Do Calvinists believe they know whether they are saved?

Calvinists indeed believe they can only make educated guesses about others; if someone you thought was saved falls away, the conclusion is they were never actually saved. But Calvinism teaches that "infallible assurance of faith" is available to believers about themselves.

The Grounds of Assurance

The Westminster Confession of Faith says in chapter 18:

  This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion
  grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith
  founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward
  evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the
  testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that
  we are the children of God, which Spirit is the earnest of our
  inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.

Similarly, the Belgic Confession says in article 24:

  So we would always be in doubt, tossed back and forth without any
  certainty, and our poor consciences would be tormented constantly if
  they did not rest on the merit of the suffering and death of our
  Savior.

And the Canons of Dort say in articles 12 and 13 of section 1:

  Assurance of their eternal and unchangeable election to salvation is
  given to the chosen in due time, though by various stages and in
  differing measure. Such assurance comes not by inquisitive searching
  into the hidden and deep things of God, but by noticing within
  themselves, with spiritual joy and holy delight, the unmistakable
  fruits of election pointed out in God’s Word—such as a true faith in
  Christ, a childlike fear of God, a godly sorrow for their sins, a
  hunger and thirst for righteousness, and so on.

  In their awareness and assurance of this election, God’s children
  daily find greater cause to humble themselves before God, to adore the
  fathomless depth of God’s mercies, to cleanse themselves, and to give
  fervent love in return to the One who first so greatly loved them.
  This is far from saying that this teaching concerning election, and
  reflection upon it, make God’s children lax in observing his
  commandments or carnally self-assured. By God’s just judgment this
  does usually happen to those who casually take for granted the grace
  of election or engage in idle and brazen talk about it but are
  unwilling to walk in the ways of the chosen.

So we see several sources of assurance:

Westminster points to "the divine truth of the promises of salvation," and the Belgic Confession specifies "the merit of the suffering and death of our Savior" upon which those promises rest. Westminster cites these Scriptures for support:

  Hebrews 6:11 But we passionately want each of you to demonstrate the
  same eagerness for the fulfillment of your hope until the end. 17 In
  the same way God wanted to demonstrate more clearly to the heirs of
  the promise that his purpose was unchangeable, and so he intervened
  with an oath, 18 so that we who have found refuge in him may find
  strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us through
  two unchangeable things, since it is impossible for God to lie. 19 We
  have this hope as an anchor for the soul, sure and steadfast, which
  reaches inside behind the curtain

Westminster continues, "the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made," specified by Dort as "a true faith in Christ, a childlike fear of God, a godly sorrow for their sins, a hunger and thirst for righteousness, and so on," and Westminster cites:

  2 Peter 1:4 Through these things he has bestowed on us his precious
  and most magnificent promises, so that by means of what was promised
  you may become partakers of the divine nature, after escaping the
  worldly corruption that is produced by evil desire. 5 For this very
  reason, make every effort to add to your faith excellence, to
  excellence, knowledge. 10 Therefore, brothers and sisters, make every
  effort to be sure of your calling and election. For by doing this you
  will never stumble into sin. 11 For thus an entrance into the eternal
  kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, will be richly provided
  for you.

  1 John 2:3 Now by this we know that we have come to know God: if we
  keep his commandments.

  1 John 3:14 We know that we have crossed over from death to life
  because we love our fellow Christians. The one who does not love
  remains in death.

  2 Corinthians 1:12 For our reason for confidence is this: the
  testimony of our conscience, that with pure motives and sincerity
  which are from God—not by human wisdom but by the grace of God—we
  conducted ourselves in the world, and all the more toward you.

Westminster wraps it up with, "The testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God," referring to Romans 8:15-16, "which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption," citing these verses:

  Ephesians 1:13 And when you heard the word of truth (the gospel of
  your salvation)—when you believed in Christ—you were marked with the
  seal of the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the down payment of our
  inheritance, until the redemption of God’s own possession, to the
  praise of his glory.

  Ephesians 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you
  were sealed for the day of redemption.

  2 Corinthians 1:21 But it is God who establishes us together with you
  in Christ and who anointed us, 22 who also sealed us and gave us the
  Spirit in our hearts as a down payment.

Unstable Grounds of Assurance

Unfortunately, people often seek means of assurance that will fail them. One way is by searching deeply into the hidden things of God. Another is by looking primarily to yourself, rather than to Christ.

As you'll recall, the Canons of Dort said, "Assurance comes not by inquisitive searching into the hidden and deep things of God." Many people agonize, "Is my name in the book of life? Did God's decree include me? Am I elect?" In so agonizing, they may never reach any kind of assurance, because they are looking in the wrong place. The Bible and the reformed confessions teach that the "hidden things belong to God" (Deuteronomy 29:29). Theologians of every era caution that believers shouldn't inquire too deeply into God's hidden will, but into his revealed will. God has given promises and he has revealed means of "making your calling sure." He has not given us a copy of the book of life, for us to inquire directly into whether our name or our un-evangelized neighbor's name is there. He's made it more complicated for us by requiring a life of discipleship.

Another false means of assurance is trying to "prove" oneself to God (or to oneself). This slavish adherence to the regulations of Scripture does not produce assurance, but "constantly" torments the conscience, as the Belgic Confession says. Instead, we must put our trust in the only one who could fulfill the law, Jesus Christ. Obviously, the Westminster Confession does say we should look for fruit in ourselves, but Robert Murray M'Cheyne gives a good rule of thumb for avoiding the trap of introspection: "For every look at yourself, take ten looks at Christ."

Another false means of assurance is a fruit of so-called "decision theology" popularized by Charles Finney. It's similar to the previous one mentioned in that it rests in subjectivity. Many people look to the sincerity of their initial confession when they responded to an altar call or prayed a prayer. Such people may end up praying over and over, or responding to countless altar calls, never coming to true assurance of faith. This is because we ourselves are finicky. Again, the true means of assurance come from looking to the one who is alone faithful (and always sincere). Tim Challies says:

  When you seek assurance of your salvation, where do you look? Will you
  take refuge in the sincerity of your prayer? Will you comfort yourself
  by saying, “I meant it with all my heart”? If you take refuge in your
  own sincerity or in the passion you felt years ago when you prayed a
  prayer, you are building your assurance on shakey ground.

The Non-Necessity of Assurance

After establishing the grounds of assurance, the Westminster Confession goes on to say:

  This infallible assurance does not so belong to the essence of faith,
  but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many
  difficulties, before he be partaker of it: yet, being enabled by the
  Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may,
  without extraordinary revelation in the right use of ordinary means,
  attain thereunto. And therefore it is the duty of every one to give
  all diligence to make his calling and election sure, that thereby his
  heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and
  thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of
  obedience, the proper fruits of this assurance; so far is it from
  inclining men to looseness.

In other words, true believers may not have assurance of salvation immediately, and that's okay, just as Dort said: "Assurance of their eternal and unchangeable election to salvation is given to the chosen in due time, though by various stages and in differing measure." But they ought to strive toward it in order to be more joyful in the Holy Spirit and thankful to God. Westminster continues by saying that believers may even lose their assurance but that it's always possible to regain:

  True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways
  shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving
  of it, by falling into some special sin which wounds the conscience
  and grieves the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation, by
  God's withdrawing the light of His countenance, and suffering even
  such as fear Him to walk in darkness and to have no light: yet are
  they never so utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of
  faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart,
  and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit,
  this assurance may, in due time, be revived; and by the which, in the
  mean time, they are supported from utter despair.

Distinguishing True Assurance from False

The Canons of Dort say that "by God's just judgment" some "who casually take for granted the grace of election or engage in idle and brazen talk about it but are unwilling to walk in the ways of the chosen" become "carnally self-assured" rather than having an actual assurance of faith. So how can an "infallible assurance" (in Westminster's language) and this "carnal self-assurance" be distinguished?

A.A. Hodge's commentary on the Westminster Confession takes a stab at the question.

  True assurance, however, may be distinguished from that which is false
  by the following tests:

  True assurance begets unfeigned humility; false assurance begets spiritual pride. 1 Corinthians 15:10; Galatians 6:14.
  The true leads to increased diligence in the practice of holiness; the false leads to sloth and self-indulgence. Psalm 51:12-13,19.
  The true leads to candid self-examination and to a desire to be searched and corrected by God; the false leads to a disposition to be
  satisfied with appearance and to avoid accurate investigation. Psalm
  139:23-24.
  The true leads to constant aspirations after more intimate fellowship with God. 1 John 3:2-3.

It is common for Calvinists to cite 1 John 2:19 in the case of those who either were falsely assured or who deceived others (knowingly or not) into believing they were saved:

  They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us, because
  if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But they
  went out from us to demonstrate that all of them do not belong to us.

Conclusion

Calvinists teach that to be assured of salvation, you must look first to Christ, his merits, and his promises, then to the fruits of faith that he has granted you. It is not found by inquiring into the decree of election, nor by looking chiefly to yourself. It is not necessary to be assured of salvation in order to be saved, but it is a good thing to strive for nonetheless. There are ways of distinguishing it from "carnal self-assurance," and those who have such false assurance are mistaken about their salvation.

John MacArthur, a five-pointer, wrote a whole book about this. From what I remember, it's entirely consistent with the confessions. Also consistent with the confessions: Calvin's views.


The very next chapter indicates that Ahimelek had a son named Abiathar.

Priestly duties were typically within a given family at one time (eg Aaron and his sons). The title of "high priest", while alone at any given time, does not preclude there being other priests (otherwise Aaron and his sons would have all been "high priests" - whereas "high priest" indicates a specific level of duty to the Lord over and above that of a 'normal' priest).


In Catholicism, what does it mean for a priest to bless an object or person?

Blessing expresses the basic movement of Christian prayer: it is an encounter between God and man. In blessing, God’s gift and man’s acceptance of it are united in dialogue with each other. The prayer of blessing is man’s response to God's gifts: because God blesses, the human heart can in return bless the One who is the source of every blessing.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2626)

  Blessing is a divine and life-giving action, the source of which is the Father; his blessing is both word and gift. When applied to man, the word "blessing" means adoration and surrender to his Creator in thanksgiving.

(Catechism, paragraph 1078)

In other words, the Catholic Church uses the word bless in two ways. We say that God blesses us when God gives us a gift (material or spiritual); in return, we bless God when we adore him as the source of all gifts.

When we ask a priest to bless an object, what we are actually doing is asking him to ask God to bless us in our interactions with the object; that is, we're asking God to make the object not simply an object, but a spiritual gift to us, an occasion of grace for us.

For example, a simple blessing of an Advent wreath is found on the website of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. The prayer of blessing includes the text

  Lord God,
   let your blessing come upon us
   as we light the candles of this wreath.
   May the wreath and its light
   be a sign of Christ’s promise to bring us salvation.

In other words, asking God to bless the wreath is actually asking God to bless us as we interact with the wreath, to give us the grace of remembering God's promises that He will save us.

That's how blessings work in general. To ask the priest to bless an object is to ask him to pray to God, requesting that God give us the gift of interacting with Him (giving us His grace) as we use this object.

Blessings of a person work similarly. We usually don't bless a person in an absolute sense, but in regards to a role they have—for example, one wouldn't bless Joe Blow as Joe Blow, but if Joe were a student, we might bless him as a student.

Again, there is a good example on the USCCB website: in this case, a blessing of parents expecting a child. There is a reading from Scripture (Samuel 1:19–20,1:24–2:1, recounting Hannah's expectant hope for the birth of her son), and then a prayer including the following text:

  Hear the prayers of N. and N.,
   Who await the birth of their child.
   Calm their fears when they are anxious.
   Watch over and support these parents
   and bring their child into this world
   safely and in good health,
   so that as members of your family
   they may praise you and glorify you
   through your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,
   now and for ever.

Again, it's asking for God's gifts of calmness, patience, and hope for the parents, and of good health for parents and child, so that in return all of them may know the Lord's goodness and praise and thank Him for that.

It is not necessary for a priest to bless an object or a person; anyone can bless an object. And since anything can be a proximate occasion of God's grace (that is, God can use any thing or any occasion to pour out grace on us), it shouldn't be surprising that the Catholic Church has historically created prayers of blessing, and even liturgies of blessing, for nearly anything or anyone imaginable. I've asked God to bless my phone and my computer keyboard!


Where did the ecclesiastical offices go?

The answer here will vary widely depending on which specific protestant group you ask. No one can speak to every protestant tradition.

Try to think of a continuum, with one end describing groups with a very formalized and liturgical worship style, and the other end an informal and more laid-back style. Groups using the former style tend to (may not always) place more importance on structure and leadership at the level of the entire denomination (If you're liturgical, someone fairly high up was likely privileged to write out your liturgy). Groups using the latter style tend to (but not always) place more importance on the structure and leadership at the congregational level. In this answer, I will try here to speak to the latter end of the continuum.

In many such protestant denominations, every member is a priest/presbytor. In 1 Peter 2:9, speaking to all believers:

  you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood

Some will take this as far as calling any distinctions — at all — between "lay" and "clergy" backwards and evil, because the distinction discourages the individual Christian from taking up the full responsibility for their relationship with Christ. I know of groups that don't even formally ordain their pulpit ministers.

Moving on to Episcopai. This office may be called variously Elder, Bishop, Pastor, Minister, or Reverend; never Father, as that is a title reserved for God alone — some will even refuse to use the title "Father" when directly addressing a Catholic priest, as they see it akin to blasphemy. This level is notable because office holders generally (not always, especially among groups that use "Elders") draw some kind of salary to help support themselves directly through their ministerial work. This office is generally charged with oversight of a region or congregation, and the selection for this position may even originate within the congregation itself.

The final office is Deacon. Deacons may be in charge of a service area within a particular congregation, such as "benevolence", "building/grounds/custodial", "children's ministry", etc. Deacons will typically not draw a salary from their ministerial work, but are nearly always chosen from the so-called "lay" membership of the congregation itself.


Is there a connection between 666 and Solomon?

I don't think it's too much of a stretch.

If we look back at the law for kings in Deuteronomy 17, It prohibits the king from multiplying horses and chariots, wives, and wealth. This is exactly what Solomon is doing in 1 Kings 10-11. Chapter ten begins by commending his great wisdom, but then steps through his decline - that is, he begins violating the rules for kings by multiplying gold (666 talents a year), multiplying horses and chariots, and finally multiplying wives who turn his heart away from following Yahweh. He sets up centers of false worship for all the foreign gods of his wives. So, the number 666 is associated with Solomon in his fall, his abuse of power, and his turning away from true worship of Yahweh.

In Revelation, Jesus sets up worship interactions under the symbol of business transactions - buying and selling.

  I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see.

This is picked up in chapter 13 with reference to worship in the false temple - the image set up by the beast which must be worshiped on pain of death. Everyone must worship the image, but no one may do so without the mark. The buying and selling referred to here is of the same kind established by Jesus in chapter 3. It is worship - spiritual transactions.

This kind of forced worship of an image set up also has ties back to Nebuchadnezzar.

  King Nebuchadnezzar made an image of gold, whose height was sixty cubits and its breadth six cubits... And the herald proclaimed aloud, “You are commanded, O peoples, nations, and languages, that when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, you are to fall down and worship the golden image that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up. And whoever does not fall down and worship shall immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace.”

Nebuchadnezzar is acting as a beast (and later, even more so) and sets up an image to be worshiped. Again, we have six and sixty associated with worship of a false image on pain of death.

All of this comes together in the name and number of the man - 666. This sums up man in his fallen state. The number carries with it the fallen glory of Solomon, his degraded wisdom, his failure to follow the word of God, his abuse of power, and his allowing himself to be turned aside to the worship of impotent gods.

Don't be afraid of symbolism; it's good for you :)


According to Jehovah Witnesses, in what way is Jesus human?

The Jehovah’s Witness religion teaches that there was a time when God was utterly alone and decided to create, as his first creation, a being known in the Bible both as the Word of God, and Michael the Archangel.  Then the by means ifWord / Michael, Jehovah created all the other angels plus this universe and planet earth and all life on it. He is said to have been subordinate to God in this vast project, only God never having been created. So, the first point to grasp in order to see what they believe about the Word becoming flesh (John 1:14) is that this created Son of God later became Son of Man, born to the virgin Mary as a perfect human being.
This is what their ‘Bible Teach’ book says about Jesus and Michael the Archangel (pages 218-219 in the Appendix) followed by a quote from their ‘Insight on the Scriptures’ Vol. 2 p394:

"The Bible indicates that Michael is another name for Jesus Christ,
before and after his life on earth… It is logical to conclude that
Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role." “In his
prehumen existence Jesus was called ‘the Word.’ (Joh 1:1) He also had
the personal name Michael. By retaining the name Jesus after his
resurrection (Ac 9:5), ‘the Word’ shows that he is identical with the
Son of God on earth. His resuming his heavenly name Michael and his
title (or name) ‘The Word of God’ (Rev 19:13) ties him in with his
prehuman existence.”

They claim that it was the spirit of Michael that entered into Jesus when he was born and that the body of Jesus was never resurrected. Instead, what came out of the tomb was a spirit creature (who transformed himself into human form to make the disciples think he was human although he was actually, in their belief system, a freshly created spirit). And it is Michael the Archangel who is coming back at Armageddon, they say.
This leaves us with the question as to who they say Jesus was, humanly speaking. Given all that pre-human angelic status, was he  half-human, fully human or more than human? The same ‘Insight’ book says, p56:

“Since actual conception took place, it appears that Jehovah God
caused an ovum, or egg cell, in Mary’s womb to become fertile,
accomplishing this by the transferal of the life of his firstborn Son
from the spirit realm to earth. (Ga 4:4) Only in this way could the
child eventually born have retained identity as the same person who
had resided in heaven as the Word, and only in this way could he have
been an actual son of Mary… It is likely, therefore, that the child
born resembled its Jewish mother in certain physical characteristics…
it would appear that the perfect male life-force (causing the
conception) canceled out any imperfection existent in Mary’s ovum,
thereby producing a genetic pattern (and embryonic development) that
was perfect from its start. Whatever the case, God’s holy spirit at
the time guaranteed the success of God’s purpose… he was perfect in
physical form… Hence he had not simply materialized a human body as
angels had previously done; he was not an incarnation but was actually
a ‘son of mankind’ through his human mother. (p 1002)”

This shows that they believe Jesus to have been fully human, and a perfect, physical man, not just appearing to be human (except at his resurrection when he had been re-created as a spirit who had the ability to appear to be physically human.) But was he more than human? Apparently not given what they say about denying he was an incarnation, and also claiming Jesus was an exact equivalent of the man Adam, prior to him sinning.  Again, quoting from that ‘Insight’ book (p 736):
“The related word antilytron appears in 1 Timothy 2:6. Parkhurst’s Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament says it means:,'a ransom, price of redemption, or rather a corresponding ransom. …So Aristotle uses the verb [antilytro’o] for redeeming life by life.” (London, 1845, p. 47) Thus Christ “gave himself a corresponding ransom for all.”
In their book You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, p 62, they claim that Jesus is the only man who ever lived that was equal to Adam as a perfect human son of God, and on the next page they have an illustration of a pair of balanced scales, Adam on one dish, and Jesus on the other. Given that Adam was never in heaven nor was an angel, the question remains as to how Jesus could correspond exactly to the man Adam (before he sinned) if Jesus somehow also (simultaneously) had the personality of the angel Michael right from conception. But that is up to the Jehovah’s Witnesses to deal with. I have simply quoted from their literature to offer an answer to, ‘in what ways was Jesus human’. It is very clear that they would never agree with the Trinitarian view of a hypostatic union.


Where did the idea of deacon's benches come from and what are they for?

To start with the idea of a deacon’s bench is a somewhat modern terminology for a specific type of bench. In fact the first known usage of this phrase dates back to about 1922. Thus it cannot be claimed as a tradition in any stretch of the imagination, ecclesiastical or secular.

By definition a deacon’s bench is defined as follows:

  A kind of bench whose hinged seat is also the lid of an enclosed storage compartment. - Source

Thus an example of a properly defined deacon’s bench can be seen below.

Antique Deacon’s Bench

The terminology of a deacon’s bench in English is somewhat misleading to me. I have seen such types of ecclesiastical furniture in both traditional Catholic churches and in chapter houses of traditional Benedictine monks in France. The term alludes me as to what they actually called in French. In France these are basically ecclesiastical storage pieces of furniture and no one actually sits on them, as they are generally placed in a corner. I guess some clerics or atlas servers could in theory use them for sitting during some liturgical function.

These benches are in actuality not designed for the exclusive usage of deacon’s in the Catholic Church, but are for storing the books required for the service of the altar or chapter house. Just as deacons are ordained for the service of the altar and aiding the priest in celebrating the Divine Mysteries at the altar.

Deacon benches in the actual church would store the missal, the lectionary and the breviary. In monastic chapter houses, the deacon’s bench would contain the Martyrology, and the Rule of St. Benedict, as well as other books pertaining to the monastic customs and the declarations (and norms) of the particular Congregation in question.

In other words, the deacon’s bench contain all the books necessary for any and all liturgical functions in either the church, cathedral or chapter. It is of no consequence if their is actually an ordained deacon in residence or not.

The term now seems to mean a variety of different types of benches in English and are of no ecclesiastical usage whatsoever.

Addendum:

The French term for the style of bench is called a Banc-coffre d'église.

More information may be gleaned here.

A bishop’s chair (cathèdre) in French is quite similar but has actual seating space for the bishop only. The bishop’s chair actually serves two purposes: it seats the bishop and stores his personal liturgical books.

Cathèdre pontificale du palais des papes d'Avignon


"Christ Consciousness" is a neo-pagan term used by those who don't believe that Jesus was the Christ but who attack Christianity with the purpose of diluting the word Christ through misuse, claiming that we all have a "Christ Consciousness" and that religious gurus of all religions have had this "Christ Consciousness" in some measure beyond normal people.  In other words, there is absolutely nothing Christian about the phrase "Christ Consciousness."


Does "Being in schism" merely imply mutual excommunication? (Catholic perspective)

It is important to note that when we speak of the "schism" between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church that began in the 11th century, that it was not the first time that the Orthodox Church was out of communion with Rome.  In fact, the division was seen as completely reversible until the pillaging of Constantinople during the 4th crusade.

The word "schism" in my mind conveys a sense of permenance and or/finality.  In this sense, I feel that the Great Schism only acheived the status corresponding to its name after no viable path to reconciliation appeared possible.


Christ's parables can be dangerous to interpret outside of the interpretation given in the context.  In almost every case there is one thing taught in a parable and everything else is just filler.  The term "parable" can be loosely translated "to throw alongside", the idea is that a story is thrown alongside a single truth.  In this context the teaching is:

  Luke 15:10 There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner
  who repents.

I do not believe that the 99 or the 9 can be tied to any specific group.  What Christ is teaching is that even the most "insignificant" sinner is worth everything in the eyes of God.


Is there a concept of a theological quadrilemma with regard to the person and divinity of Jesus Christ?

In the first chapter of The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ, author Brant Pitre discusses C. S. Lewis' trilemma and how he realized that there was a fourth possibility when he first started studying the four canonical gospels: that Jesus is either Liar, Lunatic, Lord, or Legend. He writes:

  However, as I continued to study the quest for Jesus, it slowly dawned on me that for many people, there was a fourth option: namely that the stories about Jesus in the Gospels in which he claims to be God are "legends." In other words, they are not historically true. Consider, for example, the words of Bart Ehrman. This is how he responds to C. S. Lewis's argument:

    Jesus probably never called himself God....This means that he doesn't have to be either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. He could be a first-century Palestinian Jew who had a message to proclaim other than his own divinity.

Pitre goes on to cite several verses from the Gospel of John (e.g. John 10:30 and John 14:9) and notes the fact that Jesus was accused by the Jews of blasphemy and was nearly stoned to death, which is an indication that the Jews thought Jesus was claiming to be God. Pitre explains why scholars such as Ehrman do not accept these verses from John as evidence of Jesus' claim of divinity:

  On the one hand, most scholars admit that Jesus does claim to be divine in the Gospel of John....On the other hand, as I came to learn, many contemporary scholars, such as Bart Ehrman, do not consider the Gospel of John to be historically true when it depicts Jesus saying these things about himself. One of the most common arguments for this position is that Jesus does not make these kind of divine claims in the three earlier Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (known as the Synoptic Gospels). According to some scholars, we have three Gospels in which Jesus doesn't claim to be God (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), and only one Gospel in which Jesus does (John). Now, if this were correct -- and as we will see later on in the book, it isn't -- then it would raise some serious doubts about whether Jesus ever actually claimed to be God.

Pitre explains that the purpose of the book is to address this fourth option and provides a brief outline of his argument in the first chapter of the book:

  As we will see, there are compelling reasons for concluding that the four Gospels are first-century biographies of Jesus, written within the lifetime of the apostles, and based directly on eyewitness testimony.

  .... equally important, the more I studied first-century Judaism, the more I began to see clearly that Jesus did claim to be God—but in a very Jewish way. And he does so in all four first-century Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But in order to see this clearly, you have to take one very important step. You have to go back and read the Synoptic Gospels from an ancient Jewish perspective. Otherwise, it’s easy to miss what Jesus is really saying about himself. To be sure, Jesus doesn’t go around shouting, “I am God!” But this doesn’t mean that he didn’t claim to be divine. As we will see, Jesus reveals the secret of his identity by using riddles and questions that would have made sense to a first-century Jewish audience. In fact, it was precisely because his audiences understood that Jesus was claiming to be God that some of the Jewish authorities charged him with “blasphemy” and handed him over to the Romans to be crucified. And by the way, in a first-century Jewish context, it wasn’t blasphemy to claim to be the Messiah. But it was blasphemy to claim to be God.

These arguments (e.g. that the Gospels are first-century biographies of Jesus which are based on eyewitness testimony) also attack notions that Jesus didn't exist or that he lived in India.

Pitre explains in his book that it is written for

  anyone who has ever had questions about exactly who Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be

and that it is

  not written for scholars, though I cite lots of them in the endnotes.

Therefore the book would be a good introduction to the "quadrilemma".


Are there any of the OT commandments of God that have been cancelled, but not clearly pronounced as cancelled in the NT?

The way I understand these passages, they do not mean that the OT law was canceled.  Rather they refer to the fact that keeping the law cannot save us from Hell. We are saved by Grace alone through faith.  (Ephesians 2:8)

Circumcision was a sign that God gave to the people of Israel to signify that they were His.  It did nothing to save them, but rather it was a physical, external sign that they belonged to Him.

Animal sacrifices, likewise, were a temporary atonement for sins, but they never could save fully until Jesus became the perfect sacrifice.  As the verses you cited state, "it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins."

Other OT laws had to do with cleanliness and hygiene, and were clearly given to protect the people.  (These would be the laws about what to do with an "unclean" person, and include measures such as quarantine.)

As Jesus stated, "not one jot nor tittle of the Law should pass away" (Matthew 5:15).

The major point of Christianity, compared to Judaism, is this:  Judaism is still "under the law".  In other words, they are trying to earn their salvation by keeping the Law.  Christianity states that we cannot keep the law.  Everyone has failed, and none of us are righteous. (Romans 3:10, 23).

The law still stands, but it cannot save us.  We cannot be saved by obedience to the law or "works of righteousness".  Therefore, none of the law was cancelled.  What is good is still good.  What is wrong is still wrong.

The law, as it applies to us now exists to show us what sin is (Romans 7:7), so that we can see that we are lost and cannot save ourselves.

It also serves to stop sinners from justifying themselves.  How many people believe that they're really not a bad person and can get to heaven simply by being "good."  If we look at even the Ten commandments, we can see that we've all broken at least one.  As the bible states in James 2:10 (KJV)

  "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point,
  he is guilty of all."

Therefore, as we look at the perfect Law of God, the law shows us that we're not really "good" at all.  It stops the mouth of those who claim that they are good, and shows them that they are guilty by showing them what sin is. (Romans 3:19-20)

Therefore, the question is based on a false belief that certain laws were abolished.  The laws have never been abolished.  They also never had the power to save anyone by obedience to them.  The laws still exists, but through the redeeming blood of Christ, we are no longer held guilty.

Reading on in Romans, Paul continues in verse 31:

  Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we
  establish the law.

The rest of the book of Romans goes on to explain this far better than I ever could by paraphrasing, so I'll just leave it to yo to go through it.


For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
I speak the truth in Christ--I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit
rom 8:38-39 + rom 9:1

Paul is making a big claim, and is answering in his own head, "How can I claim such a thing?" And he is not appealing to scripture for this conviction, but
only to the Holy Spirit and his conscience. He is not saying he knows this to be true in a flash, like a revelation, but over time has become convinced of its truth.
Paul uses similar language in regard to women speaking in the
church.

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent"
1 Tim 2:12

Paul is not allowing something.  Elsewhere Paul says

"To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband."
1 Cor 7:10

Paul is saying he personally has authority as an apostle to give
guidance in the present situation.
Paul is not Jesus, and the guidance or views need to be balanced.
He says some were teaching from bad motives, and so where lying.

"For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you."
1 Thess 2:3
"It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill."
Phil 1:15

So Paul's reference to "lying" is in the context of other teachers
who he would say are false teachers, which he would distinguish
himself from.


By what authority does the Catholic church have priests?

According to the Catholic Church, Christ gave authority to the disciples, which they in turn gave to their disciples, and so on.
Today, to become a Priest in the Catholic Church you must be called to the Sacrament of Holy Orders by the Holy Spirit.

Holy Orders is the sacrament through which the mission entrusted by Christ to his apostles continues to be exercised in the Church until the end of time: thus it is the sacrament of apostolic ministry. (CCC 1536)
Integration into ... [the Priesthood] was accomplished by ... a religious and liturgical act which was a consecration, a blessing or a sacrament. [This] sacramental act ... integrates a man into the order of bishops, presbyters, or deacons, and goes beyond a simple election, designation, delegation, or institution by the community, for it confers a gift of the Holy Spirit that permits the exercise of a "sacred power" which can come only from Christ himself through his Church. [I]t is a setting apart and an investiture by Christ himself for his Church. The laying on of hands by the bishop, with the consecratory prayer, constitutes the visible sign of this ordination. (CCC 1538)

In essence, a man senses the call of the Holy Spirit to Holy Orders (to become a priest) and consults his local Bishop who ensures this call is genuine, then makes a visible sign by laying on of his hands the called man.
Regarding similarities to the Levitical Priesthood "The liturgy of the Church ... sees in the priesthood of Aaron and the service of the Levites, as in the institution of the seventy elders, a prefiguring of the ordained ministry of the New Covenant." (CCC 1541) In other words, yes, the Catholic Church believes its priesthood is modeled after the Levitical Priesthood, or rather, the Catholic priesthood is the fulfillment that the Levitical Priesthood was modeled after.
In summary, the priesthood is more than a brotherhood of Christ. It is indeed the hands and feet of Christ, having Christ's authority to bless and curse, which was handed to the apostles by Christ himself and has continued in succession to this day in the priesthood of the Catholic Church.

Further reading:

The Sacrament of Holy Orders - Catechism of the Catholic Church, p2s2c3a6
Priesthood - New Advent
The Sacrament of Holy Orders - catholicism.about.com
Holy Orders (Catholic Church) - Wikipedia
Does the Priest have the Power to Forgive Sins - Christianity Stack Exchange


How are patriotic songs used in US churches?

In the LDS church in the US it is common to sing patriotic songs around Independence Day and sometimes Memorial Day and Veteran's Day too (though I think that's more rare). It is very unusual to hear them sung at church any other time.

Official guidance on the matter:

  National Anthems

  A few patriotic songs have been included in the hymnbook; with
  priesthood approval, local national anthems may be added. Members may
  stand for national anthems in Church meetings according to local
  custom and priesthood direction.

The patriotic songs in the hymnbook include America the Beautiful, My Country, 'Tis of Thee, The Star-Spangled Banner, and strangely enough God Save the King.

Mormons have a unique feeling of US patriotism because they believe God founded the country to provide a free place for him to restore his church (the LDS church).

  Our Father in Heaven planned the coming forth of the Founding Fathers and their form of government as the necessary great prologue leading to the restoration of the gospel. Recall what our Savior Jesus Christ said nearly two thousand years ago when He visited this promised land: “For it is wisdom in the Father that they should be established in this land, and be set up as a free people by the power of the Father, that these things might come forth” (3 Ne. 21:4). America, the land of liberty, was to be the Lord’s latter-day base of operations for His restored church. - Ezra Taft Benson

You can also read God's Hand in the Founding of America.


What is the Catholic Church's view of Anne Catherine Emmerich - can her visions and prophecies be trusted?

Please see the link below. In a nutshell, at present the Church distinguishes between the writings attributed to her (which the Church acknowledges may have been done by someone else who then put Emerich's name to those writings) and Emerich herself, her life being one of extraordinary virtue (hence her beatification as a blessed).

Source: Catholic Answers.

At any rate, the Church holds that private revelations, such as those that have been attributed to Emerich, are never binding on Catholics and do not add to the Deposit of Faith in Scripture.


Which NT books were written after the destruction of the temple?

The dating of the New Testament is a matter of some controversy, so there is no consensus answer to the question of which ones were written after the destruction of the temple. (The Old Testament books were of course written well before).

No New testament documents make clear reference to the destruction of the temple. Some appear to prophecy the destruction, but it is clearly written as prophecy and not fulfilment, and even then it is not an absolute certainty. Many scholars use this information to date the NT canon as fixed before the destruction of the temple, on the reasonable grounds that had it been known about some NT writers would certainly have mentioned it as evidence of the correctness of prophecy. Bishop John A Robinson makes a well-argued case for this in his book "Redating the New Testament", or its popular version "Can we Trust the New Testament?".

Extensive quotes of the New Testament in letters known to be written at the end of the 1st century AD show that the NT documents were well known and accepted by that time, although it is technically possible that they may have undergone further editing between then and the dates of the first positively dated manuscripts from a hundred years later.

See the excellent summary on Wikipedia.

So to answer the questions:

Probably none of them
No, they don't.


Considering the Lord's Supper was instituted on the Passover, would the apostles have concluded it was to be an annual celebration like the Passover?

I think that the answer lies in how the Church understood the nature of the Eucharist.  Whereas Passover was essentially a commemoration of an event of the Exodus, the Eucharist is something entirely different.  According to the account in Exodus (12:14), Passover was instituted strictly as a memorial. Christ Himself described the nature - and necessity - of the Eucharist:

  John 6:53 (KJV 1900)

    Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no
    life
    in you.

I am not aware of any early Christians who maintained that the Eucharist should only be celebrated once a year in lieu of the Passover meal (though I am sure there probably were some).  There are writings, however, of certain Church Fathers explaining the need for frequent (i.e. more than once per year) Communion.  John Cassian (5th c.), a western Church Father with an eastern upbringing wrote:

  We must not avoid communion because we deem ourselves to be sinful. On
  the contrary, we must approach it more often for the healing of the
  soul and the purification of the spirit, to show our humility and
  faith, by considering ourselves unworthy and in need … that we desire
  even more the medicine for our wounds. Otherwise it is impossible to
  receive communion once a year, as certain people do … considering the
  sanctification of heavenly Mysteries as available only to saints. It
  is better to think that by giving us grace, the sacrament makes us
  pure and holy. Such people who receive less often manifest more pride
  than humility … for when they receive, they think of themselves as
  worthy. It is much better if, in humility of heart, knowing that we
  are never worthy of the Holy Mysteries we would receive them every
  Sunday for the healing of our diseases, rather than, blinded by pride,
  think that after one year, receiving once or twice yearly, we become
  worthy of receiving them.

  Conferences of John Cassian, Chapter XXI

Similarly, John Chrysostom (4th c.) commenting on those who did not receive the Eucharist at the weekly Liturgy, wrote:

  Look, I entreat you: a royal table is set before you, angels minister
  at that table, the King Himself is there, and yet, you take no account
  of it. Are your garments clean? Then fall down and partake! For
  everyone who does not partakes of the mysteries is standing here in
  shameless falsity. When you behold the curtain drawn, then imagine the
  heavens are let down from above, and that the angels are descending!
  Why stay at liturgy and yet not partake of the table? I am unworthy,
  you say. Then you are also unworthy of that communion you also have in
  prayer. Come!” Holy Father

  Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, Homily III

These writings, although not by the Apostles themselves, might help to explain why the Eucharist was seen by the early Church as something more than an annual replacement of Passover.


Can anyone explain Pope Paul VI's arguments in favor of Padre Pio?

The article is incorrect on several points. For example it is true that Gemelli was critical of Padre Pio. It is also true that this was due to misunderstanding and from self inflated notions of his own importance in the Church. Gemelli evidence on the stigmata for example is fabricated and flies in the face of several medical physicians and properly adhered to as at least unexplainable if not of other than natural means. Gemelli did not really ever know Pio and his assumptions were based on views expressed by others such as Gagliardi whom disliked Pio for a variety of reasons that today or obscure as the Archbishop was so corrupt himself. The Stigmata lasted almost 50 years and show that notions of self inflicted ideas as simply absurd. Pio himself disliked it and it caused him great pain, physical and mental. Benedict 15 was a supporter of Pio whereas Pius 11 was swayed by men like Gemelli and Archbishop Gagliardi whom detested Pio but was himself later censored by the Church for improper behaviour. Pius 12 was a firm believer in Pio and John 23 was surrounded by men that held Pio in jealous eyes. Pope Paul 6 was a great believer in Pio and admired him very much. For this reason he fully backed Pio and supported him and accredited him on his death with true and heroic sanctity. John Paul 2 was also a great friend of Pio and would canonise him as Pio of Pietrelcina, Hope this all helps. Further reading on Pio will also add to knowledge in this matter.


What should be a Christian attitude to the Church of Satan?

Paul's sentiments towards the nation of Israel give us a good model.

  Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they
  may be saved. Romans 10:1 ESV

Our desire and prayer to God for the Church of Satan should be that they may be saved.  According to the Scriptures, they are living a lie, they are deceived, and they are blind to the reality.  People can certainly have "good times", but we were created to know God.

  In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the
  unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the
  glory of Christ, who is the image of God.  2 Corinthians 4:4 ESV

If we were temporal beings, then temporal pleasures would be our highest goal.  But we are not temporal beings.  Since we are beings with immortal souls, if all we ever experience are temporal pleasures, we should be pitied.  We were created to know God eternally and experience the eternal pleasures of that relationship.

  You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is
  fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.
  Psalm 16:11 ESV

Hell will be no party or place of pleasure.  That's part of the deceit.  So, we should have great compassion and concern for those in the Church of Satan, despite any perception that they have good times or harmless fun.


What is a Miracle and does it require Faith?

The word "miracle" comes from a Latin word which might be translated more directly as "wonder". It's a thing which causes you to be amazed. In this broader sense, yes, both the atheist and the centurion can be said to have experienced something miraculous.

There are four words in the Greek of the New Testament that give a more Christian nuance to the idea of a miracle; these are dynameis (Strong's G1411: mighty powers, or works of great power), terasin (Strong's G5059: wonders, things which cause you to take notice), semeia (Strong's G4592: signs/symbols, something that helps you know what something is), and erga (Strong's G2041: actions, things that someone does). Let's handle these in reverse order.

Acts of God

When the New Testament talks about "acts of God" (erga tou theou), it is usually about normal people acting in a way that is godly and expresses His will. In this sense the centurion was certainly performing an act of God when he laid down his authority in faith before Jesus to beg a healing. It is not 100% clear whether explicit faith of this sort is necessary: Christian denominations are in my experience divided on whether people from other religions are capable of unintentionally doing the will of God due to acting justly, fairly, moderately, or kindly. (These things are talked about for example in the model of Christianity given us in Titus 2-3 as well as in many other instances.)

However we are more unified by scripture in one particular way which somewhat overrides this, also discussed in Titus briefly but expanded in much greater depth in Romans 3: that such good works are insufficient. So even if these are acts of faith, they do not give us the justification before God of having a clean soul -- whatever your denomination views that goal as being.

So this idea that we have in our modern language that something was an "act of God" is not really called that in the Bible. Instead the "acts of God" are really "Godly works": things that we do as a part of our new relationship with God.

In the legal vernacular an "act of God" is just one of those things which no human has causal responsibility for, like if your house gets hit by a bolt of lightning. Probably neither of these are "acts of God" in this sense: the 10-car pileup was probably caused by someone's recklessness and the servant was probably paralyzed due to some sort of physical trauma or accident which ultimately come down to someone's responsibility or another -- but perhaps it could have instead been a congenital defect or something, who knows.

Signs and Wonders

Here we get something far more meaty. Jesus's act is performed to indicate that He is a Prophet. His acts of healing are part of showing people that he is who he claims to be. These structure, for example, the gospel of John.

However I must here confess certain limitations of my own understanding. There are certain scriptures that are against the existence of signs; for example Jesus rebukes the Pharisees twice in Matthew by saying, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah." The first time he explicates that it will simply be his death and resurrection. This is after these people have presumably seen Jesus perform miracles in Matt 12. We see some similar dissent in 1 Cor 22:24 that Jews are demanding signs and providing such signs is not the Christian approach. Furthermore, signs are not a 100% proof, though they are often used that way; see for example Matt 24:24 which says that false prophets will be doing great signs and wonders to lead people astray from the truth; but 2 Cor 12:12 has Paul saying 'The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works,' which I think is him insisting "I have been extremely generous with you!" but also seems to indicate that the "signs and wonders and mighty works" should make them realize that he is a "true apostle."

So I don't know exactly how to interpret all of this. In any case, it is straightforward to define a "signs miracle" as something which points to the power and authority of Jesus, as when someone heals in the name of Jesus or when Jesus heals the afflicted. The 10-car pileup obviously isn't a miracle in this sense. However, since false prophets will do signs, I am not sure it is an explicit requirement that one have faith to do them.

Jesus's act also inspires awe in us, startling us, shocking us out of our everyday world. Skipping around the Bible to see how this word is used, we find frightful situations "the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood," what appears to be an earthquake in Acts 4:31, and such. So those are wonders. I really think that these both need to be lumped together: these things are signs because they are wondrous.

And I think that awe is in many ways the kernel of faith. We hear of the faithful in the Old Testament described as people who "fear God". In Shinto, for example, anything that instills a great awe is called a kami, their notion of a (possibly-needing-veneration) spirit; in Indian religions they speak of "darśana", a spiritual sort of vision (awe?) that attends the actual beholding of something of power. So if awe is the kernel of all of these different faiths, then saying that something is a "wonder" is expressing some sort of faith -- it's just a question of where it's directed, whether productive (from our Christian perspective, at God) or unproductive (at self, false idols, evil).

Works of Great Power

That brings us to this last notion, but it's the most important one. 1 Cor 12:6, "there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone," literally could be saying "energizes" (erga comes from the singular ergon, which ultimately is where we get our word "energy"; the word "empowers" here is translated from "energematon" inward-energy-imbuing. It's not Christians who heal others, say, but Christ who heals others through our laying on hands. The power comes from Jesus directly; we are just proxies who have been empowered by Him. The things that we do, if they show power beyond what we ourselves have to offer, become these expressions of God's great power. Some of these are things that we are patiently awaiting in an age to come (Hebrews 6:5 uses dynameis this way); some are authority in the present over demons and illness (Luke 9:1); some are simply the power in the gift of God that we might be saved by our belief (Romans 1:16).

There are lots of expressions of God's raw power and how it can fill us, and the place it has carved for us to inherit (Ephesians 1).

I do not think that this is very strongly expressed by the chance survival of the atheist, but it might be. That same Ephesians 1 says, "In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will." Who am I to say that He didn't save the atheist, and might have even had a plan for him?


Yes. Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26 both state:

  When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

"They" here refers to Jesus and His disciples. It occurred immediately after The Last Supper.


Does believing in Jesus Christ save me, or do I have to do something more?

This question cuts to the core of an apparent conflict between the teachings of James and Paul. Here's some of the relevant scripture:

James 2:17-18, 24 (NIV)

  17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by
  action, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have
  deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith
  by my deeds. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what
  they do and not by faith alone.

Ephesians 2:8-9 (NIV)

  8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is
  not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no
  one can boast.

On the surface, it seems that James states that it is works, not faith that is the ultimate source of imparted righteousness. while Paul clearly states that works are useless and only through faith is righteousness and salvation attained.

The key is to put these writings in their proper context.

Paul in many of his writings is addressing Jewish Christians, those who came from a fairly orthodox religious background. Orthodox Judaism is highly legalistic and works-oriented, believing that salvation is achieved through strict adherence to the law. When Paul is talking about "works", he is referring to the legalistic code of Old Testament laws that continued to be a stumbling block to early Jewish Christians. And he is clear that adherence to the law is not a path to salvation. Only faith in Jesus Christ, who fulfilled the OT law with His death and resurrection, leads to salvation. Jesus' freed us from the bondage of sin as laid out in the law.

James on the other hand is addressing a different audience... he is addressing Christians who have faith in Christ and yet have taken their freedom from the law to the extreme. They are claiming that because of their faith in Jesus Christ, they have no need of any law and can behave any way they wish without fear for their salvation for their faith is sufficient.

Jesus clear on the matter of how we should live lives of faith:

John 15:5 (NIV)

  5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in
  you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

Christ dwells in us through the Holy Spirit, and the "fruit" of the Spirit is "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance" (Galatians 5:22-23). These fruits are "works", not works that garner righteousness or salvation, but works that grow properly out of a life strongly rooted in faith.

And so you see there is no conflict between Paul and James. Paul is teaching legalistic Christians that salvation is only achieved through faith, while James is teaching Christians who use their faith to justify living sinful lives.

The proper life of faith (living branches of Christ's vine) will naturally tend towards good works (bearing fruit) and that if you don't see these works, you have to question whether their faith is authentic.


Why was heliocentrism such a threat to Roman Catholic leaders that their proponents were threatened to be burnt at the stake?

Summary:

The answer boils down to a matter of whether the Catholic Church should retain the power to dictate what is "truth" or not.

Longer answer:

The Catholic Church was used to have a monopoly on the interpretation of the Bible, and since God was the ultimate authority and truth, in practice the church had the monopoly on all kinds of truths in Western Europe.

This did not in itself mean that there was no intellectual discourse, it was just that it was held within the church. Before the renaissance, if you were an intellectual, you were generally a monk or a priest. As such Cardinal Nicolas of Cusa published radical cosmologies that removed Earth from the centre of the universe, and made it a star, like other stars (remember that the planets then was thought to be stars). He did this in the 15th century completely without being threatened by burning.

You could get executed as a heretic at this time even if you were clergy, of course, but to do so you generally would have to either subscribe to a theological opinion that had been deemed a heresy, or otherwise challenge church authority.

But in the early 16th century things changed with the rise of protestantism, which denied the Pope and the Catholic Church’s ultimate authority to decide which interpretation of the Bible was true.

At the same time the Renaissance meant that many intellectuals now were not monks or priests, and therefore philosophical/scientific claims were increasingly being made by people who were not a part of the church. This also challenged the church's monopoly on truth.

In 1543 Copernicus book placing the sun in the centre of the universe was published. Copernicus himself avoided problems by dying before his book was published, but the book sparked discussion within the church. Although Giordano Bruno held several heretical views and was burned at the stake it's unclear if his cosmological views had anything to do with that. He seems to have based himself more on Cusa than on Copernicus, and as such his cosmology was not a direct challenge on the church authority. But it may have contributed to the discussion about cosmology within the church, a discussion that ended the 24th of February 1616 when a commission of theologians decided that the heliocentric view "explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture" and hence was a heresy.

As a result of that decision Galileo Galilei was asked to stop teaching Heliocentrism, and when he didn't he was put to trial, where he recanted his views completely to avoid execution.

In the centre of the commisions decision of 1616 is the question of what should be the ultimate truth, reality or the church. And the Catholic Church unsurprisingly decided that it should remain the church. The unstated reason for this is that they were worried that accepting a heliocentric view would make the whole theology crumble.

And although the catholic church has only slowly accepted the otherwise more common consensus, that science gets to look for earthly truths and the church takes care of the heavenly, I can't find any references to the church actually threatening to execute scientists after Galileo. They did continue to add scientific books to the list of forbidden books though.

In the end no-one was ever burned for being a scientist, but the Catholic Church attitude to science and the trials of Galileo did put the Catholic Church on a collision course with science that didn't really end until John Paul II, who admitted that Evolution was not just a hypothesis and Vindicated Galileo.


Did the symbols of star in Christianity and Judaism originate independently?

It would certainly seem that the symbols came about independently.
Symbols in Christian Art and Architecture says of the two stars:

  The five-pointed star is the star of Bethlehem. Shaped roughly like a human being, it represents Jesus' incarnation.
  The Christian five-pointed star should be distinguished from the pagan pentagram, which is formed of five lines which intersect. Most often shown upside down, the pentagram is associated with satanic ritual.

  Num. 24:17 "I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near. A star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will rise out of Israel. (NIV)

  Matt. 2:1 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi(n) from the east came to Jerusalem 2 and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east(n) and have come to worship him."

  The six-pointed star is the Creator's star. Its six points stand for the six days of creation. The points are also said to represent the six attributes of God - power, wisdom, majesty, love, mercy and justice. This star is also known today as the Star of David, and is a symbol of modern-day Israel. The six-pointed star is of ancient origin and is used in many religions with a variety of meanings.


Eating eggs and cheese to refute heresy?
Hard to truly understand what Zosima is trying to say, but in general the Orthodox Churches has a far stricter set of rules when it comes to fasting than the Western Churches.
For example in the Catholic Church butter, eggs, cheese are common fare on fasting days, but in the Orthodox Churches these are not eaten on fast days. The Orthodox are still holding on to their traditions and basically that is very commendable.
The West has stopped abstaining from these foods Holy Week, but the East has retained them.
The idea of abstaining from these foods at different times of the year is simply because they are considered animal based products.
At one time in Christendom, almost all practiced fast very seriously, but now it seems that the Orthodox are the main forerunners in keeping this tradition alive.
It is most noble to say the least, but in this domain they stick out as holding on to tradition very firmly.
This may be the sense that Zosima is speaking of, in keeping the Orthodox Faith free from following the West and possibly their heresies.
Without any more details one cannot make an absolute decision.
One point, I do not understand is why he would choice Cheesefare Week and Bright Week for fasting?
Bright Week is a time of genuine religious celebration!

Bright Week or Renewal Week is the first week following the Resurrection of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, which is celebrated each year at Pascha. It ends the following Sunday, the Sunday of St. Thomas. For Orthodox Christians Bright Week begins a period of celebration that continues for fifty days until Pentecost.
This celebration includes the practice of the faithful joyously greeting each other with the salutation of Christ is risen, followed by the response indeed He is risen or truly He is risen, as the whole of creation is renewed by Our Lord and Savior. The services of Bright Week are done with the Royal Doors fully open. This unblocked view of the altar symbolizes the open door of Christ's empty tomb as well as the rent veil of the Jewish Temple, which was torn apart at the moment Christ died.
The entire week is considered to be one continuous day and the main reason why fasting is completely prohibited to all Orthodox during the week.

As for Cheesefare Week, it is a sort of a very modest form of feasting just before the Great Lent. It brings back the thought of Pancake week here in the West.

Cheesefare Week, also known as Maslenitsa (Ма́сленица), Butter Week, or Pancake week. It is celebrated during the last week before Great Lent—that is, the seventh week before Pascha (Easter). Cheesefare roughly corresponds to the Western Christian Carnival (Mardi Gras, or Shrove Tuesday), except that Orthodox Lent begins on a Monday instead of a Wednesday, and the Orthodox date of Easter can differ greatly from the Western Christian date. In 2008, Cheesefare was celebrated from March 2 to March 8.
Cheesefare is the last week before the onset of Great Lent. During Cheesefare week, meat is already forbidden to Orthodox Christians, making it a "meat-fast week" (Russian myasopustnaya nedelya (мясопустная неделя)). During Lent, meat, fish, dairy products and eggs are forbidden. Furthermore, Lent also excludes parties, secular music, dancing and other distractions from the spiritual life. Thus, Cheesefare represents the last chance to partake of dairy products and those social activities that are not appropriate during the more prayerful, sober and introspective Lenten season.

It seems ironic that many Christians now feast just before Lent. In the Roman Catholic Church fasting was gradually introduced liturgically just prior to Lent with the Season of Septuagesima
The Syriac Orthodox still practices the Fast of Nineveh, a three-day fast starting the third Monday before Clean Monday from Sunday Midnight to Wednesday noon during which participants abstain from all dairy foods and meat products. However, some parishioners abstain from food and drink altogether from Sunday midnight to Wednesday after Holy Qurbono, which is celebrated before noon.

In Syriac Christianity, the Fast of Nineveh is a three-day fast starting the third Monday before Clean Monday from Sunday Midnight to Wednesday noon during which participants abstain from all dairy foods and meat products. However, some parishioners abstain from food and drink altogether from Sunday midnight to Wednesday after Holy Qurbono, which is celebrated before noon. The three day fast of Nineveh commemorates the three days that Prophet Jonah spent inside the belly of the Great Fish and the subsequent fast and repentance of the Ninevites at the warning message of the prophet Jonah according to the bible. (Book of Jonah in the Bible). Marutha of Tikrit is known to have imposed the Fast of Nineveh, and served as Maphrian of the Syriac Orthodox Church until his death on 2 May 649.

The whole idea of Mardi Gras seems foreign in the minds of traditionally minded Christians.
Is Zosima referring to Maslenitsa, the last week before Great Lent? It does make sense, but without knowing what he meant, one is unable to really know. This may be the reason why he abstain from certain foods during Cheesefare Week?

Maslenitsa also known as Butter Lady, Butter Week, Crepe week, or Cheesefare Week) is an Eastern Slavic religious and folk holiday, which has retained a number of elements of Slavic mythology in its ritual, celebrated during the last week before Great Lent, that is, the eighth week before Eastern Orthodox Pascha.
The date of Maslenitsa changes every year depending on the date of the celebration of Easter. It corresponds to the Western Christian Carnival, except that Orthodox Lent begins on a Monday instead of a Wednesday, and the Orthodox date of Easter can differ greatly from the Western Christian date.
The traditional attributes of the Maslenitsa celebration are the scarecrow of Maslenitsa, sleigh rides, festivities. Russians bake pancakes and tortillas, Belarusians and Ukrainians bake dumplings, cheese cakes.

As for his abstaining during Bright Week, that may be a little harder to flesh out.
There is at least one of the Church Fathers that states if we over indulge in eating after a fast, we may lose all the merit we might have gained during a fast, such as during the Great Lent. Unfortunately, I can not remember who made this point, but will add it when I find it.


Was Eastern-Orthodox liturgical music influenced by Islam?

The short answer is: It is seriously doubtful.

It is seriously doubtful considering that the Prophet Mohammad (c. 570 AD – 8 June 632 AD) only came on to the world scene in the late 6th to early 7th centuries. It may in fact be that the opposite could be true.

  The Pre-Byzantium Era

  In the centuries before Constantine, there are no musical manuscripts-all the musical evidence is late; we have no music which is datable with the appearance of the liturgical hymn texts. But if our later musical sources have preserved for us even the essential features of the melodies with which these liturgical texts were first associated, they will enable us to form an idea, however partial, of what the earliest stratum of Christian music must have been like. The insoluble problem of Early Christian music is: how can one make deductions from the evidence in our earliest surviving musical manuscripts? To what degree does the music they contain reflect that of an earlier period? "Throughout the early Christian world," writes Oliver Strunk, "in impenetrable barrier of oral tradition lies between all but the latest melodies and the earliest attempts to reduce them to writing." While it may be possible to date an early musical manuscript, it is virtually impossible to say how old the melodies in it are. The entire question may be seen not so much in terms of a faithful melodic preservation but rather as the degree to which traces of an ancient model may be gleaned from our earliest notated sources.

  A marked feature of liturgical ceremony was the active part taken by the people in its performance, particularly in the saying aloud or chanting of hymns, responses, and psalms. The terms chorós, koinonía, and ecclesía were used synonymously in the early Church. In Psalms 149 and 150, the Septuagint translated the Hebrew word machol (dance or festival group) with the word chorós. As a result, the early Church borrowed this word from classical antiquity as a designation for the worshipping, singing congregation both in heaven and on earth. Before long, however, a clericalizing tendency soon began to manifest itself in linguistic usage, particularly after the Synod of Laodicea, whose fifteenth Canon permitted only the canonical psáltai to sing at the services. The word chorós came to refer to the special priestly function in the liturgy-just as, architecturally speaking, the choir became a reserved area near the sanctuary-and the chorós eventually became the equivalent of the word kléros.

  For the earliest period, however, authorities are fairly well agreed that the background of the worship service is to be found in Jewish ceremonies of that day, and a large degree of continuity between the worship of the Jewish and Christian communities cannot be doubted. What holds for primitive Christian worship in general is no less true for the earliest Christian music in particular. A strong case can be made to support the belief that the background for the earliest Christian music is to be sought in the music of the Hellenistic Orient, and more specifically in the musical theory and practice of Hellenized Judaism of that day. The Old Testament had a conspicuous place in the thought and worship of the New Testament Church. Old Testament quotations and allusions, especially from the Book of Psalms, abound in the literature of the New Testament, and a comparison of the oldest Jewish liturgical poems with those of Eastern Christians points to a relationship between Syriac and Hebrew poetry, thus establishing the possibility of Jewish influence upon Christian liturgical poetry. We know that cantors of Jewish origin were often appointed, even attracted to teach Christian communities the cantillation of scriptural lessons and psalmody. In this, the ancient manner of oral tradition did not fail to show its inescapable vigour.

  The Origins of Byzantine Music

  Byzantine liturgical music did not come about in a cultural vacuum. It has its origins in the desert and in the city: in the primitive psalmody of the early Egyptian and Palestinian desert communities that arose in the 4th to 6th centuries, and in urban centres with their cathedral liturgies full of music and ceremonial. It is this mixed musical tradition that we have inherited today-a mixture of the desert and the city. In both traditions-that of the desert and that of the city-the Old Testament Book of Psalms (the Psalter) first regulated the musical flow of the services. It was the manner in which this book was used that identified whether a service followed the monastic or the secular urban pattern.

  In the desert monasteries psalms were sung by a soloist who intoned the verses slowly and in a loud voice. The monks were seated on the ground or on small stools because they were weakened by fasts and other austerities. They listened and meditated in their hearts on the words which they heard. The monks gave little thought to precisely which psalms were being used-they were little concerned, for example, with choosing texts that made specific reference to the time of the day; that is, psalms appropriate to the morning or ones appropriate to the evening. Since the primary purpose of the monastic services was meditation, the psalms were sung in a meditative way and in numerical order. The desert monastic office as a whole was marked by its lack of ceremony.

  But in the secular cathedrals the psalms were not rendered in numerical order; rather, they consisted of appropriate psalms that were selected for their specific reference to the hour of the day or for their subject matter which suited the spirit of the occasion for the service. The urban services also included meaningful ceremonies such as the lighting of the lamps and the offering of incense. Moreover, a great deal of emphasis was placed on active congregational participation. The psalms were not sung by a soloist totally alone but in a responsorial or antiphonal manner in which congregational groups sang a refrain after the psalm verses. The idea was to have everyone involved in an effort of common celebration: there was no place here for individual contemplation.u

  Thus, it is not until the fourth century, when Christianity and paganism collide as a result of Constantine's mass conversions, and when imperial ceremony entered liturgical solemnity in new and vast cathedrals, that music rears its formidable voice. And even then it did so under very special circumstances, and not without considerable monastic opposition. The monks of the desert likened tunes to demonic theatre, to false praise and to idle pleasure, satisfying the weak-minded and those of little faith and determination. But this does not mean that the monks did not chant. Their rejection was of worldly music, musical exhibitionism and the singing of non-scriptural refrains and chants. It was, in fact, the monastic population that later produced the first and finest hymnographers and musicians-Romanos the Melodist, John Damascene, Andrew of Crete, and Theodore the Studite. And it was the monastic population that also produced the inventors of a sophisticated musical notation which enabled scribes to preserve, in hand-written codices, the elegant musical practices of the medieval East. - [A Brief Survey of the History of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Chant](https://www.stanthonysmonastery.org/music/History.pdf by Dimitri E. Conomos Oxford University)

What is more interesting is the fact that St. Ephrem (306 - 373) wrote wrote many religious hymns well be before the advent of Islam.

  St. Ephrem [ܡܪܝ ܐܦܪܝܡ ܣܘܪܝܝܐ, literally “fruitful”] was a 4th-century Deacon, Hymnographer, Poet, and Theologian whose beautiful encomiums to the Blessed Virgin Mary continue to draw the admiration of catholic Christians all over the world. He is venerated by the Coptic Orthodox, Syriac Christians, Nestorian Church of the East, Chalcedonian Orthodox, the Roman Catholic Church, and even attracts the veneration of the Anglican Communion. Pope Benedict XV (1914-22) elevated St. Ephrem to the dignify of being a Doctor of the Universal Church. The Pope made a remarkable description of this beloved Saint: “This Harp of the Holy Spirit [Ephrem] never sings weeter songs than when he has set his strings to sing the praises of Mary” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1920, Pg. 467) .  Although many are lost, it is counted that he wrote over 400 hymns. The 5th-century Greek Historian Sozomen, in his famous “Ecclesiastical History” (Book III) speaks very eloquently of St. Ephrem, and his brief description of this awesome Saint is worth sharing, though a bit lengthy. - Holy Ephrem the Syrian on The Blessed Virgin Mary, 306-373 AD

Gregorian Chant as well as Byzantine Chant may have some of the same melodies sang by the Jewish communities of the Early Church.

  The notation of Jewish cantillation and the "neumes" or signs of early Gregorian chant before the adoption of staff notation are similar to the Jewish ones as they emerged as visual "graphs" from hand gestures that give those who live within the oral musical tradition an understanding of varied musical phrases, as opposed to individual notes. This system is still in use in Jewish synagogues around the world. Finally, Werner provides the readers charts of almost identical pieces of Gregorian chant with synagogue melodies.

  Curiously, once Christianity had distanced itself from its Hebraic origins in the fourth and fifth centuries, there emerged written accounts of senior Christian authorities like St. Augustine warning of deviation from the old tradition of singing in the Church -- implying an adherence to the musical traditions that came from Jerusalem. Despite the regional evolution of different kinds of church music, some early church fathers declared later musical innovations to be heresy. -  What Did Jesus Sing?

So it is clear that both Byzantine Chant and Gregorian Chant were not influenced by Islamic Chant. Whether or not Islamic Chant was influenced by Byzantine Chant or Jewish Chant is beyond the scope of this question, but I suspect the later may be true in this historical circumstance.


Is there biblical basis for the "blood moons"?

Joel 2:31 is an end time prophecy that features a blood moon and a solar eclipse.

Douay-Rheims Joel 2:31

  The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood: before
  the great and dreadful day of the Lord doth come.

John Hagee and many protestants think that end times prophecy is all about the nation of Israel and the Third Temple of Jerusalem, but I would remind them that God did not allow Julian the Apostate to rebuild the temple and invalidate Christ's words in Matthew 24:1-2, so I don't see why he's going to allow it this time.

  And Jesus being come out of the temple, went away. And his disciples
  came to shew him the buildings of the temple. [2] And he answering,
  said to them: Do you see all these things? Amen I say to you there
  shall not be left here a stone upon a stone that shall not be
  destroyed.

The Historian Ammianus Marcellinus (A.D. c.330 - 395)
"Res Gestae," Book XXIII

  He [Julian the Apostate] planned at vast cost to restore the once
  splendid Temple at Jerusalem, which after many mortal combats during
  the siege by Vespasian and later by Titus had barely been stormed. He
  had entrusted the speedy performance of this work to Alypius of
  Antioch... But though this Alypius pushed the work on with vigor,
  aided by the governor of the province, terrible balls of fire kept
  bursting forth near the foundations of the Temple and made the place
  inaccessible to the workmen, some of whom were burned to death; and
  since in this way the element persistently repelled them, the
  enterprise halted. ("cum itaque rei idem fortiter instaret Alypius
  iuvaretque provinciae rector, metuendi globi flammarum prope
  fundamenta crebris adsultibus erumpentes fecere locum exustis
  aliquotiens operantibus inaccessum, hocque modo elemento destinatius
  repellente cessavit inceptum.")


“Jesus said to them 'I am'" (John 18:6) - Did Jesus break a taboo here?

Actually, Jesus broke taboos quite frequently.  However, when Jesus broke a taboo, the taboo was wrong--not Jesus.

Some of the other taboos Jesus broke include the following:

Breaking the Sabbath

  So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish
  leaders began to persecute him. (John 5:16 NIV)

Claiming Equality with God

  For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he
  breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father,
  making himself equal with God.  (John 5:18 NIV)

Forgiving Sins

  Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?  (Mark 2:7 NIV)

Associating with tax collectors and sinners

  When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”  (Matthew 9:11 NIV)

Claiming the sacred name of God

  "Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”  (John 8:58 NIV)

So, I would say that, yes, Jesus was breaking a taboo.  He was the only one who had the authority to claim the sacred name of God, so no one else could break that taboo.  Yet, He also broke several other taboos as well.


When are lay men and women permitted to proclaim the Gospel in a Catholic church?

Well, at a minimum, most people read from the Gospel on Palm Sunday and Good Friday (only about four lines which are labeled "[said by the] crowd:"). I think that counts as laity ;-).

As to "communion service", the prayers of an EM with the homebound can be considered a "communion service," and anyone is allowed to read there.

Coming back to this post several years later. It should be noted that Mass is the only liturgical prayer of the church where the reading of the gospel is specifically designated to the clergy. In the normal form of the Divine Office, there is no gospel. There is, however, a canticle from Luke which is read or sung in common. In the Lectio Divina, sometimes prayed in conjunction with Matins, Vigils, or as a separate service, the gospel may be read by any in attendance, according to the norms of the particular community.

None of this is different from prior to the reforms of the liturgy under Paul VI. The Divine Office was open to all and supported a variety of expressions, even within the more restrictive hours (you can read more about the different liturgical approaches to Vespers here). The Lucan Canticles were said in common.

Preaching on the gospel, however, was a good deal more restricted. However, even in this case, there was a good deal of leeway. It is the task of the prior, whether ordained or no, to exhort the brethren while they eat. This implies 1. that a quasi-liturgy is in effect, and 2. that a non-ordained person is preaching.


Can Catholics or other Christians support ending abortion without making it illegal?

The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.
These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin.
Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.
When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined....
As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights.

CCC #2273
This seems to imply that a Catholic must support making abortion illegal, at least to be in good standing with the Catholic Church. Of course you can take a both and approach. I don't think Catholics are obliged not to support a social safety net for pregnant women. You can do that, while also supporting making abortion illegal.


Why would one literally eat the body of Christ, if it is literal?

Why are we "eating" the flesh and blood of Christ?

1. Because Jesus commanded us to

In the institution of the Eucharist, Jesus explicitly commands us to eat the bread and drink the wine, saying "This do in remembrance of me." Indeed, as often as we do this, we do "proclaim the Lord's death until He come."

Indeed, John goes even further, recording Jesus in dialogue saying:

  52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread[c] the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 Jesus[d] said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

The fact that Christians "ate the body of Christ" and "drank his blood" led to the belief in ancient Rome that Christians were cannibals. This was one of the reasons they were persecuted. That said, the point was that Christians were completely identifying with Christ, and not just filling the belly.

2. Because Priests consume the sacrifice

1 Corinthians 5 says:

  For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast.

This indicates that Christ, being the Passover, is the sacrifice.  As a "royal priesthood," the pattern would be to handle the sacrifice as was custom.  In Dueteronomy 18:1, we read of the Levites:

  “The Levitical priests, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion or inheritance with Israel. They shall eat the LORD’s food offerings as their inheritance.


What does the Bible say about life before conception?

The Bible doesn't explicitly say whether or not we exist prior to conception.  The Psalm 139 passage you referenced indicates that God knew us before we were born and saw our unformed body.  However, this is not a definitive statement that we existed prior to birth.  Contextually, it seems much more probably to be referring to the omniscience of God (from whom I cannot hide, and who is with me wherever I go...)

It could be instructive to ask what would need to be in the Scriptures to give sufficient evidence for the belief in pre-conception existence.  If there were a verse that indicated God spoke to us or heard our prayers prior to conception or indicated we had made a decision prior to conception--those would be quite significant.  No such verses exists, though.

In Psalm 51, David asserts that "I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me"--but not before is mother conceived him.  This is quite a significant distinction.

Finally, if it were true that we existed prior to conception, we must wonder why nothing in the Bible explicitly or definitively states this.  On the contrary, we are given reasons to disbelieve this doctrine, but not conclusive reasons to believe it.  For a doctrine or idea that is characterized by such evidence it seems prudent to retain skepticism regarding it.


LDS belief about salvation in other worlds

This is not taught often as it can lead to confusion and questions that do not concern us or our salvation. But a careful reading of the scriptures and some LDS church leaders would convey that Mormons do believe that God has made and populated other worlds and that Christ is the Savior to all of God's children and truly is The Only Begotten.
Doctrine and Covenants section 76:

22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!
23 For we saw him, even on the bright hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—
24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.

Further, in the Book of Moses, chapter 1:

31 And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses
stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And
the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these
things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.
32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine
Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.
33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them
for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine
Only Begotten.
34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.
35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof,
give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed
away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and
innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me,
for they are mine and I know them.

This is in harmony with the Biblical teachings in Hebrews, for instance:
Hebrews 1

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past
unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath
appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Hebrews 11

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word
of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do
appear.


What does TS Eliot mean by "old dispensation" in The Journey of the Magi?

He means the same thing as "the old covenant" (Judaism), but stated in the language of dispensationalism, which classifies the different timeline "slices" of God's plan. We tend to think of it as old covenant/new covenant but if you start getting really anal about it and analyzing "what about before Moses" and "what about after the Rapture" you get a bit more of a complicated set of salvation schemes over time, or "dispensations."

Edit: I guess I'm surprised that this is a contentious or misunderstood point, has no one heard of dispensationalism? I provided the links above for a reason. Mastery and escape: T.S. Eliot and the dialectic of modernism discusses Eliot's dispensationalism specifically and how he uses this term in much of his writing. He was, you know, into it.


In what sense was Mary born without original sin in Roman Catholic dogma?

The most authoritative explanation of the Immaculate Conception comes from Pope Pius IX's dogmatic definition of it in Ineffabilis Deus (1854):

  We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

The answer to your question of "In what sense was she born without Original Sin?" is:

from "the first instance of her conception."