Did those feet in ancient time walk upon England's mountains green? (Origin of the story)

With reference to the story of Jesus' visit to England with Joseph of Arimathea, OP asks:

  So how and when did the story get started?

There is, so far as I know, one scholarly article on just this question which has recently had some scrutiny. The article is: A. W. Smith, "'And Did Those Feet...?': The 'Legend' of Christ's Visit to Britain", Folklore 100.1 (1989): 63-83. Smith works carefully, investigating a number of questions related to the central one, and so really needs to be read in full by anyone interested. The leading findings are these (citing Smith's own form of the questions, "it" refering to the legend of Jesus-in-England):

  What current form or forms does it take? How far back can it be traced?

Smith documents a wide variety of forms of the story, with many details differing based on locale. They share, minimally, Joseph (usually as a metal merchant) coming to England, and Jesus coming with him. Beyond that, Smith finds the welter of changing detail to indicate a "weak and fugitive" tradition that is "far from" unvarying.

  How far is it the creation of identifiable literary and clerical authors, and how far rooted in oral folk tradition?

Smith traces documentary evidence in sketchy form to the late 19th C, and much more from the 1920s, and attributed to a trio of energetic clerics who boosted the legend. One of these sources, H. A. Lewis, Christ in Cornwall? (3rd edition, 1948) is available online.

Beyond that, Smith argued, it was a matter of hazy oral tradition and local lore, and that demonstrable only into the 1890s.

  Is the assumption that it "was known to William Blake and is alluded to in his lyric 'Jerusalem'" in fact correct?

According to Smith, the short answer is "No" (see pp. 71-72). In his own words:

  [T]o return to our starting point, does Blake's lyric attest a knowledge of or a belief  in a literal visit by Jesus to Britain? I would suggest it does not. I have searched Blake's  poetry, prose and ephemera for any evidence that he knew this story and can find none.... (p. 72)

Moreover, not only is there no written documentary evidence to suggest it, but Smith goes on to adduce some positive considerations explaining why it would be unlikely that Blake should be read this way.

  Is there any historical context or religious system of thought which could account for its origin and its spread?

Smith thinks there is, and he locates it in the developing British Israel traditions of the growing Empire in the early and mid-nineteenth century. These, he suggests, picked up medieval hints along these lines (interestingly, associated with the apostle Paul), which mutated into the "legend" as we now see it (pp. 76-80).

I mentioned there was some "recent scrutiny" of Smith's article. It comes in a fascinating book: William John Lyons, Joseph of Arimathea: A Study in Reception History (Oxford: OUP, 2014). He devotes a chapter to "The 'Jerusalem' Joseph" which considers Smith's article at some length. Lyons writes cautiously of it, but (so far as I can see), is broadly approving. (Unlike his remarks on Dennis Price's fanciful The Missing Years of Jesus: The Extraordinary Evidence that Jesus Visited the British Isles [Hay House, 2010].)

But Lyons's work is ultimately pursuing a different agenda. Smith has assembled the data, sorted and sifted it, and considered the matter carefully -- whether he has placed the most compelling construction on the evidence he has uncovered may be up for debate, but it looks cogent to me.


Where within Biblical Scripture does it mention anything similar to the official Catholic and/or Orthodox church's hierarchy of church officials?

I won't be able to give a complete answer as I'm not that familiar with the Catholic and Orthodox church structure, but Biblical church structure is something I've been looking into recently so here is what I've found out.

The Pope I believe the argument for having one man overseeing the entire church comes from Jesus statement to Peter in Matthew 16:18 "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church ... " (ESV). Since Peter means rock or stone, Jesus' statement is taken to mean that Peter was the foundation of the church and would lead it. He was the first Pope.

The argument against this is that the rock/foundation Jesus was referring to was not Peter himself, but Peter's statement that Jesus was the Messiah in verse 16.

The Cardinals Or any small group of men appointed to oversee the church originates from the concept of the 12 Apostles. I would reference Acts 1:12-26 where the remaining 11 Apostles found it necessary to choose a man "...to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place." Also, Acts 15 where "The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter [of circumcision]." It would seem biblical that a small select group of Church officials meet together to decide how to apply doctrine to life.

Bishops These are comparable to the Elders/Overseers in the Bible. The key passages detailing what an Elder should be like are 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. Focusing more on church structure, Acts 14:23 indicates that it was important (maybe even necessary) to Paul and Barnabas to appoint Elders in the churches where they went.

Priests Here, we get to the references about Deacons in the Bible. The Greek word simply means 'servant', but considering the stipulations in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 and the selection of 7 men with the laying on of hands in Acts 6:1-7, we can assume that they were appointed to serve in a role that differentiated them somehow from other Christians, though all Christians should be serving.

And so, in the New Testament, we begin to see a structure of Authority loosely take shape. Apostles appointing another Apostle to replace Judas. Apostles sending Paul and Barnabas to plant churches. Paul and Barnabas appointing Elders. Elders (Timothy) encouraged to appoint other Elders and Deacons. Etc. The Catholic and Orthodox church structures use different titles for the different positions of authority, but they have quite a few similarities to the structure seen emerging in the early church.

Lastly, if we take a look back at the Old Testament, we see an example where Moses arranges an authoritarian structure simply to help facilitate the proper workings of a community. In Exodus 18:13-27 Moses heeds the advice of his father-in-law and appoints men "out of all Israel and made them heads over the people, chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. And they judged the people at all times." This is an indication (not a proof) that even authoritarian structure that is arranged by man is Biblical and "endorsed" by God (supported by Romans 13:1-7, Hebrews 13:17). I won't expand more on that thought here as it goes beyond the scope of the question, but my point is that regardless of the specifics of these church structures, Authoritarian Structure in itself and as a concept is Biblical.

Hope that helps to answer your question. I'm no scholar and I've never been to Seminary, but I guess like C.S.Lewis, even a lay-person can do their own study and pass on what they've learned. I'd love to hear what other people have to say on the topic. Good question.


What biblical reasons are there for using the Lord's Prayer as a pattern for prayer rather than a prayer to repeat verbatim?

Let's look at the immediate context:

“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
“And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. Pray then like this:
“Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name...—Matthew 6:5-9 (ESV)

This is the Sermon on the Mount, which might be summarized as calling Jesus' disciples to go beyond the normal or surface understanding of obedience.  The first paragraph I quoted above, for instance, calls us not just to pray, but to pray in secret when it produced no earthly benefit.  We aren't supposed to make a show of prayer, but to pray intimately with our Father.
Similarly, Jesus prefaces the actual text of the "Lord's Prayer" with the warning not to use empty phrases.  Don't approach prayer as a spaghetti test.  Our words must be meaningful and not merely repetition of a formula.
Although we now think of the "Lord's Prayer" as a very standard way to approach God, it was probably as strange to the first audience's ears as the rest of Jesus' teaching.  The NET Bible notes:

Pray this way. What follows, although traditionally known as the Lord’s prayer, is really the disciples’ prayer. It represents how they are to approach God, by acknowledging his uniqueness and their need for his provision and protection.

and:

God is addressed in terms of intimacy (Father). The original Semitic term here was probably Abba. The term is a little unusual in a personal prayer, especially as it lacks qualification. It is not the exact equivalent of “daddy” (as is sometimes popularly suggested), but it does suggest a close, familial relationship.

So it seems natural that Jesus was calling us to something beyond mere obedience to pray these particular words.  Rather, He was calling us to pray with a particular attitude.  Rather than obey a distant deity who has no particular reason to listen, Jesus suggests we treat God as a close relative who cares for us.

Personally, I find the prayer very carefully structured and well suited to be a guide.  I sometimes pray one phrase at a time and pause to meditate on what I personally wish to communicate along those lines to my God.  As long as the Christian is thinking about the meaning and not merely repeating the sounds, there's nothing wrong with reciting the prayer word for word, however.


Do all Christian sects believe that Paul's writings are words of God?

There is at least one group of Christian sects that does not believe that Paul's writings are the divinely inspired Word of God: the various "New Church" or "Swedenborgian" denominations that accept the theology and Bible interpretations of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772).

Swedenborg listed the books that he considers to be the Word of God in three places: Arcana Coelestia ("Secrets of Heaven") #10325, The New Jerusalem and its Heavenly Doctrine #266, and The White Horse #16. These lists do not include the Acts and the Epistles in the New Testament. For the full list, and Swedenborg's criteria for inclusion in his canon of Scripture, see this question and its accepted answer: What writings are held as "biblical canon" by Swedenborgians?

In a letter to Dr. Gabriel Beyer dated April 15, 1766, Swedenborg explained why he did not quote from Paul's letters in his first and largest published theological work, Arcana Coelestia, providing at the same time an explanation of why he did not consider them to be part of the Word of God:

  In respect to the writings of the apostles and Paul, I have not quoted them in Arcana Coelestia, because they are doctrinal writings, and consequently are not written in the style of the Word, like those of the prophets, of David, of the Evangelists, and the Book of Revelation. The style of the Word consists altogether of correspondences, wherefore it is effective of immediate communication with heaven; but in doctrinal writings there is a different style, which has indeed communication with heaven, but mediately. They were written thus by the apostles, that the new Christian Church might be commenced through them; wherefore matters of doctrine could not be written in the style of the Word, but they had to be expressed in such a manner, as to be understood more clearly and intimately. The writings of the apostles are, nevertheless, good books of the church, insisting upon the doctrine of charity and its faith as strongly as the Lord Himself has done in the Gospels and the Book of Revelation; as may be seen and found evident by every one who in reading them directs his attention to these points. ("Third Letter of Emanuel Swedenborg to Dr. Beyer," reproduced in English translation from the original Swedish in Documents Concerning Swedenborg, R.L. Tafel, Ed. London: Swedenborg Society, 1877, Volume II, Part I page 240.)

"Correspondences" refers to Swedenborg's doctrine of symbolic, metaphorical, and spiritual interpretation of the Scriptures. His view was that the books that are part of the Word of God have an inner meaning that speaks of the Lord (Jesus Christ), his kingdom, and the church (considered broadly as all people of faith who live a life of love toward the neighbor), which is the Lord's kingdom on earth.

As stated in his letter to Beyer quoted above, Swedenborg did not see the Acts and the Epistles, including the letters of Paul, as having that deeper spiritual and divine meaning. He saw them, rather, as historical and doctrinal writings intended to inform and instruct the nascent Christian Church. He therefore saw them as good books for the Christian Church, but not as the Word of God.

I am not aware of any other Christian sects that do not consider Paul's writings to be the divinely inspired Word of God. But see the related question (still unanswered as of now): Do any non-Swedenborgian Christian denominations have a smaller biblical canon than Protestantism?


According to Reformed Theology, what is the doctrinal basis for belief in New Testament tithing?

Based on the frequency with which the word "tithe" is mentioned in Reformed churches, one might expect that Reformed theologians overwhelmingly believe in an obligation for giving 10%.  But in fact, many prominent Calvinists do not believe it to continue as a command, such as John Owen, Francis Turretin, and John Gill.1
Many accept the tithe as a general rule, such as John Frame, but hesitate to make it truly obligatory:

Again and again in the Old Testament the figure of 10 percent recurs.  That is the Lord's portion.  It may be that in the New Testament that amount is not strictly required.  But surely the "cheerful" giving of 2 Corinthians 9:7 cannot be much less than that.2

Still, there are some in the Reformed tradition who make the case for the continuation of the obligatory tithe.  Among them, unsurprisingly, are theonomists like Gary North.  He combines what theonomists are known for – seeking to re-establish OT law in modern societies – with a concept of a "sovereign institutional church," and calls for churches to enforce the tithe by comparing member incomes to their donations and subjecting violators to discipline.3
But not all defenders of the modern tithe go so far.  I'll also refer to 19th-century Presbyterian minister Alexander L. Hogshead, who focuses more on New Testament passages related to tithing to make his case for the continuance of the practice.
Here are the main biblical arguments these two authors make:

The tithe precedes the mosaic law
The tithe is not abrogated in the NT, but rather assumed and implied

Tithe precedes Moses
Numerous commentators note that the first recorded instance of a tithe in the Bible precedes the giving of the Mosaic law.  Gary North argues for the modern relevance of Abraham's giving of a tithe to Melchizedek in Genesis 14:

The New Testament does not ground the tithe on the Mosaic law. On the contrary, Hebrews 7 establishes the authority of Jesus Christ's high priestly office in terms of Melchizedek's collection of the tithe from Abraham. The superiority of the New Covenant to the Old Covenant is seen in Abraham's payment of his tithe to Melchizedek – a representative judicial act of submission in the name of Israel and his son Levi. Any attempt to escape the obligation of the tithe is an assault on the New Covenant's High Priest, Jesus Christ.4

Tithe continued in the NT
Hogshead argues that God's provision for the leadership of his people has not changed – that it is found in the obligatory tithe.  He focuses first on Paul's admonishment in 1 Corinthians 9:7–14, in which Paul cites the Mosaic law in reference to the support of his ministry, and concludes:

13 Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? 14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. (ESV; emphasis added)

Hogshead particularly emphasizes the phrase translated "in the same way," arguing that these words "express Christ's positive appointment, in reference to the christian ministry, of the substantial features and principles of the old divine law."5
Against those who argue that the New Testament does not explicitly require a tithe, Hogshead argues:

A large portion of the disciples of Christ were converted Jews, who carried with them their hereditary attachment to all the essential parts of divine worship [...] These christians did not need specific instructions in relation to those duties that they had been accustomed to regard as divinely enjoined.
In relation to this branch of divine service, they knew that from the beginning, it was in part regulated by fixed laws, and in part varied by circumstances.  The tithes and first-fruits were fixed, the free-will offerings were varied according to the exegencies of the church.  The only points upon which they needed instruction were the changed circumstances in which the new dispensation placed them.6

Thus Hogshead sees a continuation of the obligatory tithe, and contends that New Testament appeals to generosity are intended "to secure from christians enlarged offerings beyond the former standard" but do not eliminate the obligation of that former standard – the tithe.
Similarly, he appeals to Hebrews 13:16, Galatians 6:6–7, Luke 10:7, and 2 Corinthians 11:8, arguing that with their language of "wages" and "robbery," they would have been understood as continuing the obligatory tithe, not abrogating it.
Summary
Reformed advocates of the continuation of the tithe argue that the obligation of tithing pre-existed the Mosaic law, and that the New Testament assumes and implies its continuation today.  Thus they see it as a part of the broader Mosaic law that ought to be reestablished (i.e., theonomy), or as a part of the law that was never abrogated and thus continues.

References

David Croteau, You Mean I Don't Have to Tithe, 279
The Doctrine of the Christian Life, 801
Tithing and the Church
Ibid., 2
The Gospel Self-Supporting, 19
Ibid., 27


What was Jesus trying to convey in the parables of the mustard seed and yeast?

Jesus was saying that the Kingdom of God has a huge effect on whatever it interacts with.  That is, the effect is disproportionately large in comparison to what we mortals perceive the Kingdom of God to be.

The Kingdom of God refers to more than just Heaven.  The Kingdom of God also includes his people, many of whom are still here on Earth.


Which are the parts of the Old Testament that point to Jesus?

Prototypes of Jesus can be thought of as falling into the following categories:

Prophecies

In these kinds of references, a man of God delivered a message which would be fulfilled in Jesus.  Isaiah 53, to quote one famous example, speaks of a suffering servant who would be "beaten for our iniquities and wounded for our transgressions." "By his stripes, we would be healed."  Isaiah 7 speaks of a virgin* who would conceive. (The asterix b/c I know the issues involved in that.) Jonah foreshadows Christ in that a man who was (bascially) dead for three days ("in the belly of the whale") comes to preach repentance. As Yul Brenner would say, 'etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.'  Hosea marries a prostitute who keeps leaving him, prefiguring Jesus coming to his own, and his own receive him not.

The primarily prophetic books would be: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the Minor Prophets
Ceremonial / Law Fufilment

The Torah - aka the Pentetuch - and especially the latter half of Exodus and all of Leviticus and Deuteronomy - record the sacrifices, rules, and details about worship collectively called "the Law."  Jesus said that he came "not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it."  He came as the sin offering.  He came as the Jubilee.  He came to "cleanse people from their sins," and so on. When Jesus' parents "redeem" him at the Temple, bringing the sacrifice the poor person is supposed to offer, Jesus identifies with the lowly. In these parts of the Old Testament, the types of Christ are ceremonialily pre-figurative. This is made explicit in Matthew, when John initially refuses to baptize Jesus, but Jesus insists, saying, "this is necessary to fulfill all righteousness."
Literary Allusion / Symbolism

In the "Ketuvi'im" or the Writings (Joshua - Song of Solomon), Jesus is most often seen as the target of an allusion.  In Song of Solomon, a woman is erotically charged as she comes to greet her lover - and for years the church has insisted this is typical of the relationship between Jesus and his bride.  In Psalm 22, a forsaken man cries out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" the same words that Jesus cries from the cross.
Historical Parallel

The Book of Exodus, of course, is God rescuing and redeeming his people. As just one example, the Passover meal is later used by Jesus to prefigure his death, and is later appropriated as what is now called "Communion" or the "Eucharist."  In 1 Samuel - 2 Chronicles, a kingdom is established through David, over which Jesus would rule forever.  The idea is that the grand sweep of history is often summarized as "Creation. Fall, Redemption" and is seen as the "story of God"

In all of these things, Jesus is said to be the one prefigured, because the book is about Him.  Scholars disagree over the exact numbers of references, but most agree that Jesus is prefigured in every book of the Old Testament. (The more liberal ones would say that there are symbols to which Jesu appropriates or s at least alludes when he comes.)  To list them all, however, would be a book.

One final little allusion, however, that bears some consideration, is the story commonly called "the Transfiguration."  Jesus goes up to a mountaintop, whereupon Elijah and Moses greet him.  Now, you should know that Jews refer to the Old Testament in two categories - "the Law" and "the Prophets."  Moses, as the "lawgiver" who brings the 10 commandments off of Mount Sinai.  Elijah was the most famous of the prophets, working miracles and boldly declaring God's truth to a wicked King.  In standing between and amongst these two, Jesus himself declares himself to be "the Law and the Prophets," a nice little picture saying that indeed, Jesus is the Word this Old Testament has been preaching all along.


This is kind of like asking, "Why should you tell your Dad you love him if he already knows?" It's not about conveying information, it's about fellowship. God created us for fellowship with Him. We don't pray because God needs to be reminded of our needs, we are supposed to pray because we are to partner with Him to see His will be done. He choose not to force us to do His will, but that we are to choose to seek His will. Jesus told us to pray in this way:

  Pray in this way "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."

Prayer recognizes God as our Father, who is holy, and seeks to put our mindset in alignment with His.


Jehovah's Witness officiating a non-denomination wedding ceremony

Jehovah's Witnesses have not published any article specifically on officiating non-Witness weddings, but there has been an article discussing whether or not Witnesses should attend non-Witness weddings.

Watchtower: Questions from Readers (published in 2007)

The concluding paragraph summarizes the article well:

  After carefully weighing all the factors, some Christians may decide that it would not be improper to attend a non-Witness wedding as a quiet observer. But if a Christian reasons that by being present, he might be tempted to compromise godly principles, he may conclude that the risk outweighs the possible benefits. If he decides not to attend the wedding but to go as an invited guest to the festivities held thereafter, he should be determined to “do all things for God’s glory.” (1 Corinthians 10:31) In making such decisions, “each one will carry his own load” of responsibility. (Galatians 6:5) Whatever you decide, therefore, remember that preserving a good conscience before Jehovah God is vital.

So in the context of deciding to officiate the wedding, it would also be a matter of conscience for the Witness. It would depend greatly on the spirituality of those in attendance, and what they may expect to see at the wedding and the following ceremony. If, for instance, people were getting drunk or dancing crudely at the ceremony, it would very likely violate the Witness' conscience. Jehovah's Witnesses also do not participate in interfaith activities.

Legally speaking, one of Jehovah's Witnesses would obviously be subject to the same laws as any other person officiating a wedding.

One caveat: if the Witness happens to be an elder in the congregation, they are specifically instructed to only officiate weddings that are between a man and woman who are both at least unbaptized publishers. - Source: my dad who is an elder.


Did Jesus' parables have different meanings to the different Gospel writer's congregations?

In perfect Catholic form, the Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks pretty directly, but somewhat ambiguously if not paradoxically, on interpreting scripture and the Gospels in particular.

Firstly, scripture is still "open" for various and new understanding.

  Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.”
  Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is
  “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and
  living.” If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter,
  Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy
  Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.” (CCC
  108)

This doesn't grant us freedom to read into scripture whatever we wish. Our interpretation must fit within the existing framework and beliefs of the Church. But, it does support the idea that various truths can be extracted from the parables within reasonable bounds.

With specific regard to the Gospels, we're fed two slightly contradictory messages:

  We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels:

  The life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, “whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms,
  faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among
  men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day
  when he was taken up.”
  The oral tradition. “For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done, but
  with that fuller understanding which they, instructed by the glorious
  events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now enjoyed.”
  The written Gospels. “The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed
  on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized
  or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, while
  sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that
  they have told us the honest truth about Jesus.”

  (CCC 126)

Furthermore (actually stated earlier):

  In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret
  Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human
  authors truly wanted to affirm and to what God wanted to reveal to us
  by their words. (CCC 109)

On the one hand, we're told that the Gospels are true to the actual events. On the other hand, we're told that details were included and possibly fabricated to aid in our understanding. That in mind, I think the most reasonable understanding is that the events actually occurred, that Christ clarified things for his disciples, but that all truths revealed by the parables were not necessarily written in the Gospels.

What the CCC has to say with specific regard to the parables supports this notion:

  Jesus’ invitation to enter his kingdom comes in the form of parables,
  a characteristic feature of his teaching. Through his parables he
  invites people to the feast of the kingdom, but he also asks for a
  radical choice: to gain the kingdom, one must give everything. Words
  are not enough; deeds are required. The parables are like mirrors for
  man: will he be hard soil or good earth for the word? What use has he
  made of the talents he has received? Jesus and the presence of the
  kingdom in this world are secretly at the heart of the parables. One
  must enter the kingdom, that is, become a disciple of Christ, in order
  to “know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven.” For those who stay
  “outside,” everything remains enigmatic. (CCC
  546)

Those who wish to enter the kingdom, the disciples of Christ, will given the secrets of heaven. It's not at all a stretch to assume, then, that those closest to Christ were given specific explanation -- as the Gospel says.

TLDR: My best understanding is that Christ clarified the parables in the greatest detail necessary to the faithfully seeking disciples; but that each Gospel author recorded only those explicitly revealed interpretations He was aware of (obviously) and which were relevant to the community he wrote to.

And for what it's worth, I do not suspect the the Gospel writers "synthesized" Christ's actual words; more likely for synthesis are the number of loaves and fish fed to an edited number of people on a hill.


Was Jesus two separate individuals in one body?

According to the Westminster Confession of Faith:

  The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon Him man's nature,(1) with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin;(2) being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance.(3) So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion.(4) Which person is very God...

This appears to suggest that your "two persons" theory is mistaken, because Christ is one person with two natures. Whether or not this answers your question rather depends on your view of WCF, and assumes that your definition of person is the same as that used by WCF.


Did the midwives in Exodus 1 sin by disobeying and lying to Pharaoh? (Catholic/Protestant overview)

The consensus among Catholic and Protestant commentators is that the midwives did not sin by disobeying Pharaoh, but if they did lie to him, they sinned.
Handling each point separately:
Disobedience to Pharaoh
Catholic commentator George Leo Haydock cites Acts 4 and Matthew 10:28 in reference to Pharaoh's command to kill the male Hebrew children, indicating that civil disobedience is appropriate in this instance.
John Calvin strongly defends the midwives on this point, saying that obeying Pharaoh here would have been  "an inexcusable contempt of God."  Methodist commentator Adam Clarke writes that the women rightly obeyed God's command from Genesis 9:6 rather than Pharaoh's.
Lying to Pharaoh
The idea that the midwives lied to Pharaoh in verse 19 is contested by Clarke.  He writes:

I contend that there was neither lie direct nor even prevarication in the case. The midwives boldly state to Pharaoh a fact, (had it not been so, he had a thousand means of ascertaining the truth), and they state it in such a way as to bring conviction to his mind on the subject of his oppressive cruelty on the one hand, and the mercy of Jehovah on the other.

Thus, according to Clarke, God rewards the midwives in verses 20-21 for both their obedience to God and their frankness toward Pharaoh, and since they did not lie, they did not sin.
However, Haydock sees the matter differently.  Citing Augustine's Contra Mendacium, he argues:

Perhaps [...] the midwives spoke truth, with regard to the generality of the Hebrew women. But they gave way to a lie of excuse, with regard to some, (ver. 17,) which St. Augustine would not allow, even to save all the Hebrew children.

Thus, according to Haydock, the women sinned:

The midwives were rewarded, not for their lie, which was a venial sin; but for their fear of God.

Augustine likewise says the women are guilty of lying, and that they received their reward for being "merciful to God's people."  To those who say that the midwives would have died if they had told the truth, Augustine answers:

Yea, but see what follows. They would die with an heavenly habitation for their incomparably more ample reward than those houses which they made them on earth could be: they would die, to be in eternal felicity, after enduring of death for most innocent truth.

Calvin similarly sees that the women "escaped by falsehood":

[B]oth points must be admitted, that the two women lied, and, since lying is displeasing to God, that they sinned.

To explain God's reward to them in spite of their sin, Calvin continues:

[I]n [God's] paternal indulgence of his children he still values their good works, as if they were pure, notwithstanding they may be defiled by some mixture of impurity.

References:

Augustine's Contra Mendacium, 32 and 34.
Calvin's Harmony of the Law, vol. 1
Clarke's Bible Commentary
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary


What is the significance of the three distinct aspects of the temptation of Eve in the garden?

1 Thessalonians 5:23 KJV
  And the very God of peace sanctify you
  wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be
  preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Shameless "copy and paste" from here:

  1: The BODY. This is your PHYSICAL component of being. It is flesh
  made from a collection of unremarkable mineral elements (but is mostly
  water) and is in harmony with the nature and spirit of this world. It
  grows, matures, begins to deteriorate, eventually dies, and then
  decomposes back into its constituent elements and remains a part of
  the dust of the world. The body is a part of you but is NOT ALL of
  what defines who YOU are.

    Proverbs 5:11 KJV
    And thou mourn at the last, when thy flesh and thy body are consumed,"

  2: The SOUL. This is who YOU are; it is a part of your SPIRITUAL
  component. This is your individuality, your "I AM" so to speak (made
  in God’s image), your "heart." Although your individual soul did not
  exist before your mother and father procreated you, it will exist
  forever. It cannot be killed by man:

    Matt. 10:28 KJV
    And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul
    and body in hell."

  When your body dies your soul (YOU) will leave the body of flesh:

    Genesis 35:18 KJV
    And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin."

  3: The SPIRIT. This is the source of power and control for both your
  body and soul; it is either evil or good, darkness or light, unholy or
  Holy, unclean or clean, of Satan or of God:

    Luke 9:55 KJV
    But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of."

Why all that explanation? Well, the Eve's temptation and Jesus temptation are similar:

         Eve                        Jesus
Body   - good for food            - stones to become loaves of bread
Soul   - delight to the eyes      - all these I will give you
Spirit - desired to make one wise - If you are the Son of God...

(Sorry the formatting, Markdown has not tables)

Satan tempted in all aspects possible both Jesus and Eve - Body, Soul and Spirit.

Finally, not all scholars accept that kind of theory, because consider "Soul" and "Spirit" to be equivalent, or different terms that refers to same subject.


Why are some words in the King James Bible written in italics?

This is a sign of honesty on the translators' part.  The italicized words are interpolations, words that were not in the original documents but were added to the English text.  Many of them are there to make things make better grammatical sense in English, but a few of them can actually change the meanings of the passages, so they ought to be examined critically when you run across them.


How many different groups are there that base their teachings on the Book of Mormon and/or Joseph Smith?

As you have said, there are essentially two major sects in the Latter-day Saint movement which hold the Book of Mormon to be scripture and a base for teachings. They are:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
The Community of Christ (descendent of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is a group that did not migrate to Utah)

The former represents the largest sect of the Latter-day Saint movement whose origins are from Utah and Brigham Young's leadership in the 19th century. The latter represents the largest sect among those that did not recognize Young's succession. Members of these sects represent the vast majority of adherents to Mormonism.
Additionally, there are several hundred LDS sects that can essentially be categorized as belonging to one of several origins:

Fundamentalist sects which broke off from Mormonism in the 19th century over issues related to the abolishment of polygamy. Many still practice it. Most are headquartered in the intermountain west.
Josephite sects who trace their leadership through at least a few of Joseph Smith's descendents. Most are headquartered near Missouri.
Sects who recognized some other successor to Smith that was not Young nor any of Smith's posterity. Most are also headquartered near Missouri or thereabouts.
Various breakoff sects from modern Mormonism over various issues (i.e. Homosexuality, etc.) Most of these have been founded in the 20th and 21st centuries and are a breakoff of the largest sect (the first one listed above).
Those which have completely independent origins and are merely founded on some Latter-day Saint beliefs.

As far as I am aware, all of these sects accept the Book of Mormon to be true with various degrees of advocacy for its use. The Community of Christ, for example, in recent years has reduced its emphasis on the Book of Mormon. Most, however, have different views on what literature originated by Smith is official canon. Some, for example, do not accept some or all of the Doctrine and Covenants or Pearl of Great Price. Perhaps it is safe to say that all of them claim to base their teachings on those of Joseph Smith, and hold him to be a prophet. However, what this means in the context of each sect's teachings will vary wildly.
Wikipedia has an excellent summary of modern and defunct LDS sects and their origins.


How do schisms in the church fit into the plans of a monotheistic God?

Short Answer: Schisms in the church are the result of sin. However, God can use even the schisms to serve His purposes, by making a distinction between those who are walking according to His ways and those who are not.

First, it is important to distinguish between "the church" and "all the churches".  (Compare 1 Timothy 3:15 and Romans 16:16 - same Greek word.)

"The" Church

In one sense, there is one church, comprised of all believers.  Amongst believers, we should strive for unity, which means walking in humility, patience, tolerance, etc.

  [I, Paul] implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit . . . one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father -Ephesians 4:1-6

The implication is that if there is not unity, it is due to sin.  (See also Matthew 5:23-24.)

Local Churches

Believers gather together in local assemblies, which are referred to as "churches" in the Bible.  For various reasons, local churches tend to take on unique personalities.  (e.g. Revelation 2-3)  However, the principle is the same - be of like mind.  (2 Corinthians 13:11, Philippians 1:27, 2:2)

  Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. -1 Corinthians 1:10

Reality

Unfortunately, divisions are a reality.  This wasn't something Martin Luther brought into the church... consider the following division between the ministries of Paul and Barnabas:

  Barnabas wanted to take John, called Mark, along with them also. But Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along . . . And there occurred such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another -Acts 15:37-39

The Root of the Problem

It is an unpopular message, but scripture teaches us clearly what the reason for division is.  Divisions are the result of a person (or assembly) becoming worldly, devoid of the Spirit, following after their own lusts:

  'In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.' These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit. But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God -Jude 1:18-21

In contrast to these wicked men, believers are instructed to walk by faith, pray in the Spirit, and remain in the love of God.

Redemptive Purpose

God doesn't desire divisions amongst His people, but if a person (or assembly) becomes worldly, lustful, etc. sometimes it is necessary for a separation to take place.

  I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world . . . for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person . . . For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? . . . REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES."  -1 Corinthians 5:9-13

Of course, Luther believed the Catholic Church had become so corrupt in his day that he needed to separate from them.  The Catholic Church responded with excommunication. In other words, the "two groups" felt they had irreconcilable differences in doctrine, and one or both sides were unwilling to continue in fellowship together.

But God can even work through situations caused by the evil motives of men, and work it all out for the good of His people (Genesis 50:20, Romans 8:28.)  There is even a redemptive purpose which God can work through divisions - He can use the divisions to shed light on who is following in His ways and who isn't.

  when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you . . . there must . . . be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. -1 Corinthians 11:18-19


There are many accounts of people being healed in the Scriptures.  It seems that God sometimes used this to authenticate His message or His messenger.  Other times, it seems to be just an act of compassion.  The resurrection of Jesus is the most significant miracle, of course, and it is certainly not fantasy.  There is ample evidence to support the occurrence of miracles.
The particular instance in Luke 4 comes as Jesus is speaking in His hometown of Nazareth.  The people there are rejecting Him because they are familiar with Him and His family.
Jesus cites two examples where non-Jewish people were healed and Jewish people were not.  The Jews were God's chosen people, to be sure, but their history is one of consistent rejection of God.
This appears to be a warning to the people of Nazareth to not reject Jesus just because of their familiarity with Him.  In times past, God had turned from the Jews and bestowed His blessings on Gentiles, so just because the people of Nazareth were Jewish did not preclude them from being rejected by God if they rejected Jesus as the Son of God.

22 And all spoke well of him and marveled at the
gracious words that were coming from his mouth. And they said, “Is not
this Joseph's son?” 23 And he said to them, “Doubtless you will quote
to me this proverb, ‘Physician, heal yourself.’ What we have heard you
did at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well.”
24 And he said,
“Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown. 25 But
in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of
Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and
a great famine came over all the land, 26 and Elijah was sent to none
of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who
was a widow. 27 And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of
the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the
Syrian.” 28 When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were
filled with wrath.
29 And they rose up and drove him out of the town
and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built,
so that they could throw him down the cliff. 30 But passing through
their midst, he went away.  Luke 4:22-30 ESV


From a Catholic viewpoint, why will there be a particular judgement and a general judgment?

Catechism of the Council of Trent (The Roman Catechism) "Article 7: From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.:"

  Reasons For General Judgment

  It is necessary to show why, besides the particular judgment of each
  individual, a general one should also be passed upon all men.

  Those who depart this life sometimes leave behind them children who
  imitate their conduct, dependents, followers and others who admire and
  advocate their example, language and actions. Now by all these
  circumstances the rewards or punishments of the dead must needs be
  increased, since the good or bad influence of example, affecting as it
  does the conduct of many, is to terminate only with the end of the
  world. Justice demands that in order to form a proper estimate of all
  these good or bad actions and words a thorough investigation should be
  made. This, however, could not be without a general judgment of all
  men.

  Moreover, as the character of the virtuous frequently suffers from
  misrepresentation, while that of the wicked obtains the commendation
  of virtue, the justice of God demands that the former recover, in the
  public assembly and judgment of all men, the good name of which they
  had been unjustly deprived before men.

  Again, as the just and the wicked performed their good and evil
  actions in this life not without the cooperation of the body, it
  necessarily follows that these actions belong also to the body as to
  their instrument. It was, therefore, altogether suitable that the body
  should share with the soul the due rewards of eternal glory or
  punishment. But this can only be accomplished by means of a general
  resurrection and of a general judgment.

  Next, it is important to prove that in prosperity and adversity, which
  are sometimes the promiscuous lot of the good and of the bad,
  everything is done and ordered by an all-wise and all-just Providence.
  It was, therefore, necessary not only that rewards should await the
  just and punishments the wicked, in the life to come, but that they
  should be awarded by a public and general judgment. Thus they will
  become better known and will be rendered more conspicuous to all; and
  in atonement for the unwarranted murmurings, to which on seeing the
  wicked abound in wealth and flourish in honours even the Saints
  themselves, as men, have sometimes given expression, a tribute of
  praise will be offered by all to the justice and Providence of God. My
  feet, says the Prophet, were almost moved, my steps had well nigh
  slipped, because I had a zeal on occasion of the wicked, seeing the
  prosperity of sinners; and a little after: Behold! these are sinners
  and yet abounding in the world, they have obtained riches; and I said,
  Then have I in vain justified my heart, and washed my hands among the
  innocent; and I have been scourged all the day, and my chastisement
  hath been in the morning. This has been the frequent complaint of
  many, and a general judgment is therefore necessary, lest perhaps men
  may be tempted to say that God walketh about the poles of heaven, and
  regards not the earth.


Jesus' most clear statements on the end times are in Matthew 24.  You can see for yourself what He said.

I don't see anything about "blood moons" here, but this passage is far from the only passage in Scripture that addresses the end times.  A full answer addressing eschatology would be far* too large to this site.  Many books have been written on the subject, so I'm sticking to Jesus' words, as asked.

  1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples
  came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.

  2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say
  unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that
  shall not be thrown down.

  3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him
  privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall
  be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

  4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive
  you.

  5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall
  deceive many.

  6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not
  troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not
  yet.

  7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:
  and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in
  divers places.

  8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.

  9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you:
  and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

  10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and
  shall hate one another.

  11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

  12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

  13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

  14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world
  for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

  15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken
  of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let
  him understand:)

  16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

  17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing
  out of his house:

  18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his
  clothes.

  19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck
  in those days!

  20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the
  sabbath day:

  21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the
  beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

  22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be
  saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

  23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there;
  believe it not.

  24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall
  shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they
  shall deceive the very elect.

  25 Behold, I have told you before.

  26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert;
  go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

  27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto
  the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

  28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered
  together.

  29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be
  darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall
  fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

  30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and
  then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the
  Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

  31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and
  they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end
  of heaven to the other.

  32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender,
  and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

  33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is
  near, even at the doors.

  34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all
  these things be fulfilled.

  35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

  36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of
  heaven, but my Father only.

  37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son
  of man be.

  38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and
  drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe
  entered into the ark,

  39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall
  also the coming of the Son of man be.

  40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the
  other left.

  41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken,
  and the other left.

  42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

  43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what
  watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have
  suffered his house to be broken up.

  44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the
  Son of man cometh.

  45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made
  ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?

  46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so
  doing.

  47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his
  goods.

  48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord
  delayeth his coming;

  49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink
  with the drunken;

  50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not
  for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,

  51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the
  hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

  King James Version (KJV)

Also, from Luke 21: (This time NIV)

  5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned
  with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said,
  6 “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will
  be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”

  7 “Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will
  be the sign that they are about to take place?”

  8 He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come
  in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not
  follow them. 9 When you hear of wars and uprisings, do not be
  frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come
  right away.”

  10 Then he said to them: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom
  against kingdom. 11 There will be great earthquakes, famines and
  pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from
  heaven.

  12 “But before all this, they will seize you and persecute you. They
  will hand you over to synagogues and put you in prison, and you will
  be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name.
  13 And so you will bear testimony to me. 14 But make up your mind not to
  worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15 For I will give you
  words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist
  or contradict. 16 You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers and
  sisters, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to
  death. 17 Everyone will hate you because of me. 18 But not a hair of
  your head will perish. 19 Stand firm, and you will win life.

  20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know
  that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to
  the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the
  country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in
  fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in
  those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great
  distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall
  by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations.
  Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the
  Gentiles are fulfilled.

  25 “There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth,
  nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing
  of the sea. 26 People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is
  coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. 27 At that
  time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and
  great glory. 28 When these things begin to take place, stand up and
  lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”

  29 He told them this parable: “Look at the fig tree and all the trees.
  30 When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that
  summer is near. 31 Even so, when you see these things happening, you
  know that the kingdom of God is near.

  32 “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away
  until all these things have happened. 33 Heaven and earth will pass
  away, but my words will never pass away.

  34 “Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with carousing,
  drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you
  suddenly like a trap. 35 For it will come on all those who live on the
  face of the whole earth. 36 Be always on the watch, and pray that you
  may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be
  able to stand before the Son of Man.”

  37 Each day Jesus was teaching at the temple, and each evening he went
  out to spend the night on the hill called the Mount of Olives, 38and
  all the people came early in the morning to hear him at the temple.


I fully agree with @depperm's answer.  But just to have fun with the question, let's assume Joseph made no corrections.  What could the verse possibly mean from the LDS perspective?

We believe nobody was resurrected before Jesus Christ.  From Acts 26:22-23 (see also Colossians 1:18)

  Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day,
  witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than
  those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: that Christ
  should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from
  the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Remember, we of the LDS faith believe that our Father's work and glory is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."  (Moses 1:39)  The difference between immortality and eternal life being resurrection and exaltation (see my answer to this question).  Since all people will be resurrected but none but Christ had been at that point, it was perfectly sensible to describe Christ as the "only immortal."

(Let me note that many people believe Matthew 27:51-53 describes Christians rising resurrected from their graves.  They're interpreting after his resurrection to mean "after the manner of" rather than "sometime later."  Since Jesus was the first to be resurrected, and this statement was made in Matthew immediately after Jesus died on the cross---three days before his resurrection---it's obvious to me that it's the later interpretation.  But that's an answer for another question.)

As for why we (meaning Joseph) think the verse was mistranslated or lost something from Paul's original writing (which doesn't exist) to today's translations, we need only look at the expanded reference you provide.
From verse 14:

  ...until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ...

And verse 16:

  ...whom no man hath seen, nor can see...

Paul appears to be contradicting himself, suggesting that we are waiting until the next appearance of Jesus... whom no man has seen, nor can see.  One of those two statements is wrong.

Worse, he teaches that Christ is dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto.  Except that Jesus spent His entire ministry teaching the He is the light and that He is completely approachable. ... Unless maybe Paul was being very literal: perhaps a person in their mortal body can't stand before Divinity without help?  Jesus Himself was transfigured to see Old Testament prophets (Matthew 17:1-3) and they weren't even resurrected, yet.  From Moses 1:11-14 we learn:

  But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my
  spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I
  should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon
  me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him.

Without that transfiguration, no one on this earth can stand before the risen and glorified Lord.

So, why didn't Paul just say this?  We believe Paul was a better teacher than that.  Why tell Timothy that he was called to eternal life (1 Timothy 6:12) and then tell him it won't matter because only Jesus is immortal and no one can approach or even see Him?  That begs the question, what's the point of building up this entire house of cards to explain a confusing verse when Paul's usual lesson is about having a hope in Christ and availing oneself of His atonement?

Conclusion: without Joseph's correction to 1 Timothy 6:16 a complicated house of cards is needed to even try to understand and rationalize the verse, which is a better than average sign that the verse was improperly translated.  On the other hand, Joseph's repair sounds very much like Paul and conforms to Paul's other teachings.

Finally, our 9th Article of Faith teaches:

  We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and
  we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things
  pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Including repairing misunderstandings in the Bible (and anywhere else, for that matter).


Can Pope use his Interdict power to force changes in national laws regarding abortion?

In Roman Catholic canon law, an interdict is an ecclesiastical censure that excludes from certain rites of the Church individuals or groups, who nonetheless do not cease to be members of the Church. The pope can at any time choose to use his interdict powers to deny  the sacraments to all nations whose laws allow abortion.

The widespread support of abortion rights is evident, for example, in the United States, which provides for legal abortions, and nearly every European country, with most countries in the European Union allowing abortion on demand during the first trimester. Were the pope to exclude the Catholic population of almost every country in the world from participation in Church rites, the Church could expect a backlash that might cause serious damage to the entire Church. So although the pope could interdict every country that did not fall into line, this is not a risk that a prudent pope would consider taking.


Historically there was a type of canon known as a prebendary canon.

  Kinds of canons

  Canons are divided in the following manner: (1) Cathedral canons, who, attached to the cathedral church, form the senate or council of the bishop; collegiate canons, who perform the canonical office in the church to which they are attached, but are not connected by reason of their office with the government of the diocese. (2) Prebendary canons, who have a prebend or fixed income attached to the canonry; simple canons, who have no prebend. (3) Canons de numero, i.e. those of a church the number of whose canons can neither be diminished nor increased; (4) supernumerary canons, who are assistants to the canons de numero. The supernumerary canons are subdivided into three classes, viz. (a) those whom the Holy Father appoints and who will receive the first vacant prebend (expectant canons); (b) honorary canons (for these see the Constitution of Leo XIII "Illud est proprium", 21 Jan., 1894, and the recent decree of the Congr. of Rites, 14 Nov., 1902), and (c) canons who are added on the founding of a new prebend. Formerly the chief distinction was that made between the secular and regular canons. Regular canons, as forming the council of the bishop, are now almost obsolete, and the special regulations by which they are bound, their rights, privileges, and duties, are treated fully in works on canon law. The special status of canons in English-speaking countries will be considered later.

Wikipedia has the following to say about what a prebendary canon is:

  A prebendary is a member of the Anglican or Roman Catholic clergy, a form of canon with a role in the administration of a cathedral or collegiate church. When attending services, prebendaries sit in particular seats, usually at the back of the choir stalls, known as prebendal stalls.

  A prebend is the form of benefice held by a prebendary: historically, the stipend attached to it was usually drawn from specific sources in the income of a cathedral's estates. In the 21st century, many remaining prebendaries hold an honorary position which does not carry an income with it. - Prebendary

Not finding a proper definition of demi-prebendary canon, I would believe that they are simply honorary prebendary canon, who do not get an income from this honorary position.

Similarly, a claustral prior is a demi-prelate. Under certain circumstances, he may perform some of the duties of an abbot, following the absence or death of his superior, yet is not an abbot. Thus his actions are very limited.


How do Trinitarians reconcile Jesus is a spirit?

Trinitarians believe that Jesus being human does not contradict his status as God (or as the Spirit).
Even though Jesus is God, he made himself into physical human being, and through this he was able to experience life fully as a man.

Philippians 2:5-8 KJV Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
John 1:14-15 ESV And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”)

Yet at the same time, Jesus was fully God.

Hebrews 2:9-10 ESV But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering.


Romans 9:13 is quoting one of my favorite verses in all of scripture - Malachi 1:2-5.  Here's what it says:

2 “I have loved you,” says the Lord.
“But you ask, ‘How have you loved us?’
“Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his hill country into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals. ”
4 Edom may say, “Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins.”
But this is what the Lord Almighty says: “They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the Lord. 5 You will see it with your own eyes and say, ‘Great is the Lord—even beyond the borders of Israel!’

A few things to note about the context:

Even this "hatred" is in the context of love. The whole point is God telling Israel how much He has and does love Israel.
This "hatred" is a comparative preference for Israel over its enemy Edom. If, say, my wife hates Rosie O'Donnell, she would, most likely, expect me to hold her in contempt as well.  (Note: I'm not saying what one should do, but rather, what one is likely to do. In any case, with Rosie O'Donnell, it's pretty universal, so the point is moot.) God blessed Jacob, just as he promised he would - and he didn't out and out give up on Edom. But, comparatively speaking, he clearly preferred Israel over its enemy.
This is talking not about unborn children, but about nations. Notice how the text seemlessly moves from Esau to his descendants, the nation of Edom. (Incidentally, Obadiah lists some of the complaints against Esau / Edom.)


Given that Mormons believe the father has a physical body, what is the significance of the incarnation?

It's a big, transcendent deal for Latter-Day Saints too, just in a different way.  Mormons believe that God the Son, Jesus Christ, has a physical body, but before the Incarnation he didn't.

As I understand it, the Catholic doctrine of "hypostatic union" teaches that Christ was both fully human and fully divine during his mortal ministry.  LDS doctrine essentially takes that idea one step further: while Jesus has always been the Son of God, participated in the Creation alongside the Father, and gave revelations and power to his prophets and his people in ancient days, he has also always been a son of God, as we all are, and followed the same eternal path of progression as we do, serving not only as our Savior and our Lord, but as our Exemplar.

He began as a spirit child of God, as we all did, was born into mortality, lived among us and experienced the joys and hardships of mortal existence, and eventually died, just like the rest of us.  But then he did something that only he, being God, was capable of: he broke the bands of death, taking back his life and opening the doors of the Resurrection, so that all of us can follow in his footsteps and continue our progress.

Latter-Day Saints believe that the righteous can achieve "exaltation," the quality of eternal life that God the Father and Jesus Christ enjoy, in the hereafter, but saying that it will be in "our fleshy bodies" is a bit of a simplification.

When Jesus was resurrected, he appeared to the apostles in his resurrected body.  He showed them the wounds from the crucifixion and had them touch and handle him so they would know he was not some sort of ghost, and even ate food with them. (See Luke 24.)  But he said something very unique during this meeting: "a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me have."  The much more common description of our physical bodies is "flesh and blood;" by saying "flesh and bones" instead, this implies that, while our resurrected bodies will still be distinctly our own bodies, (note the crucifixion wounds,) they will be different in quality in some way.  Mormons believe that these bodies will be perfected and immortal, incapable of further corruption or death.

This shows what the profound implications of the Incarnation are to Latter-Day Saints: when Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life, and no man comes to the Father but by me," he was describing himself as our Exemplar.  He showed us the way to "come unto the Father" and achieve exaltation by achieving it himself!


Reference request about St. John Vianney and the Miraculous Medal?

Question Pertaining to St. John Vianney and the Miraculous Medal
I have a great devotion to St. John Vianney and have read the works on the Curé D'Ars by Mgr. Francis Trochu, the procurator of his cause in French.
If you can locate one of the first published works that were written by him for the beatification and/or canonization of Jean-Marie Baptiste Vianney you would find your references desired. Possibly later works could include the references you desire.
The procurators must publish the written works of his investigation which are heavily annotated with notes and sources, for the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints.
If you are lucky, you may possibly find a biography about the Curé D'Ars: St. Jean-Marie Baptiste Vianney in English by the same author. Do not look at the abridged biographies of him. The greater number of pages, the greater the possibility that the notes you are looking for with be in that particular biographical works!
I know to be certain of what I am saying because I have personally read this original work on Curé D'Ars, with the very notes and references you are desiring because I read this work some 30 years ago in French. If fact, at times I found the notes more interesting than the actual biography itself.

The Curé D'Ars: St. Jean-Marie Baptiste Vianney by Mgr. Francis Trochu. This image is given as an example of Mgr. Trochu’s works only!


Does it actually SAY that Heaven will be joyous in The Bible?

The Bible does not say there will be infinite joy, but rather the absence of its opposite.  Revelation 21:4 states:

  4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

The absence of death (cf. 1 Corinthians 15) and the absence of tears seems to indicate an abundance of joy.  It isn't explicit, but it is pretty easy to extrapolate to that position.


How are the Decretive, Preceptive, and Permissive wills of God defined?

The decretive will of God is where God decrees what definitely will happen. For example, if God decrees that Jesus Christ will return in judgment, then that will definitely happen.
The preceptive will of God is where God gives us a precept. This is how we see what God desires us to do. For example, all of the Ten Commandments show us the preceptive will of God. The difference is that while God tells us to obey the Ten Commandments, He doesn't decree that we will definitely obey them, thus "permitting" our disobedience.
Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology, says the following:

The decretive will of God concerns his purposes, and relates to the futurition of events. The preceptive will relates to the rule of duty for his rational creatures. He decrees whatever he purposes to effect or to permit. He prescribes, according to his own will, what his creatures should do, or abstain from doing. The decretive and preceptive will of God can never be in conflict. God never decrees to do, or to cause others to do, what He forbids. He may, as we see He does, decree to permit what He forbids. He permits men to sin, although sin is forbidden. This is more scholastically expressed by the theologians by saying, A positive decretive will cannot consist with a negative preceptive will; i.e., God cannot decree to make men sin. But a negative decretive will may consist with an affirmative preceptive will; e.g., God may command men to repent and believe, and yet, for wise reasons, abstain from giving them repentance.

Preceptive will, permissive will, and passive will are synonymous. Decretive will, sovereign will, and active will are synonymous.
The Westminster Shorter Catechism questions and answers 7 and 39 say the following:

Q. 7. What are the decrees of God?
A. The decrees of God are, his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass
Q. 39. What is the duty which God requireth of man?
A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will.

Q&A 7 describes the decretive will of God. Q&A 39 describes the preceptive will of God (more or less).
It is worth noting that in Reformed theology, there is only one will of God. However, the word "will" has two meanings, and thus there is the will of God in the definition of will whereby God ordains something and causes it to come to pass, and the will of God in the definition of will whereby God requires and commands something of mankind.


Are the Disciples of Christ trinitarian?

As I recall from my time (decades ago) as an ordained and licensed Disciple of Christ minister, anyone who had publicly professed that Jesus was their Savior and Lord was freely received--with no dogmatic strings attached--into fellowship with any Disciple's of Christ assembly.

What if they believed in the Trinity?

  "Welcome! Come worship with us and feast at the Lord's Table!"

What if they did not believe in the Trinity?

  "Welcome! Come worship with us and feast at the Lord's Table!"

Why? Because asking someone to confirm their personal believe in the Trinity was a "test of faith". Such tests aren't necessary to one's salvation.

In brief: not every Disciple of Christ is a Trinitarian, nor is every Trinitarian a "disciple" of Christ.


When did a Catholic church council first recognize the need to forbid forcing or outwardly compelling unbelievers to the Christian faith?

The earliest record I could find is at the fourth council of Toledo in 634AD:

  The fourth Council of Toledo had declared,... that it was unlawful and unchristian-like to force people to believe, seeing it is God alone who hardens and shows mercy to whom he will. (source,  P238)

Unfortunately this small sentiment of liberal thinking did no go that deep as it was partly made to stop the forced Baptism of Jews, yet the council still insisted that those Jews who were 'already baptized by force' should be still
compelled to the observance of Christianity. Therefore, we can regard the declarations of this council as only partially admitted the sin it had become so overcome with.

An actual translation into English of the councils decree can be found here;

  Praecipit sancta synodus, nemini deinceps ad credendum vim inferre; enim vult Deus miseretur, et quem vult indurat;” — “The holy synod that none hereafter shall by force be compelled to the faith; for God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” (Works of John Owen, Volume 14, Page 270)


Does natural law override silly human laws?

I'm not sure about an answer that applies to all of Christianity. but as it happens, the subject of obeying rules we think are dumb came up in Sunday School this very morning.  So, from a Baptist perspective:

  Romans 13:1-2 (KJV) says

  1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no
  power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
  2 Whosoever therefore resists the power, resists the ordinance of God:
  and they that resist shall receive to themselves judgment.

There is no mention in Scripture of a principle by which we are allowed to ignore authority because we don't understand a rule/law, or because we think it's silly.  The only exception is if the law goes directly against the Law of God.  We would be allowed to disobey an authority that tried to force us to worship idols, for example, or commit adultery, murder, etc.

But we would be completely unjustified in disobeying a law that required us to wear a giant panda bear as a hat in honor of National Panda day, as wearing such a hat is not against the Law of God.  It's silly, but not amoral.

Dignity, in one sense, is a matter of pride, and therefore selfishness, and is not a justifiable defense. There is no concept of personal dignity being equal to God's law.

The above statement does not include the basic dignity that all human beings are afforded as creations of a loving God.  The dignity I'm referring to is the pride masquerading as dignity. As in "I'm too dignified for that", or "Such silliness is beneath me".  That's completely different than dignity in the sense that we have intrinsic value as human beings - creations of a loving God.  The dignity that we should not be discriminated against or denied entry because some bigot thinks we have less intrinsic value

As a matter of fact, the Bible gives a few very clear examples of where a person is told to do something that seems silly and undignified on God's command.  One such example is in 2 Kings 5 where Naaman is told to go dip himself in the Jordan seven times to be healed of his leprosy.  He's told to go wash in the stinky, dirty, smelly Jordan, and he balks at first because it seems silly, but when he obeys, he is healed.

So, no, there is no justification for disobeying silly rules that we don't understand and think are undignified.

End of official answer

The rest of this may go beyond a doctrinal answer and into "Pastoral Advice", but I think it bears on the original question and puts it in a different light.

There is an importance in following authority as Christians as well, even if we see it as silly.  For the Christian, the foundation of all authority is the fact that all authority is ordained by God, whether we agree with it or not.

For those of us with children, one of our responsibilities as parents it to teach them to respect, and be subject to authority, whether they like it or not.  If they see us disrespecting and disobeying authority, how are we going to teach them that they must respect and obey it.

If they see us refusing to obey our boss, for example, how are we supposed to teach them to respect their teachers and future employers?  We'd be hypocrites, and our children see through that pretty quickly.

Likewise, our peers see though our hypocrisy as well, so from the perspective of letting Christ shine through us, we would be bound to honor silly laws in the name of not being a stubmling block for others.


Why were Deuterocanonical books rejected in the Reformation?

A more ecumenical answer:

They weren't considered equal because they had been considered of dubious origin for quite some time. Back when the Vulgate was being put together Jerome made the points that

The original Hebrew for those texts could no longer be found*
Jews of the late first century onward did not consider them canonical.

Others in the Church countered:

The Church had been using the Greek copies for centuries (clearly evidenced in the New Testament and through the Apostolic Fathers)
Since the Septuagint included those books and the Septuagint was popular among the Apostles, it follows that these books should be on equal footing — whether the Hebrew copies existed or not.

The problem was that there had never really been an official ruling — the prevailing mindset was inclusion (especially since the Patriarchs all seemed to agree to their worthiness), but because the books were never challenged there had never been a need to define their proper place in the canon to begin with. When the early Protestants came along, their priority to get back to an earlier idea of the Church necessarily caused these texts to come into question.+ You can read more about that on Wikipedia.

It was not about Luther

There are some who have said that this is a decision which was made because Luther did not feel that the were consistent with his view of the Gospel, and there is a modicum of truth in that — he most certainly did not view them as entirely consistent with his theology — but that was not his justification or even his primary impetus. It is best to be wary of the stories about Luther in this context — many of them are apocryphal inserts by later apologists of one side or another.

* It should be noted that the Hebrew of Sirach has since been found (and it is fascinating to compare the Greek and Hebrew texts, my Biblical Hebrew professor gave a wonderful lecture on it).
+ It should be noted that Luther was only one of the many early Protestants who included the Deuterocanonical texts but placed them at a diminished stature, and he certainly is not responsible for their exclusion from the modern Protestant Bible. I believe credit with their removal from the English Bibles was the 1611 Authorized Version (the third(?) edition of what we in the US call the King James Bible)


Why in the Book of Exodus did God let the people travel for exactly 40 years?

The field of Biblical numerology can be a pretty mirky pond. There are some clear trends (three for completion, seven for perfection, a thousand for a really big number, etc.) and a lot of speculation and conclusions that may or may not be warranted.

In this case however, the answer is pretty much spelled out in another verse. The 40 years of wandering was an exact calculation, one year for one day, based on how long the spies spent looking around the land before they were originally supposed to enter.

  Numbers 14:34 (ESV)
  34   According to the number of the days in which you spied out the land,  forty days, a year for each day, you shall bear your iniquity forty years, and you shall know my displeasure.’

The logical next question is, "Why did the spies spend 40 days on their quest"? To that we are not given any definite clues. It does seem like a reasonable amount of time to get around to a bunch of different places on foot and get an idea of the lay of the land without making your movements too obvious and getting caught.

There are actually quite a few references to 40 in the Bible. The flood. The spies. The wandering in the desert. The reigns of many of the Judges. Moses life has three periods of 40 years each. The temptation of Jesus. The surmised time between the resurrection and the ascension that Jesus spent back on earth. However the connections between these references is faint at best, and I think it is safe to say, since we are not told explicitly that there is any meaning to this number, that it is of no particular consequence that the spies took 40 days to get their spyin' done.


Persecution of Jewish people by Christians in Middle Ages?

This is an important question. While we today decisively reject the terrible things that people in the past thought and did, we should not shy away from recognizing what they did and why. And as Christians we must be honest about the role of religion and the church.

The "Middle Ages" covers a thousand years and the whole of Europe - and Jewish life varied considerably in different times and places - so this is going to be a bit general. If there are specific things you'd like to know more about, please do ask more questions.

Among the arguments used to justify antisemitism at the time are the following:

Supersession. The mantle of 'the chosen people' passed to Christians, and the old covenant has been superseded by the new.
Christ-killing. The Jews were held collectively responsible for the death of Jesus: his blood was on their heads. This is related to supersession, because it shows the covenant being broken.
General heresy. Anyone who did not share the Christian faith was not truly part of the community. This was used to justify various restrictions on holding public office, receiving university education, entering into mixed marriage, owning property, testifying in court, entering into contracts, etc. In addition it was common to think that Jewish people were particularly devious and untrustworthy, more so than regular Christian heretics.
Usury. New Testament prohibitions on usury were invoked as a sign of Jews being evil (exploitative of "honest Christian folk").
Evil magic. Again related to Christ-killing and general mistrust, some thought that Jewish people were in league with the devil, who granted them magical powers which they used to the ruin of the local community - especially by spreading disease. The infamous blood libel (that they murdered and ate Christian babies) was seen as a Satanic parody of the Eucharist.

As you can see, the basic theological root is the idea that by rejecting Jesus, the old covenant was abrogated and the Jews were no longer the chosen people. However, medieval antisemitism is not just about theology: it also has a lot to do with not liking people who are different. There is also a tremendously important political and economic angle. It would be too simplistic to say that the religious or political establishment was solely responsible, or that it was all about popular prejudice. These aspects all strengthened and supported each other.

Meanwhile, you also wanted to know about the Old Testament being written in Hebrew. This is true. But there was a long period when knowledge of the language was pretty scanty - certainly among everyday clergy. The standard circulating text was in Latin, which was also the language of liturgy, scholarship, law, and public administration. The Greek "Septuagint" was also important - again, though, a bit more specialised. Most people would not have encountered any Hebrew text. But even for those who did, the idea of succession of covenants allowed them to receive the Old Testament scripture as part of Christian patrimony. They could praise the great virtue of Abraham, Moses, or David, even speaking in glowing terms of the magnificence of the Temple and the detail of Jewish religious life, while still rejecting Jewish people who were born in years AD instead of BC.


Who is Sheshbazzar? Is he the same person as Zerubabbel?

The following came from Lexham Bible Dictionary entry on SHESHBAZZAR authored by Noah M. Marsh, proposing that the most widely accepted explanation is that Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel were two different people.  The entry includes biblical and historical sources.

SHESHBAZZAR (שֵׁשְׁבַּצַּר, sheshebbatstsar). First governor of Judaea appointed by Cyrus II. He returned the temple vessels and laid the temple foundations in 538 BC.
Biblical References
Sheshbazzar appears in the book of Ezra (Ezra 1:8, 11; 5:14, 16; also see 1 Esdras 2:12, 15; 6:18, 20). In Ezra 1:8, Sheshbazzar receives the temple vessels from Cyrus, which he then returns to Jerusalem with other exiles (Ezra 1:11). Williamson argues that the account of the temple vessels being returned reflects actual historical practices—evidence for this has been preserved at Persepolis (Studies in Persian Period, 225). The letter in Ezra 5 recounts that Cyrus appointed Sheshbazzar as governor and commanded him to return the temple vessels (Ezra 5:14). Ezra then reports that laid the foundations of the temple (Ezra 5:16).
Identity of Sheshbazzar
Haggai and Zechariah claim that Zerubbabel laid the foundations of the temple, not Sheshbazzar (Zech 4:9; 8:9; Hag 2:18). There are three possible solutions for the overlap between Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel:

Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel were actually the same person.
Andrew E. Steinmann suggests that Sheshbazzar was the Persian official commissioned for the project, but Zerubbabel was the actual project manager who did the work (“Chronological Note,” 520).
A. Gelston proposed that Sheshbazzar unsuccessfully attempted to rebuild the temple in 536 BC and Zerubbabel successfully restarted the rebuilding project in 520 BC (“Foundations of the Second Temple,” 234–35). This is the most widely accepted explanation.

Based on the spellings of Sheshbazzar in the Septuagint (Sasabasar) and 1 Esdras (Sanabassar), as well as the shared title “prince of Judah,” D. J. A. Clines identifies Sheshbazzar as Shenazzar (1 Chr 3:18; Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 41). However, most modern commentators do not identify Sheshbazzar with any other biblical character (Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah, 46).
Bibliography

Clines, D.J.A. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. New Century Bible Commentary. Edited by Ronald E. Clements. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Gelston, A. “The Foundations of the Second Temple.” Vetus Testamentum 16 (1966): 232–235

Fensham, F. Charles. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Edited by R. K. Harrison. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Japhet, S. “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel—Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra—Nehemiah.” Zietschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. 1982.

Klein, Ralph W. “Books of Ezra and Nehemiah.” Pages 661–852 in The New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary 3. Edited by Leander E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999.

Steinmann, Andrew E. “A Chronological Note: The Return of the Exiles under Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel (Ezra 1–2).” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 2008.

Williamson, H.G. Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 38. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.

The entry on ZERUBBABEL, SON OF SHEALTIEL characterizes the past attempts to identify Zerubbabel with Sheshbazzar with efforts to harmonize Ezra 3:8 and 5:16.  However, the entry (by David B. Schreiner) argues that the two people are also different:

In response to tensions between Ezra 3:8 and 5:16, Zerubbabel has often been equated with Sheshbazzar. Ezra 3:8 credits Zerubbabel with beginning reconstruction of the temple in Jerusalem during the reign of Cyrus. However, Ezra 5:16 credits Sheshbazzar with initiating this effort. The identification of Zerubbabel with Sheshbazzar is thus a harmonization of these texts.
The effort to harmonize Ezra 3:8 and 5:16 by identifying Zerubbabel with Sheshbazzar dates back to the rabbinic exegesis of the Middle Ages and has a small amount of support in certain manuscript traditions (compare discussion in Japhet, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel,” 91). However, today, few scholars adhere to the position that Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar are the same person (Albertz, Israel in Exile, 120–21; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 9–12). For example, Albertz and Japhet argue that efforts to identify Zerubbabel with Sheshbazzar are ineffective because both names are Babylonian in origin (Albertz, Israel in Exile, 120; Japhet, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel,” 91). Japhet considers the various sources with their theological tendencies in relationship to one another and argues, “Sheshbazzar is the least of the people and the governor in the days of Cyrus, who lays the foundations of the Temple and brings the Temple vessels to Jerusalem; Zerubbabel is the leader and governor in the days of Darius, whose journey to Jerusalem brings in its wake waves of hope for redemption. Under his direction … the building is resumed and even completed” (Japhet, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel,” 93).
Bibliography

Albertz, Rainer. Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century BC. Translated by David Green. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.

Japhet, Sara. “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel—Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah.” Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 94 (1982): 66–98.


Can an act of martydom include the taking of another's life?

To clarify the definition of martyrdom, in both Islam and Christianity, martyrdom is achieved by dying, not specifically by taking a life, although in some cases one's death may involve taking the lives of others.

The Catholic Church has certainly canonised individuals who died fighting for the Christian cause, but sainthood is not open simply to all who do so. Martyrs are generally regarded as Christians who die through persecution, but a heroic death in battle could also qualify as martyrdom - for example, King Oswald of Northumbria is considered a martyr because he died at the hand of a pagan while defending a Christian nation.

Hershel Shanks says in Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, pages 88-89, in 1095, when Pope Urban II preached the First Crusade, he undertook to bestow a plenary indulgence on all who took part, promising that a crusader who died in a state of penitence for his earthly sins would be received into heaven immediately.  In a speech attributed to Urban, he  promised "We now hold out to you wars which contain the glorious reward of martyrdom, which will retain that title of praise now and forever."


Transubstantiation relies on the Aristotelian distinction between essence and accidents. From the linked Wikipedia article:

  Catholic theologians such as Thomas Aquinas have employed the
  Aristotelian concepts of substance and accident in articulating the
  theology of the Eucharist, particularly the transubstantiation of
  bread and wine into body and blood. According to this tradition, the
  accidents of the bread and wine do not change, but their substances
  change from bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ.

The "measurable" properties you are referring to (taste, feel, etc.) are accidental properties, not the substance of the bread/wine.