thereunto... The
  marvel is not that the good works of believers are so ‘great,’ but
  rather that they are accepted and rewarded at all. If even ‘our
  righteousnesses are as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6), if even our best
  works are ‘defiled and mixed with much weakness and imperfection,’ how
  is it that they are even called good works at all? The answer is that
  believers have union with Christ… As A.A. Hodge has put it: ‘It is all
  of grace – a grace called a reward added to a grace called a work.’
  That is, both are of God. ‘God promises to reward the Christian just
  as a father promises to reward his child for doing what is its duty,
  and what is for its own benefit alone…’ (Commentary on the Confession
  of Faith, p. 228). (Source: Williamson, G.I., The Westminster
  Confession of Faith for Study Classes pp 96-7, 100, 117, 120, 122 –
  Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964)

Protestants would say that Abraham’s faith was ‘perfected’ by being so prepared to do what God commanded, that such a work of obedience (to sacrifice his miracle child) glorified God. Thus God stopped Abraham from actually sacrificing the child of promise as his actions were based on faith in the resurrection of the dead; he had a living faith, not merely an intellectual assent to truths.

I hope others will give more of an overview of Protestant explanations as this very abbreviated series of extracts from the Westminster Confession of Faith does not really do justice to this huge subject. But let it be known that Protestants know full well that if they truly have saving faith, they will do good works as evidence of having been given such faith, and that both the receiving and the doing are gifts of God, for His glory.


What do Southen Baptists believe about Jesus' dual nature?

Your question may have been in response to one of or possibly more of my answers, and so I have taken the liberty of giving you my understanding, based on my years of Southern Baptist teaching. I cannot speak for the Southern Baptist Conference since I have not personally studied all of their doctrines and you must understand that what I say is based on my years under the tutelage of Southern Baptist ministers and laymen.

That having been said, the concept of Jesus Christ in his tenure on Earth which as I understand it is that Jesus, in his Deity, is Spirit, and existed from Eternity as is said in:

  John 1:1 and 2  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2  The same was in the beginning with God.

And this Spirit being did voluntarily, in response to the desire of the Father, came to Earth, inhabited a human body, lived and died, and physically rose from the dead; to atone for our sins. This was done because God (the Trinity, father son and Holy Ghost); also known as the Godhead, so loved his creation; both human and animal; that they were willing that the son of God suffer and die then rise again to eternal life; so that man might also rise from his fallen state to be given God's great grace of again obtaining eternal life in God's Kingdom as in the words of Jesus himself:

  John 3:16  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.

That is how I understand Southern Baptist concept of Jesus. As far as speaking of the man Jesus, my intent there was and is to conceptualize that human body as separate from the Deity which is the Spirit Christ (the son of God).

Of this concept I am confident; Christ (the Spirit being) came down from Heaven to inhabit an earthly body which was born of the virgin Mary.

This is my interpretation of the Scriptures based on what I understand, was a separate creation of God in the form of the Holy Spirit, and placed in Mary's womb to be born in human flesh. That Human flesh had all of the characteristics of any other human. and differed from us only in that he was blessed with the mind and will of the Spirit which is a third part of the Trinity and exists for all eternity in the form of the son of God.

It is central to my belief; as I understand Southern Baptist doctrine, That Jesus (the man or the physical body that Jesus inhabited), physically rose from the dead in eternal life and physically ascended into Heaven, where he now sits at the right hand of the Father making intercession for us against the accusations of Satan.

There is much more to my concept of Southern Baptist Doctrine, but that pretty well covers my understanding of Jesus the man.

Perhaps someone more versed in Southern Baptist Doctrine can correct any misgivings I have espoused.

I must thank you for your question as it has given me cause to study the Southern Baptist doctrine further so that I will be less likely to give someone a false concept.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation.

Hope this helps.


Did John Bunyan really dream the Pilgrim's Progress? Had he memorized all the verses?

Part 1 I think could only be answered by speculation. Personally I would speculate it is simply creative story-telling, but that is just opinion.

For part 2; if we look at his earlier 1666 imprisonment, he is documented (see Wikipedia) as having:

  two books, John Foxe's Book of Martyrs, the Bible, a violin he had made out of tin, a flute he'd made from a chair leg and a supply of pen and paper

So it seems clear that having a bible in jail (gaol) was no issue. Indeed, at this time it was compulsory to attend church (his crime was preaching without a license, as the C of E was aggressively controlling).

If anything, I would imagine a bible would be easily accessible, even in prison. Additionally, the writing was only started while in prison - it was only a 6 month imprisonment.


Is there a Biblical basis for believing someone can be saved after dying and going to Hell?

Short answer:

No, there's no Biblical reason to believe that there is any opportunity whatsoever to escape hell.  There are several non-Biblical arguments, but they are not based on the teachings found in the Bible.

Longer answer:

There are several groups that believe that there is an opportunity to be "saved" after death.

The LDS Church believes that the dead are still possible to redeem, and practice baptism for the Dead, for example.  From an article on their site explaining Baptisms for the Dead:

  Many people have lived on the earth who never heard of the gospel of
  Jesus Christ and who were not baptized. Others lived without fully
  understanding the importance of the ordinance of baptism. Still others
  were baptized, but without proper authority.

  Because He is a loving God, the Lord does not damn those people who,
  through no fault of their own, never had the opportunity for baptism.
  He has therefore authorized baptisms to be performed by proxy for
  them. A living person, often a descendant who has become a member of
  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is baptized in behalf
  of a deceased person. This work is done by Church members in temples
  throughout the world.

This is only possible to believe, however, if you also believe in the LDS definition of Hell as a temporary prison for some (only permanent for Satan, his followers, and the "sons of perdition".

  Latter-day revelations speak of hell in at least two ways. First, it
  is another name for spirit prison, a temporary place in the postmortal
  world for those who died without a knowledge of the truth or those who
  were disobedient in mortality. Second, it is the permanent location of
  Satan and his followers and the sons of perdition, who are not
  redeemed by the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Outside of the LDS Church, the idea that you can be saved after death is very rare. Some groups do believe in what's known as "Postmortem Evangelism". However, from a Biblical perspective, and one held by most Christian denominations, this is not supportable.  Scripture is quite clear that our eternal fate depends entirely on what occurs in this life, and that once we die in our sins, if we do not have the forgiveness of Christ, our fate is sealed.

From The Christian Research Institute

  One well-known advocate of PME, Gabriel Fackre, argues that Scripture
  teaches that each human’s destiny is not fixed at death. The context
  of several key Bible passages, however, does not support his
  interpretation. In fact, these passages clearly say that everyone will
  die and be judged (Heb.9:27) and that each person’s eternal destiny,
  either reward or condemnation, will be based on what was done in this
  life (Matt.7:21–23;13:36–43; John5:28–29). Jesus, moreover, taught
  that each human’s destiny is fixed at death; for example, in His story
  of Lazarus, who was eternally in paradise, and the rich man, who was
  eternally in torment (Luke16:19–31). Finally, the description of the
  great white throne judgment in Revelation20:11–15 unquestionably
  indicates that our eternal destiny is based on our earthly life. In
  these and other passages, physical death marks the boundary of human
  opportunity to be saved. Belief in PME, meanwhile, has serious
  negative implications for Christian evangelism and missions. The
  weakness of PME arguments and the total silence of Scripture regarding
  opportunities to hear the gospel after death, therefore, should cause
  Christians to reject this view.


According to the Catholic Church, what did Jesus mean by saying that the least in the kingdom of heaven in greater than John the Baptist?

I do not believe that there are official statements on the subject of Matthew 11:11, at least not at the level of involving papal infallibility. Nevertheless, there are some Catholic writers and Doctors of the Church who have written on the subject of St. John the Baptist as being the greatest born of women, yet remaining the below the least in the kingdom of heaven.
We see in the Psalms that man was made little less than the angels (Psalm 8:4-6).
St Thomas Aquinas quotes the passage of Matthew 11:11 several times in his Summa Theologica for various questions. We must also keep in mind that at the moment Our Lord spoke these words about St John, mankind had not yet been admitted into the kingdom of heaven because Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross had not yet occurred.
Now St. Thomas tells us in one of his  questions (Whether there are several orders in one hierarchy?): "The inferior angel is superior to the highest man of our hierarchy, according to the words, "He that is the lesser in the kingdom of heaven, is greater than he"---namely, John the Baptist, than whom "there hath not risen a greater among them that are born of women" (Mat. 11:11). Hence the lesser angel of the heavenly hierarchy can not only cleanse, but also enlighten and perfect, and in a higher way than can the orders of our hierarchy. Thus the heavenly orders are not distinguished by reason of these, but by reason of other different acts.'
Thus one can conclude that Our Lord spoke about St John in comparison with the angels who art in heaven.
In another question (whether Moses was the greatest of the Prophets), St Thomas stated: "Further, it is written (Matthew 11:11) that "there hath not risen, among them that are born of women, a greater than John the Baptist." Therefore Moses was not greater than all the prophets."
As Catholics we believe that, by a divine prerogative from God, Mary was conceived with no stain of original sin. It is not impossible that St. John, although he was not conceived immaculately may have been purified while still in the womb of St Elizabeth! Although not dogma , the Church has not yet pronounced on this subject.
"There is a solid tradition in the Church that says St. John the Baptist was purified of original sin shortly after he was conceived, while still in the womb of St. Elizabeth. So, this episode of the Gospel referring to the child in the womb hearing Our Lady’s voice, understanding her words and loving her is completely credible." - Professor Plino Correa de Olivra
Here is how Wikipedia puts it:

"Some Catholics have held to a belief that John the Baptist never sinned, though this has never been a point of doctrine and is not binding in belief upon any adherent as is the sinlessness of Mary. In her Treatise of Prayer, Saint Catherine of Siena includes a brief altercation with the Devil regarding her fight due to the Devil attempting to lure her with vanity and flattery. Speaking in the first person, Saint Catherine of Siena responds to the Devil with the following words:
...humiliation of yourself, and you answered the Devil with these words: 'Wretch that I am! John the Baptist never sinned and was sanctified in his mother's womb. And I have committed so many sins..." — Catherine of Siena, , A Treatise of Prayer, 1370.[85][86]" St Catherine of Sienna was declared a Doctor of the Church on October 3, 1970 by Pope Paul VI.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say:

"Now during the sixth month, the Annunciation had taken place, and, as Mary had heard from the angel the fact of her cousin's conceiving, she went "with haste" to congratulate her. "And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant" — filled, like the mother, with the Holy Ghost — "leaped for joy in her womb", as if to acknowledge the presence of his Lord. Then was accomplished the prophetic utterance of the angel that the child should "be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb". Now, as the presence of any sin whatever is incompatible with the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the soul, it follows that at this moment John was cleansed from the stain of original sin. When "Elizabeth's full time of being delivered was come. . .she brought forth a son" (1:57); and "on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they called him by his father's name Zachary. And his mother answering, said: Not so, but he shall be called John. And they said to her: There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name. And they made sign to his father, how he would have him called. And demanding a writing table, he wrote, saying: John is his name. And they all wondered" (1:59-63). They were not aware that no better name could be applied (John, Hebrew; Jehohanan, i.e. "Jahweh hath mercy") to him who, as his father prophesied, was to "go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; to give knowledge of salvation to his people, unto remission of their sins: through the bowels of the mercy of our God" (1:76-78). Moreover, all these events, to wit, a child born to an aged couple, Zachary's sudden dumbness, his equally sudden recovery of speech, his astounding utterance, might justly strike with wonderment the assembled neighbours; these could hardly help asking: "What an one, think ye, shall this child be?" (1:66)." - New Advent.

Now if St. John was in fact purified while in the womb of his mother he would the greatest of those born of women. Mary's immaculate conception still puts her above St. John in the eyes of the Church!


Do Mormons/LDS believe that the Bible in any way predicts the coming of Joseph Smith?

Much of my answer is similar to the answer to the question, "Is there any Biblical basis for believing in the Book of Mormon?" and many of the passages will overlap.

The Joseph Smith Translation, a revision of the KJV, contains a clear prophecy about Joseph Smith, and even refers to him by name. This prophecy is found however in an addition to Genesis 50, for which there is no textual support in either the Hebrew text or the Septuagint (nor is it found in any other English translation of Genesis.) While Mormon believers may use these verses, non-LDS Christians will deny their authenticity.

  And that seer will I bless, and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise I give unto you; for I will remember you from generation to generation; and his name shall be called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father; and he shall be like unto you; for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand shall bring my people unto salvation. (Genesis 50:33)

There's also significant detail in Isaiah which the LDS believe were fulfilled in the events related to Joseph Smith. It begins about the Great Apostasy, which is the long period of time between Christ and the Restoration during which the fulness of the gospel was not on the earth. The rest of the passage's fulfillment is found in JS-H 1:11-26,63-65.

Isaiah 29:10-18

  10 For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.

  11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book
  that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read
  this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:

  12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read
  this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.

  13 ¶Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me
  with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed
  their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the
  precept of men:

  14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among
  this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of
  their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent
  men shall be hid.

  15 Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord,
  and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who
  knoweth us?

  16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the
  potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me
  not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no
  understanding?

  17 Is it not yet a very little while, and Lebanon shall be turned
  into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field shall be esteemed as a
  forest?

  18 ¶And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and
  the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness.

Then there's Ephesians, which mentions this period of time:

Ephesians 1:10

  10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather
  together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and
  which are on earth; even in him:

The LDS believe this is the dispensation of the fulness of times, or the time when the gospel is "dispensed" in its fulness, in that all things are restored to the Earth in preparation for the second coming of the Messiah. This verse also references the gathering of the house of Israel, which in our day, is more plainly called missionary work.

Acts 3:21 also mentions the "restitution" or restoration of all things:

  21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Evidently, "all His holy prophets" taught about the restitution of all things. And apparently, we have lost some of their writings, since in the Bible we have today, not all the prophets specifically mention this thing.