The main purpose of the Book of Esther (written between 460 and 350 B.C.) is to celebrate the providence of God, especially in regard to His chosen people, Israel.  Interestingly, it’s the only biblical book that does not mention God by name, yet throughout it reveals how God works behind the scenes to deliver the Jews in Persia.  God uses Esther to help his people (Esther 4:14) and through her faithfulness, Haman is finally defeated and the Jews enjoy rest from their enemies.

The Book of Esther records the institution of the Feast of Purim and the obligation of its perpetual observation:

  ”Then Queen Esther, the daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew gave full written authority, confirming this second letter about Purim.  Letters were sent to all the Jews, to the 127 provinces of the kingdom of Ahasuerus, in words of peace and truth, that these days of Purim should be observed at their appointed seasons, as Mordecai the Jew and Queen Esther obligated them, and as they had obligated themselves and their offspring, with regard to their fasts and their lamenting.  The command of Queen Esther confirmed these practices of Purim and it was recorded in writing” (Esther 10:29-32).

The word Purim is derived from the Persian word pur (“lot”) and recalls how Haman, the enemy of the Jews, cast lots to determine the best day to carry our his plan to exterminate them (Esther 3:7).  Of all the Jewish festivals, Purim is the most secular in flavor, and one of the most joyful.  It is celebrated on the fourteenth of Adar (February/March), preceded by a day of fasting.

It is read at the Feast of Purim to commemorate the great deliverance of the Jewish nation brought about by God through Esther.  Jews today still read Esther during Purim.

So what does it have to do with Christians?

The story of Esther is a lesson to Christians to trust God and allow God to use us in the outworking of his divine purpose.  Christians don't need to celebrate Purim but they do need to pay heed to the history of God's dealings with his chosen people.  It's a lesson in how God is Sovereign, and how worldly rulers can't have it all their own way.  We learn from the mistakes of those who oppose God and the victories of those who trust God

Sources: New International Version and English Standard Version Study Bible Notes.


Why was Aaron not allowed into the promised land?

Aaron's death was a judgement for what happened at the water of meribah.

  “Aaron will be gathered to his people because he will not enter into the land which I have given to the children of Israel because you rebelled against Me at the water of Meribah.” (Numbers 20:24 MEV)

The water of Meribah refers to the spring that flowed from the rock that Moses struck. God told Moses and Aaron to speak to the rock to make water flow from it, but instead Moses struck it with his staff.

  Moses and Aaron went from the presence of the assembly to the door of the tent of meeting, and they fell on their faces, and the glory of the Lord appeared to them. The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Take the rod, and gather the assembly together, you and Aaron your brother, and speak to the rock before their eyes, and it will give its water, and you will bring out to them water from the rock; so you will give the assembly and their livestock drink. So Moses took the rod from before the Lord, as He commanded him. Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly before the rock, and he said to them, “Hear now, you rebels. Will we bring out water from this rock for you?” And Moses lifted up his hand, and he struck the rock twice with his rod, and plenty of water came out, and the assembly drank, and their livestock. The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not believe in Me, to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you will not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.” This is the water of Meribah because the children of Israel argued with the Lord, and He was sanctified among them.” (Numbers 20:6-13 MEV)

Aaron was called to be a priest and kind of spiritual helpmate to Moses. It was his position to uphold Moses and to support him. Though Aaron did not himself strike the rock, he was there when God commanded them, and he allowed Moses to falter, sharing in his disbelief.


How did Luther and Calvin view Christian perfectionism?

Martin Luther and John Calvin followed the tradition of St. Augustine in abhorring any theoretical belief in a state of sinlessness, whether for a moment, day, year, or whatever.

They seem to have regarded sinless perfection as the vain imagination of human pride and a result of our sinfulness.  For example, commenting on Psalms  106:6, Calvin said:

  How very abominable, then, is the pride of those who hardly imagine that they offend in the least possible way; nay, who even, like certain fanatics of the day, conceive that they have attained to a state of sinless perfection! (John Calvin, Commentary on Psalms 106:6)

The very words ‘sinless state of perfection’ even for a moment amount to near blasphemy in the mind of a person who is aware of himself and has a due regard to the nature of sin and its seriousness, according to the reformers.

Luther explains what it means to live by the Spirit not ‘sinning’ in this way:

  This life, then, is a life of being healed from sin, it is not a life of sinlessness, with the cure completed and perfect health attained. The church is the inn and the infirmary for those who are sick and in need of being made well. But heaven is the palace of the healthy and the righteous. As blessed Peter says in his Second Epistle 3:13 that the Lord will build “new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.” Righteousness does not yet dwell here, but it is preparing a dwelling place for itself here in the meantime by healing sin. All the saints have had this understanding of sin, as David prophesied in Ps. 32:5 ff. And thus they all have confessed that they were sinners. (Luther’s Works 25.262-264)

In describing what this theoretical state would actually be Luther provides a very reasonable explanation to show this can never happen for a moment on this side of heaven:

  If we were pure of all sin, and if we burned with a perfect love toward God and our neighbor, then we would certainly be righteous and holy through love, and there would be nothing more that God could require of us. That does not happen in this present life but must be postponed until the life to come. We do indeed receive the gift and the first fruits of the Spirit here (Rom. 8:23), so that we do begin to love; but this is very feeble. If we loved God truly and perfectly, as the Law requires when it says (Deut. 6:5): “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, etc.,” then poverty would be as pleasant for us as riches, sorrow the same as pleasure, death the same as life. Indeed, one who loved God truly and perfectly would not be able to live very long but would soon be devoured by his love. But human nature now is so submerged in sin that it cannot think or feel anything correct about God. It does not love God; it hates Him violently. Therefore, as John says (1 John 4:10), “not that we loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the expiation for our sins.” (Luther’s Works Volume 27.65)

Luther quotes St. Augustine in another place to show how uniform his view is to that wise old Christian, in times past:

  Augustine says in his 29th Epistle, to blessed Jerome: “Love is the power by which a person loves what he ought to love. In some people this is stronger and in others weaker, and in still others there is none at all; but it is never in its fullest degree, so increased, in any man as long as he lives. But as long as it can be increased, what is less than it ought to be comes from sin. Because of this defect ‘there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins’ (cf. 1 Kings 8:46). And because of this defect ‘no man living is righteous before God’ (Ps. 143:2). Because of this defect, ‘if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us’ (1 John 1:8). Also because of this defect, no matter how much we progress, we are forced to say: ‘Forgive us our debts’ (Matt. 6:12), even though in Baptism all our sins of word, deed, and thought have been forgiven.”  So far Augustine. But the same relation as for Baptism, indeed, a much stronger one, is in force for penitence and indulgences. From all of this it is obvious that there is no sin which is venial according to its substance and its nature, but also no merit. For even the good works which are done while the tinder of sin and sensuality are fighting against them are not of such intensity and purity as the Law requires, since they are not done with all of our strength, but only with the spiritual powers which struggle against the powers of the flesh. Thus we sin even when we do good. (Luther’s Works Volume 25.278)


What "God's law" is Matthew Henry referring to?

Considering that this is a commentary on Exodus 22, which is dealing with issues relating to theft, this is likely on the specific "thou shalt not steal" commandment.

The idea of property rights is found throughout Scripture, and taking someone's property is, in it's most basic form, theft.


What is the basis for saying that Aquinas accepted the Immaculate Conception?

St. Thomas's views on the Immaculate Conception went through three phases.cf. also ch. 2, art. 2, § "St. Thomas and the Immaculate Conception" of Mother of the Saviour and Our Interior Life by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.

Phase 1: clear support of it

St. Thomas's clearest support of the Immaculate Conception is in his commentary (1252-6) on Peter Lombard's Sentences (Super Sent., lib. 1 d. 44 q. 1 a. 3 ad 3):

  puritas intenditur per recessum a contrario: et ideo potest aliquid creatum inveniri quo nihil purius esse potest in rebus creatis, si nulla contagione peccati inquinatum sit; et talis fuit puritas beatae virginis, quae a peccato originali et actuali immunis fuit.Purity is increased by withdrawing from its opposite: hence there can be a creature than whom no more pure is possible in creation, if it be free from all contagion of sin: and such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin who was immune from original and actual sin.

Phase 2: grappling with it

Summa Theologica III, written in 1272-3, contains the famous question 27 on the Sanctification of the Blessed Virgin, in which he seems to deny the Immaculate Conception.

Phase 3: return to his original position

Explanation of the Lord's Prayer, petition 5 (Lent 1273):

  …beatae virgini, quae fuit plena gratiae, in qua nullum peccatum fuit.…the Blessed Virgin, who was full of grace, in whom there was no sin.

Commentary on Psalm 18 (1272-3):

  …beata virgine, quae nullam habuit obscuritatem peccati.…the Blessed Virgin, who had no darkness of sin.

He preached in his On the Angelic Salutation (Lent 1273):

  Ipsa (Virgo) omne peccatum vitavit magis quam alius sanctus, praeter Christum. Peccatum enim aut est originale, et de isto fuit mundata in utero; aut mortale aut veniale, et de istis libera fuit. … Sed Christus excellit beatam virginem in hoc quod sine originali conceptus et natus est.
  Beata autem virgo in originali est concepta, sed non nata.For She Herself avoided every sin, more holy than anyone after Christ. For sin is either original, and from this she was cleansed in the womb; or mortal or venial, and from these She was free. … But Christ excelled the Blessed Virgin in this, that He was conceived and born without original (sin). Moreover the the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original (sin), but not born (in it).

The sense of "the Blessed Virgin was conceived in/with original sin (in/cum peccato originali)" is explained by a similar passage of his Compendium Theologiæ cap. 224 ("Sanctification of Christ's Mother") (1272-3), in which he seems to be referring to Sts. Anne's and Joachim's sexual act,* not to the Blessed Virgin's participation in Adam's sin (or lack thereof):*(cf. St. Augustine's theory that the propagation of original sin is due to the concupiscence inherent in the sexual act after the Fall, On Marriage & Concupiscence ch. 27, and this)

  Nec solum a peccato actuali immunis fuit, sed etiam ab originali, speciali privilegio mundata. Oportuit siquidem quod cum peccato originali conciperetur, utpote quae ex utriusque sexus commixtione concepta fuit. Hoc enim privilegium sibi soli servabatur ut virgo conciperet filium Dei. Commixtio autem sexus, quae sine libidine esse non potest post peccatum primi parentis, transmittit peccatum originale in prolem. Similiter etiam quia si cum peccato originali concepta non fuisset, non indigeret per Christum redimi, et sic non esset Christus universalis hominum redemptor, quod derogat dignitati Christi. Est ergo tenendum, quod cum peccato originali concepta fuit, sed ab eo quodam speciali modo purgata fuit.Mary was not only free from actual sin, but she was also, by a special privilege, cleansed from original sin. She had, indeed, to be conceived with original sin, inasmuch as her conception resulted from the commingling of both sexes. For the privilege of conceiving without impairment of virginity was reserved exclusively to her who as a virgin conceived the Son of God. But the commingling of the sexes which, after the sin of our first parent, cannot take place without lust,* transmits original sin to the offspring. Likewise, if Mary had been conceived without original sin, she would not have had to be redeemed by Christ, and so Christ would not be the universal redeemer of men, which detracts from His dignity. Accordingly we must hold that she was conceived with original sin, but was cleansed from it in some special way.

*(cf. Psalm 50:7: "For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me.")

See:

Pedro Lumbreras O.P., "Saint Thomas and the Immaculate Conception," Homiletic and Pastoral Review 24, no. 3 (1923): 253-63.    • Book-length response: Hugolinus Storff, O.F.M., The Immaculate Conception: The Teaching of St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure and Bl. J. Duns Scotus on the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary (San Francisco, Calif.: St. Francis Press, 1925).
Norbert del Prado O.P., Divus Thomas et bulla dogmatica "Ineffabilis Deus" (Friburgi Helvetiorum: Ex typis Consociationis sancti Pauli, 1919).


Why do the Catholics and Orthodox keep relics and bone fragments? Isn't this disrespect for the body?
The the Catholic and Orthodox Churches this is a theological way of honouring the saints.
There will always be be those who will object to this practice either on an intellectual level or a lesser level that seems to imply that the act of distribution of saintly body parts is simply something macabre.
Before starting into the answer properly speaking (which I am sure will not be the best explained one), allow me to point out the every consecrated altar within the Catholic Church must contain the relics of a saint (preferably of a martyr). Sometimes a church is fortunate enough to possess what we call a major relic under the altar. A major relic is to be understood as a notable portion of a saints body either an arm, a leg or even occasionally the entire body.
With so many altars around the world, the vast majority of relic are taken in the form of simply being a very small piece of bone and this fragment thus being deposited directly into the altar or what we call an altar stone.

Altar stones are usually made of Carrara marble. The relic is cemented into a cavity along the bottom edge.

Example of a testimonium or consecration document which is often attached directly to the back the stone. This altar stone was consecrated in 1937 and contains relics from the bones of St. Concordia and St. Clarus, martyrs:
Testimonium Consecrationis Tabulae Altaris. Haec tabula complectit reliquias de ossibus Ste. Concordiae M. et Sti. Clari M.; consecrata est Toronto die 18 mensis augusti A.D. 1937 per Rt. Rev. E. M. Brennan. Jacobus Carolus McGuigan, Archiepiscopus Torontinus de mandato. Excmi ac Revmi. Archiepiscopi Torontini [signed] E. M. Brennan Vicar Generalis per M. J. Nelson.

To truly understand how this idea of how the tradition of having relics associated with our altars, we must go back in tome to the years of the Early Church.
For the first three centuries the Eucharist was celebrated in the houses and homes of Christians. In times of persecution these celebrations would have been in secret, in catacombs, beside or over the body of a Early Church martyr if possible, or some other hidden spots. At other times Christians gathered together openly in each others’ homes or in ‘house churches’ for the Eucharist though Mass was not celebrated publicly as it is in our own time.
Another small point to bring up here is the fact the in the first few centuries of the Church, only martyrs were considered saints, as having witnessed their faith by the supreme sacrifice of shedding their blood for the faith. Thus they imitated their Saviour in death.
This seems like a small point to bring up for such an important question, but I desire to express an historical perspective towards the reverence of honouring the saints and their relics.
The first title of a feast in honour of the Virgin Mary in the West (Rome) was known as Sancta Maria ad Martyres (St. Mary of the Martyrs). Now what is interesting here is the fact that Our Lady carried the title ”ad Martyres” and this Feast was originally celebrated on May 13.

Where All Saints' Day came from
While now observed in November, All Saints' Day was originally celebrated on May 13, although the origin cannot be traced with certainty, according to Encyclopedia Brittanica. Pope Boniface IV formally started what would later be known as All Saints Day on May 13 in 609 AD when he dedicated the Pantheon in Rome as a church in honor of the Virgin Mary and all martyrs.

In the Year of Our Lord 609, Pope Boniface IV order the remains of the martyrs that were hidden in the Roman Catacombs to be gathered into the Roman Pantheon which had be recently dedicated to St. Mary of the Martyrs. He wanted the Martyrs to be brought forth from the catacombs in order to be more gloriously honoured for dieting for their faith in Jesus Christ. This act has be seen as the starting point of distribution of the sacred relics of the saints.

For three centuries the catacombs were the resting-place of our Lord’s athletes, when they were borne from the arena. These valiant warriors deserved the honours of a triumph far better than did the great victors of old. In 312, however, Rome disarmed but not yet changed in heart, was not at all disposed to applaud the men who had conquered the gods of Olympus and of the Capitol. While the Cross surmounted her ramparts, the white-robed army still lay entrenched in the subterranean crypts that surrounded the city like so many outworks. Three centuries more were granted to Rome, that she might make satisfaction to God’s justice, and take full cognizance of the salvation reserved for her by his mercy. In 609 the patient work of grace was completed; the Sovereign Pontiff Boniface IV. uttered the word for the sacred crypts to yield up their treasures. It was a solemn moment, a fore-runner of that wherein the Angel’s trumpet-call shall sound over the sepulchres of the world. (Sequence Dies ire) The successor of St. Peter, in all his apostolic majesty, and surrounded by an immense crowd, presented himself at the entrance of the catacombs. He was attended by eighteen chariots magnificently adorned for the conveyance of the martyrs. The ancient triumphal way opened before the Saints; the sons of the Quirites sang in their honour: “You shall come with joy and proceed with gladness; for behold, the mountains and the hills exult, awaiting you with joy. Arise, ye Saints of God, come forth from your hiding-places; enter into Rome, which is now the holy city; bless the Roman people following you to the temple of the false gods, which is now dedicated as your own church, there to adore together with you the majesty of the Lord.” (Pontificate Rom. Ant. in Eccl. dedicatione)
Thus, after six centuries of persecution and destruction, the martyrs had the last word; and it was a word of blessing, a signal of grace for the great city hitherto drunk with the blood of Christians. More than rehabilitated by the reception she was giving to the witnesses of Christ, she was now not merely Rome, but the new Sion, the privileged city of the Lord. She now burned before the Saints the incense they had refused to offer to her idols ; their blood had flowed before the very altar, on which she now invited them to rest, since the usurpers had been hurled back into the abyss. It was a happy inspiration that induced her, when she dedicated to the holy martyrs the temple built by Marcus Agrippa and restored by Severus Augustus, to leave upon its pediment the names of its primitive constructors and the title they had given it; for then only did the famous monument truly merit its name, when Christian Rome could apply to the new inhabitants of the Pantheon those words of the Psalm: “I have said, you are gods” (Psalm 81:6) The thirteenth of May was the day of their triumphant installation.
Every dedication on earth reminds the Church, as she herself tells us, of the assembly of the Saints, the living stones of the eternal dwelling which God is building for himself in heaven. (Collecta in die Dedications Altaris; Postcomm. Anniv. Ded. Eccl.) It is not astonishing, then, that the dedication of Agrippa’s Pantheon, under the above-mentioned circumstances, should have originated the feast of to-day. (Martyrolog. ad hanc diem.) Its anniversary, recalling the memory of the martyrs collectively, satisfied the Church’s desire of honouring year by year all her blessed sons who had died for the Lord; for, at an early date it became impossible to celebrate each of them on the day of his glorious death. In the age of peace there was added to the cultus of the martyrs that of the other just, who daily sanctified themselves in all the paths of heroism opened out to Christian courage. The thought of uniting these with the former in one common solemnity, which would supply for the unavoidable omission of many of them, followed naturally upon the initiative given by Boniface IV. - November 1 – Feast of All Saints ~ Dom Prosper Gueranger

Not all relics in churches are small pieces of bone placed within the burial chamber of our church altars. For example the not-quite incorrupt body of St. Bernadette Soubirous of Lourdes at Nevers, France.

St. Bernadette's incorrupt body

THE UNDENIABLY BEAUTIFUL 130-YEAR-OLD BODY of Bernadette Soubirous is displayed in a purpose-built crystal coffin, housed in a chapel at the abbey where she served as a nun. Her uncannily lifelike visage, clad in nun’s robes, is one of the most commonly used illustrations of incorruptible saints whose bodies never decay. After her death, she was exhumed no less than three times and found to be perfectly intact at each, which makes it seem strange that the lovely face and hands that are so famous are actually made of wax.

So why do the Catholics and Orthodox keep relics and bone fragments? Isn't this disrespect for the body?
As the old phrase goes they have elevated to the  glory of the altars!
For Catholics and Orthodox, the apex of our faith is in the Eucharist which is celebrated each day upon our sacred altars. Thus an ancient reminder and tradition of celebrating mass in the catacombs either above their graves or just beside them. The Church Militant is united to the Church Glorious!
Kissing the relics of saints is a way of honoring the saint and how God has worked through their lives. While honoring a piece of bone might seem strange, you have to remember that every person is both body and soul. When someone dies their soul and body separate, however this separation is only temporary. When Christ comes at the end of time, all of the saints in heaven will be reunited with their bodies.
God likes to work though physical things, because we are physical creatures – body and soul!

And some that were burying a man, saw the rovers, and cast the body into the sepulchre of Eliseus. And when it had touched the bones of Eliseus, the man came to life, and stood upon his feet. - 2 KINGS 13:21

During World War II, military chaplain were granted the indult of saying Mass on an Eastern Rite antimensions in lieu of portable altar stones as is customarily used the West.

During the Second World War, the Holy See granted to military chaplains the privilege of using for the celebration of Mass, instead of the Latin-rite portable altar stone, "a veil which had enclosed, and well fastened, authentic relics." This was later extended to peacetime military activities. Since it was not always possible to obtain a veil with authentic relics, the use of an Eastern-rite antimension was considered an acceptable alternative. - Use of Ann Antimension in the Latin Church


When were the Fasting Patterns of the Eastern Orthodox Church Established?

According to Wikipedia:

  The time and type of fast is generally uniform for all Orthodox Christians; the times of fasting are part of the ecclesiastical calendar, and the method of fasting is set by the Holy Canons and Sacred Tradition.

Sacred tradition could mean just about anytime (well, within reason...), but I found some things on fasting within the Orthodox Canons. In the LXIX Canon from the 85 apostolic canons:

  Canon LXIX.

  If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon, or sub-deacon, or Anagnost, or Psalt fails to fast throughout the forty days of Holy Lent, or on Wednesday, or on Friday, let him be deposed from office. Unless he be prevented from doing so by reason of bodily illness.

Since this canon (to the best of my knowledge) dates 'from 375 to 380 AD'1, we can say that the Wednesday and Friday fasts and Holy Lent were already established by that time.

One thing I might mention: I would be wary before I just went and read through the Canons of the Orthodox Church, looking for a certain thing (even if I used a search feature), because now-a-days, the Canons are really meant to be interpreted only by Bishops and clergy, and they are considered "more like guidelines anyway" by most people.

To continue where I left off, when I use my reasoning (uh oh...) it seems to me, that fasts such as the Dormition Fast, Great Lent, and The Nativity Fast would have been established much earlier than that specified date. Why? For instance, picture what would have happened after the death of the Theotokos. Personally, I can picture the Apostles reverently commemorating her repose every year, and gradually deciding to fast before that date... Not sure if that seems like logic to anyone besides me...

Well, that's all I have for now... If I learn anymore I will certainly update this answer.

For a little more on the Orthodox Fasts go to this link. Has about one sentence under the history, but oh well.

Also interesting to note is why Orthodox normally fast on Wednesdays and Fridays (Wikipedia):

  In addition to these fasting seasons, Orthodox Christians fast on every Wednesday (in commemoration of Christ's betrayal by Judas Iscariot), and Friday (in commemoration of Christ's Crucifixion) throughout the year. Monastics often fast on Mondays (in imitation of the Angels, who are commemorated on that day in the weekly cycle, since monastics are striving to lead an angelic life on earth, and angels neither eat nor drink).

Perhaps those also were established early on...

Here is a link to the version of the Orthodox Canons which I used in my Answer.


Why were Catholic fasting obligations steadily relaxed?

The document that relaxed fasting obligations is Paenitemini, published in 1966. This document comes right after the Second Vatican Council, which saw a great deal of change in practices across the Catholic Church. The document, in the introduction, states:

  During the council, in fact, the Church, in an effort to arrive at a more profound meditation on the mystery of itself, examined its own nature in all its dimensions and scrutinized its human and divine, visible and invisible, temporal and eternal elements.

Later, it continues with:

  Lastly, the Church has considered more attentively its role in the earthly city,(6) a that is to say, its mission of showing man the right way to use earthly goods and to collaborate in the "consecration of the world." But at the same time it has considered more attentively its task of prompting its sons to that salutary abstinence which will forearm them against the danger of allowing themselves to be delayed by the things of this world in their pilgrimage toward their home in heaven.

Then, dealing with the issue of penitence explicitly:

  To recall and urge all the faithful to the observance of the divine precept of penitence, the Apostolic See intends to reorganize penitential discipline with practices more suited to our times. It is up to the bishops—gathered in their episcopal conferences—to establish the norms which, in their pastoral solicitude and prudence, and with the direct knowledge they have of local conditions, they consider the most opportune and efficacious.

Then:

  These means [prayer—fasting—charity] were the same throughout the centuries, but in our time there are special reasons whereby, according to the demands of various localities, it is necessary to  inculcate some special form of penitence in preference to others. Therefore, where economic well-being is greater, so much more will the witness of asceticism have to be given in order that the sons of the Church may not be involved in the spirit of the "world," and at the same time the witness of charity will have to be given to the brethren who suffer poverty and hunger beyond any barrier of nation or continent. On the other hand, in countries where the standard of living is lower, it will be more pleasing to God the Father and more useful to the members of the Body of Christ if Christians—while they seek in every way to promote better social justice—offer their suffering in prayer to the Lord in close union with the Cross of Christ.

Looking at the footnotes and references of the quote above, you find in the Sacrosantum concilium:

  During Lent penance should not be only internal and individual, but also external and social. The practice of penance should be fostered in ways that are possible in our own times and in different regions, and according to the circumstances of the faithful; it should be encouraged by the authorities mentioned in Art. 22.

Similarly, from Gaudium Et Spes:

  Those Christians are to be praised and supported, therefore, who volunteer their services to help other men and nations. Indeed, it is the duty of the whole People of God, following the word and example of the bishops, to alleviate as far as they are able the sufferings of the modern age.

Importantly, the Pope does establish a minimum universal set of fasting rules (in Chapter III). But then gives more room to (i) local conditions and (ii) works of charity as another form of penitence.

In summary, Paenitemini states:

  Therefore, the Church, while preserving—where it can be more readily observed—the custom (observed for many centuries with canonical norms) of practicing penitence also through abstinence from meat and fasting, intends to ratify with its prescriptions other forms of penitence as well, provided that it seems opportune to episcopal conferences to replace the observance of fast and abstinence with exercises of prayer and works of charity.

Can you go deeper than this? Well, that would involve some exegesis or speculation, perhaps with the help of news articles and interviews, for example in historical editions of L'Osservatore Romano (which seem not to be available online).

In conclusion, amid the spirit of change of the Second Vatican Council, fasting rules were relaxed (whilst keeping a common universal minimum) in order to give more freedom to local bishops to ordain particular rules, and also to make clear that works of charity are important in penitence. As the document states, penitence is a triad composed of "prayer - fasting - charity".


Why are the Vatican archives kept secret?

"Secret" is probably about the worst possible translation I can think of for the original term. The "Archivio Segreto Vaticano" is the current term in Italian, as documented on the Archive's website. This translates the Latin "Archivium Secretum Vaticanum" (see for example the references here). Secretum in Latin, however, does not necessarily mean "secret". It can; but it can also mean "separate", "set apart", "private": see especially the II (β) entries in the Lewis & Short dictionary entry for the main verb form (secerno). The Archive itself, on its website, interprets segreto as meaning private, that is, personal to the Pope.
The documents themselves are not secret; they are indexed, with a publicly accessible index available in the Leo XIII index room, and documents in the index (organized by the man who was Pope at the time) are freely available for research by scholars, until (as it appears) the end of the papacy ending about 80 years ago; currently this allows access to documents issued in or before 1939, during the papacy of Pope Pius XI. (One can always speculate, of course, that there are deliberately un-indexed works present in the Archives which are indeed secret, in that there's no way for the public to request them; but I'm aware of no evidence that such might reasonably be the case.)
Pope St. John Paul II described the work of those staffing the Archivio Segreto as being fundamentally a public work, part of the overall work of the Vatican Library:

Your work is not confined to your efforts to preserve the books and manuscripts, the Acts of the Supreme Pontiffs and of the Offices of the Roman Curia, and to handing them on down the centuries, but above all it aims to make available to the Holy See and all the world's scholars the treasures of culture and art kept in the Archives and the Library. For this very reason it is also your duty to carry out attentive and detailed studies of these treasures, often with the help of other experts, so that they can be published with scholarly precision.
It is easy to understand the interest and care taken by my venerable Predecessors, especially in recent centuries, to create, promote and oversee the Apostolic Library, and later, as a fully-fledged branch of it, the Papal Archives. I am thinking of Nicholas V, Sixtus IV, Sixtus V, Paul V and many other Pontiffs, down to Leo XIII, who decided to open the Archives to scholarly research, and Pius XI, who was himself personally involved in this noble field of interest as Prefect of the Apostolic Library.

("Address to the Superiors and Staff of the Vatican Secret Archives and theVatican Apostolic Library", 15 January 1999; emphasis added)
There is no "secrecy", then, involved in the "secret archives" of the Vatican; all the documents are available from roughly before any living person's lifetime (and many since their lifetime; for example, all the Vatican's documents on the Second Vatican Council and on the Vatican's "Information Office on Prisoners of War" from World War II have been made public). The word "secret" is merely an unfortunate mistranslation.


What are common criticisms against using the KJV?

The usual criticism is readability.  The KJV was originally translated in the 1600's, and even though it's been updated several times since then, there are still words that have different meanings now than they did in the English of the time.  The literary style is clearly less modern than more recent translations.

Another criticism is based on the translation sources.  The New Testament portion of the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus (Received Text), which has been subject to some criticism.  This has resulted in some minor textual differences that can be traced back to the different source manuscripts.

I hesitate to answer more completely because the choice of a Bible version is personal, and I want to avoid stating that any version/translation is superior to others.  There are those that feel very strongly about the superiority of their own version (KJV-only and those strongly opposed.)  The textual differences mentioned above tend to fuel such arguments, which in my opinion, tend to be counter-productive.

Another criticism is the distinction between a translation of the original texts, and a paraphrase.  The various  Bible translations fall somewhere on a scale between word by word equivolence and thought for thought equivalence or paraphrase.  The KJV is closer to the word-for-word end than many modern counterparts.

The KJV-only groups tend to prefer a direct translation of the original because it is less subject to be influenced by the views of the translator. They argue that an interpreted version is suspect, because the result is influenced by the translator's understanding of the meaning of the text.  On the other side, the argument goes that the "paraphrase" versions are written so that the meaning is clearly understood, and it's therefore "easier to understand" than the "archaic" KJV.


Into how many languages has the Book of Mormon been translated?

Currently, 150 million+ copies in any of 82 languages. (from the Mormon Newsroom)

  Since it was first published in English in 1830, the Book of Mormon
  has been fully translated into 82 languages, and printed copies have
  totaled more than 150 million.

I'll add a note that I've seen at least a dozen incomplete translations ("Selections from the Book of Mormon") into more obscure languages. Interestingly, I have also met people who, for existing translations, are assisting in making better translations for difficult languages like Farsi where current translations are lacking.

This page on the LDS Store has 37 languages in the list for the Triple Combination, which includes the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.

As a side, here's an interesting article about the publishing of the Book of Mormon.


What is the "abomination of desolation"?

Christians of many persuasions recognize this text as a definite and peculiar sign concerning the last days. Yet even though the majority of them can agree that the abomination of desolation is an important sign, they can't seem to agree on its specific nature. Even preachers are thrown into a quagmire of confusion - looking for something that no one is very sure about. It is a perfect example of the blind leading the blind.
Of course, some believe they know the identity of the abomination of desolation. Some teach that this prophecy was fulfilled when Antiochus Epiphanes interrupted the temple sacrifices between 168 and 165 B.C. The abomination they point to is the pig Antiochus had offered on the altar in the temple complex. Others believe the abomination of desolation refers to a future time when an atheistic anti-christ will overthrow the temple in Jerusalem and use it as his throne. Then there are those who believe the abomination of desolation is the Roman standards which were worshiped in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. at the time of its destruction by Titus.
Just what exactly is the abomination of desolation? Is it any one of these alternatives? Is it all of them at the same time? Or could it be possible that not any of these interpretations are correct? The answer to these questions is vitally important. Jesus clearly implies that our very lives could be at stake over this matter.
Jesus tells us that our study of the abomination of desolation should focus on the book of Daniel (Matthew 24:15). When one makes a careful study of this book, he discovers that the abomination of desolation can be divided into three parts. These parts are: the abomination of desolation in Daniel's day (involving the first temple); the abomination of desolation in Jesus' day (involving the second temple); and finally the abomination of desolation in the time of the end (involving the whole Christian church). The issues that come into play in the abomination of desolation as treated in the book of Daniel remain consistent in each of its three phases. Therefore they are types, or examples, of each other.
The First Abomination
The key that unlocks the mystery of this prophetic event is found in the first two verses of Daniel.

In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and beseiged it. And
the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the
vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar
to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure
house of his god (Daniel 1:1,2).

In these two short sentences Daniel provides a concise historical background to the remainder of the book which follows.
Further study of Daniel's prologue reveals the abomination of desolation was existent in his time and led to Jerusalem's captivity. The Chronicler reveals the reason the Jewish kings fell to Babylon.

"Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old when he began to reign... and
he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord his God."

It was because of Jehoiakim's iniquitous life that God allowed him to be taken captive.
The significant feature of this is that Jehoiakim's evil deeds are described this way:

"Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and his abominations which he
did, and that which was found in him, behold, they are written in the
book of the kings of Israel and Judah: and Jehoiachin his son reigned
in his stead" (2 Chronicles 36:5-8).

It was specifically the abominations of Jehoiakim that led him and his city to forfeit God's protection and thus fall to Nebuchadnezzar.
Unfortunately Jehoiachin, his son, didn't do much better. Scripture tells us he also did "that which was evil in the sight of the Lord." Consequently he too was taken captive to Babylon, and "Zedekiah his brother" was placed as king over Judah and Jerusalem (v. 9-11).
The Bible goes on to record that not only did Zedekiah turn out to be just as evil as his two predecessors, but "moreover all the chief of the priests, and the people, transgressed very much after all the abominations of the heathen" (v. 12-14). God's political and religious leaders, as well as the people, adopted heathen ways as their own. They did this at the expense of God's revealed truth. Notice where these abominations were committed: the people "transgressed very much after all the abominations of the heathen; and polluted the house of the Lord which he had hallowed in Jerusalem" (v. 14). These abominations were standing in God's consecrated holy place, the "house of the Lord." The religious leaders of the day had purposefully led the people to adopt heathen worship practices and incorporated them into their worship of God. In substituting for God's commandments the vain notions of men, the leaders of God's heritage provoked his wrath. The people rejected God's calls to repentance and reformation and were left to reap the consequences. "Therefore, he brought upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary" (v. 17).
This judgment was felt not only in the spilling of the blood, but in the complete destruction of the city and sanctuary (v. 19). This all was done "To fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath to fulfill threescore and ten years" (v. 21). The result of God's people practicing the religious abominations of the heathen was the desolation of their land, city and sanctuary.
Breaking The Sabbath Brought Desolation
Just what were these abominations that resulted in such desolation? Since this was all done "To fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah," then Jeremiah should be able to tell us what substitutions in worship had been made. In Jeremiah 17 the prophet is told to stand in the gate of the people and prophesy. Under a divine mandate, Jeremiah told the people that if they would honor God's seventh-day Sabbath their city would remain forever, and that this faithful obedience would lead them into such a relationship with Himself that they would be used to convert the surrounding heathen nations (ch. 17:19-26).
On the other hand, if they would not keep the Sabbath day holy God would allow their city to be desolated. "But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the Sabbath day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day; then I will kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched" (v. 27).
Sadly, the Jews chose to continue breaking God's Sabbath and thus inaugurated their own destruction and captivity. The abomination that led to their desolation was breaking the Sabbath. Thus, we see the significance of 2 Chronicles 36:21:

"To fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the
land had enjoyed her Sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she
kept Sabbath."

Ezekiel, who lived during the same time, also tells us about the abominations God's people were practicing in the holy place. In Ezekiel 8, the prophet was brought by vision to the door of the inner gate. God proceeded to show his servant the progressively greater outrages His people were committing. In verses 5 and 6 He speaks of an image that provoked Him to jealousy. In an escalation of outrage, unclean beasts had been brought into the house of God, women were weeping for Tammuz and the greatest abomination of all was twenty-five men standing in God's holy place "with their backs toward the temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east" (Ezekiel 8:16).
God had instructed the Jews to erect the temple in a manner that would discourage the imitation of their heathen neighbors in sun worship. The ark of the covenant, the very focal point of the Jews' worship, was placed at the western end of the tabernacle. Thus the children of Israel would face the west, their backs to the rising sun, when they worshipped the true God. Yet the entrance of paganism among God's people had grown to such proportions that Judah's leading men were actually turning their backs on the temple of God. This was a significant act of apostasy.
Both Ezekiel and Jeremiah list the heathen practices that had been incorporated into the worship of God. Whether it was breaking the second commandment by idol worship, adoring unclean beasts, worshipping Tammuz, the mythological god of the pagans, or breaking God's holy Sabbath and worshiping the sun on the day consecrated to it, these practices all were classed by God as abominations. It was because the Jews persisted in justifying their own course and continued in these heathen customs that God permitted the desolation of their city.
Daniel himself agrees that it was the sins committed by God's people that caused their desolation.

"O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine
anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy
mountain: because for our sins, and the iniquities of our fathers....
cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate.... open
thy eyes, and behold our desolations..." (Daniel 9:16-18).

It is important to note that the abominations were done by the apostate people of God. This in turn resulted in their forfeiture of God's protection and called down His judgments and chastisement in their desolation. This scenario of the abomination of desolation in Daniel's day, involving the first Jewish temple period, prefigures the two other abominations of desolation prophesied in Daniel. The next one we shall consider is the one that concerns the second Jewish temple period.
The Second Temple Desolated
After their release from Babylonian captivity and rebuilding the city and temple, the Jewish leaders erected a mountain of rules and regulations designed to protect them from repeating the sins that had led to their bondage. The fourth commandment's seventh-day Sabbath became a special object of amendment. The Jews reasoned that since it was transgression of the Sabbath that led to their captivity, they needed to define in minute detail how the Sabbath should be kept.
Over 500 rules concerning Sabbathkeeping eventually resulted. Some of these Sabbath laws were as ridiculous as this: one could not leave an egg in the sun on the Sabbath because the sun might cook it, and cooking on the Sabbath was a violation of the fourth commandment. Of course, this only resulted in a system of pure legalism. At last the people began to believe that favor with God depended on how well they obeyed the traditions of their elders.
Ultimately the people were led full circle to disobedience again. Jesus comments that in spite of their apparent religiosity they were still breaking God's law even as their forefathers had during Isaiah's and Daniel's day.

"Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This
people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the
commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold
the tradition of men... full well ye reject the commandment of God,
that ye may keep your own tradition... making the word of God of none
effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered" (Mark 7:6-13).

Once again the people found themselves immersed in vain and rebellious worship.
Even though their apostasy expressed itself in legalism instead of laxness, it was still based on the same principle upon which all pagan religions are based - that man can save himself by his own works. Jesus, like Jeremiah of old, rebuked this religious system and called it an abomination.

"Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your
hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in
the sight of God" (Luke 16:15).

Jesus expressed His displeasure for their abominations on numerous occasions. Most notable were the two times He cleansed the temple. On these times He expressed His anger at the desecration of His holy place. The controversy between Jesus and the Jews steamed, boiled and spewed over religion. The religious leaders hated Him because He didn't look like the Messiah, He didn't respect their traditions and most notably He didn't keep the Sabbath in the manner they thought it should be kept. This latter issue infuriated the Jews and led them to seek Jesus' death (See John 5:10-16; Matthew 12:1-4; Mark 3:1-6).
In spite of the religious leaders' resistance, Jesus sought time and again to bring them to repentance and reformation. Often He reproved them for their erroneous ways and pointed the way to true and undefiled religion that is of great price in the sight of God. Yet they hardened their hearts and beat back the waves of God's mercy.
As Jesus entered Jerusalem for the last time, His prophetic eye saw the consequences of their constant rebellion. With a grief-stricken heart and tears coursing down His cheeks, He prophesied the coming doom of the city:

"For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a
trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every
side and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within
thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because
thou knewest not the time of thy visitation" (Luke 19:41-44).

After teaching in the temple for several days, Jesus left its precincts for the last time. Again He was choked with anguish as He saw the ultimate result of His people's apostasy. He exclaimed,

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest
them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy
children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her
wings and ye would not! Behold your house is left unto you desolate"
(Matthew 23:37,38).

On both these occasions Jesus placed the guilt upon the people by stating, "they knew not the time of their visitation" and "ye would not." As a result of not responding to God's call to turn from their abominations, their temple was to be desolated. This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Roman armies of Titus burned the temple to the ground. This second desolation of the temple perfectly paralleled its first destruction. On both occasions the abominations were done by the apostate people of God and the desolation was an act of judgment performed by a heathen army.
This desolation of Jerusalem was prophesied by Daniel to come as a result of the people rejecting Messiah the prince. A careful study of Daniel 9:25-27 will show this to be the case. In verse 25 Messiah is promised to Israel and the city's restoration is also predicted. But then, ominously, all is prophesied for doom again. Verse 26 speaks of Messiah being killed by His own people and of how this act would cause their city and sanctuary to be desolated once again.
As Daniel heard Gabriel relay this prophecy, it was to his mind a replay of what he had seen happen to the Jerusalem of his day. The prophecy indicated that history would repeat itself, and this is exactly what happened. The abominations that God's people committed resulted, in both 586 B.C. and 70 A.D., in the destruction of their sanctuary and city -- first by Nebuchadnezzar, then by Titus.
Because Israel rejected the Messiah they lost their place as God's favored people. Jesus predicted this would take place by saying, "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof" (Matthew 21:43). Israel forfeited their franchise of the gospel by their own obstinate sin.
Who would be the new nation to receive the kingdom of God and bring forth the fruits thereof? The Bible provides a clear and concise answer in the apostle Peter's letter to the Gentile converts who "In time past were not a people, but are now the people of God." Of the converts to Christianity, the new people of God, he further says, "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Peter 2:9,10).
In the new dispensation God bestows upon the converted Christians all the privileges and promises that had been made to the literal seed of Abraham (see Galatians 3:26-29). Now converted Christians assume the role of Israel, and the Christian church absorbs the status of the temple or sanctuary of God. The Scriptures make this abundantly clear in such texts as Romans 2;28,29; Ephesians 2:11-13; 19-22; and 1 Peter 2:5.
The Final Desolation
It is in the light of this New Testament principle of spiritual Israel that Daniel speaks of the abomination of desolation the third and final time. These references can be found in Daniel 8:13; 11:31; and 12:11. Discerning students of prophetic history realize that these verses predict the formation and ascension of power by the Papacy. It is an indisputable fact of history that the Papacy brought into the Christian church the very same practices of paganism for which ancient Jerusalem was destroyed. One has to do only a little study to see how image worship, Tammuz worship, and sun worship were introduced to Christianity during the Dark Ages. Many of these abominations are still with us in the form of statues, candles for the saints, rosary beads, Easter sunrise services and Sunday worship. [For more information on this subject, see Amazing Facts' booklet Baptized Paganism.]
By no means does the papal apostasy exonerate Protestantism. Most Protestant churches accede to the apostasy by continuing the practice of abominations that have their roots firmly fixed in ancient pagan religions, which were established to destroy God's truth. Both Catholicism and Protestantism have fostered abominations in God's holy place, His church. The Christian church is mirroring literal Israel. We are repeating many of the same sins and will consequently reap the same punishment of desolation, unless we are willing to read the handwriting on the wall and flee from Babylon.
It is clear that the three occasions of abomination of desolation found in Daniel result from apostasy on the part of God's people, but what is the sign that will tell us when the desolation is nigh?
In Luke 21:20 Jesus told His disciples what would be the last sign of the imminent destruction of Jerusalem. He said, "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh." This text does not indicate that the armies are the abomination, but rather that the armies were the instrument to cause desolation. Through the Roman armies God would execute "the days of vengeance" for Israel's abominations.
When the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem, it was a sign that most of the city's leaders and inhabitants had passed the boundaries of grace and had filled their cup of iniquity. To the Christians living in the city, this was to be a sign that Jerusalem would soon suffer God's judgment. As soon as the first opportunity arose, these Christians were to "flee to the mountains" (v. 21). In 66 A.D. when Cestius, the Roman general, surrounded the city the Christians knew the promised sign had arrived and the time had come to flee. At their first opportunity to escape they did so, and not one Christian died in the horrible destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
Just as God gave the early Christians a sign of when to flee Jerusalem, so He has given us a sign. He has made it possible for every Christian to know when this world's probationary hour is nearing its close.
In Revelation 13 and 14 John records a list of omens that will tell us just how close we are to the end. The sign that will show this nation has filled its cup of iniquity will be when it makes an image to the Papacy by uniting church and state. How much more neatly could this be effected than by the passage of a national Sunday law commanding everyone to honor a pagan day of worship? Such an event will be a direct fulfillment of Revelation 13:15-17, and provide assurance that the end of this earth's time is quickly approaching.
One author describes coming events this way: "As the approach of Roman armies was a sign to the disciples of the impending destruction of Jerusalem, so may this apostasy be a sign to us that the limit of God's forbearance is reached, that the measure of our nation's iniquity is full, and that the angel of mercy is about to take her flight." When the churches have apostasized in their abominations to such a degree that they enact legislation of a religious law which displaces God's holy Sabbath with a pagan holiday, we may leave our cities, knowing that a time of trouble will be forthcoming.
The abomination of desolation is an important subject in these last days. If we study this prophecy carefully, we will find that in each of its three fulfillments refers to a national apostasy by God's people that ends in their tragic destruction. We are now living in the time of the Christian church's final apostasy, which makes of none effect the commandments of God. We need to see that we are in the midst of fulfilling prophecy and keep our eyes open for the culmination of all things.
Our only sure protection against the abomination of desolation is to give our lives unreservedly to Jesus, loving others as He loves them and worshiping Him in the way that His word teaches. The greatest commandment is simply to love God with all our heart and soul and strength. If we have such love, it will be natural for us to do all things to please and honor Him. In return, He will see us safely through the desolation that will close this earth's history just before He comes again.


No, there are no reasons that would make this a good idea.

In the Old Testament we see an explicit prohibition on people inside God's chosen people marrying those outside of it on the grounds that it would cause them to turn away from serving their God.

  Deuteronomy 7:3-4 (ESV)
  3  You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, 4  for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods.  Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.

We see no change brought to this concept in the New Testament, however it should be noted that the outlook on "nations" is a little different now than it used to be.

Originally, it was primarily to the nation of Israel to whom God extended the offer of grace and salvation. There were some exceptional cases where outsiders were brought into that covenant, but the marriage restrictions were indicative of the fact that national lines were also belief lines.

With the actual coming of Christ, the floodgates are opened in a new way and gentiles are grafted into the people of the promise. The national boundaries are no longer important because they do not symbolize a difference in reception of God's grace. The terminology is now to be understood in light of the spiritual family of those that have been called by God.

Marrying outside of (and becoming one with) someone outside of God's family WILL cause a rift in your fellowship with God.

  2 Corinthians 6:14 (ESV)
  14  Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?


Why is it a custom in Baptist Churches to vote on new congregation members?

I'll start out with the last part of your question.  There is no explicit Biblical basis for this.  Voting on membership into the Church is an outcome of several Baptist distinctives, the primary being the autonomy of the local congregation.

From the Baptist Distinctives site's article on Church Governance

  Polity is how an organization, such as a church, functions—the
  policies that guide matters such as governance, decision making,
  structure and leadership. Baptists differ from most Christian
  denominations in matters of polity. The difference especially is
  evident in how congregations of Christians are governed.

  One major difference between Baptists and many other denominations is
  that no person or group outside of a Baptist congregation is to have
  any authority over the church in regard to beliefs and religious
  practices. Furthermore, all of the members within the church
  fellowship are to have equal voice in the governance of the church.

  Baptist church governance often is termed “democratic.” In a sense it
  is. In a democracy, all of the people have equal voices in decision
  making. No individual or group of persons is in control. Such is to be
  the case in a Baptist church. One way that democratic governance is
  practiced is that each member of the church has the right to vote on
  matters at church business meetings.

  To many non-Baptists, and even to some Baptists, this seems to be a
  strange way for a church to function. Putting the governance of a
  church in the hands of persons who have no special training, education
  or calling appears to be foolish. Why would Baptists dare to function
  in this fashion?

The article goes on to list several reasons for governing a Church this way.

To clarify, when the Church is voting on membership, they are not voting on whether a person is saved, or even whether they believe a person is saved. We're  merely voting on whether to allow the person in question to become a voting member of the Church.

From the article on Regenerate Church membership

  What Are Other Factors Related to Membership in a Baptist Church?
  Churches differ on whether persons should be baptized and admitted
  into membership immediately upon their profession of faith or whether
  there should be a delay. Some baptize persons very soon after they
  have made a profession of faith. Others require persons, especially
  children, to go through a process of counseling before being baptized.

  Some churches require all persons seeking membership to be counseled
  concerning their experience of salvation and commitment to church
  membership. Some also expect persons to attend a class for new
  members. Many do neither.

  Baptist congregations vote on a person’s request for membership. The
  congregation is not voting on whether the person is saved or not. That
  is a matter between the individual and God. Rather, the church members
  are participating in Baptist congregational governance under the
  lordship of Christ.

Other relevant disctinctives that bear on voting on membership include Jesus as the only Lord (not a Pope or any governing authority), the Priesthood of all believers,
the belief that all Church members should be regenerate (born again) Christians.


Explanation of Russian assorted saints and festivities icon "Plenka"

"Plenka" means "skin" or "membrane" in this context and refer to material covering the icon.

The icon itself called "all saints" and depicts major saints in order of their festive days during year. Twelve big sections correspond to months, starting from January. Big caption above the section is month name.

Small captions inside each section contain festive description or saint's name. Red letters on the left are church-slavonic digits - it is a day number in the month corresponding to saint/festive.


Is the Vulgate the official version of the bible for entire Catholic Church, or just the Latin Church?

The 4th Session of the Council of Trent on the Canonical Scriptures authorized "the old Latin vulgate" as the official edition of the whole Church:But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been preserved to be read in the Catholic Church (prout in ecclesia catholica legi consueverunt), and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.The phrase I emboldened shows that no new books can be introduced int the canon of Holy Scripture.

"the said books" are:

  Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggæus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle.

It is not just the canon (books) but the translation itself of "the old Latin vulgate" that is free from error, as Pope Pius XII writes in his 1943 encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu §21:

  this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council [of Trent] particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.

Thus, Eastern Catholic rites, too, must recognize "the old Latin vulgate edition" as free from error. This does not mean, though, that all rites cannot use other editions.


How was the translation of the Book of Mormon shown through Joseph Smith's seer stones and hat?

From LDS.org we read:

The other instrument, which Joseph Smith discovered in the ground years before he retrieved the gold plates, was a small oval stone, or “seer stone.” As a young man during the 1820s, Joseph Smith, like others in his day, used a seer stone to look for lost objects and buried treasure. As Joseph grew to understand his prophetic calling, he learned that he could use this stone for the higher purpose of translating scripture.
Apparently for convenience, Joseph often translated with the single seer stone rather than the two stones bound together to form the interpreters. These two instruments—the interpreters and the seer stone—were apparently interchangeable and worked in much the same way such that, in the course of time, Joseph Smith and his associates often used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to the single stone as well as the interpreters. In ancient times, Israelite priests used the Urim and Thummim to assist in receiving divine communications. Although commentators differ on the nature of the instrument, several ancient sources state that the instrument involved stones that lit up or were divinely illumined. Latter-day Saints later understood the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer exclusively to the interpreters. Joseph Smith and others, however, seem to have understood the term more as a descriptive category of instruments for obtaining divine revelations and less as the name of a specific instrument.

Concerning the mechanics of how this took place, the same source reports:

the scribes and others who observed the translation left numerous accounts that give insight into the process. Some accounts indicate that Joseph studied the characters on the plates. Most of the accounts speak of Joseph’s use of the Urim and Thummim (either the interpreters or the seer stone), and many accounts refer to his use of a single stone. According to these accounts, Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument. The process as described brings to mind a passage from the Book of Mormon that speaks of God preparing “a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light.”
The scribes who assisted with the translation unquestionably believed that Joseph translated by divine power. Joseph’s wife Emma explained that she “frequently wrote day after day” at a small table in their house in Harmony, Pennsylvania. She described Joseph “sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.” According to Emma, the plates “often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen table cloth.” When asked if Joseph had dictated from the Bible or from a manuscript he had prepared earlier, Emma flatly denied those possibilities: “He had neither manuscript nor book to read from.” Emma told her son Joseph Smith III, “The Book of Mormon is of divine authenticity—I have not the slightest doubt of it. I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me for hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he would at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him.”
Another scribe, Martin Harris sat across the table from Joseph Smith and wrote down the words Joseph dictated. Harris later related that as Joseph used the seer stone to translate, sentences appeared. Joseph read those sentences aloud, and after penning the words, Harris would say, “Written.” An associate who interviewed Harris recorded him saying that Joseph “possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone.”

This is all that we know.  If you're looking for the physics behind these events, we don't have that to give you any more than we can the process of resurrection.


Taking shoes off before closing a deal - is there an history evidence?

Since Boaz is taken by many (if not most) to be a figure of Christ and Ruth as a figure of the Church and since the man with one shoe is taken to be a figure of (some say) the first covenant or the legal rule as such, it does matter if there is thought to be ambiguity in regard to the issue of the shoe.

  Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe. Ruth 4:8 KJV

The referent (or antecedent) is 'kinsman'. The kinsman said ...

Although Boaz is mentioned next (said unto Boaz) it does not mean that the referent (antecedent) immediately changes to 'Boaz'. Grammatically, the referent/antecedent is still 'kinsman'.

It is he who takes off the shoe.

The question is, whose shoe did the kinsman loose ? His own or Boaz' ?

This is made clear by Deuteronomy :

  Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house. Deuteronomy 25:9 :

Here the refused woman takes off the shoe of the kinsman who will not redeem and she spits in his face for not doing his brotherly duty towards her own (now deceased) husband.

But the kinsman of Boaz (nearer in relationship to Ruth and thus having precedence) admits of his own refusal and takes off his own shoe.

(Whether he spits in his own face is not recorded by the scripture.)

There is, of course, the issue of Ruth being not born of Israel but being a Moabitess. Therefore what rights does she have ?

Boaz does all that is needed for the Gentile woman and the man with one shoe does absolutely nothing. He has taken off his shoe and will make no further progress.


Does John's Gospel explicitly state that it was written by the disciple John?

No, the book of John does not explicitly state that it was written by the disciple John. However, there is a worthy discussion to be had about the combination of external and internal evidence that make this a reasonable conclusion. The internal evidence alone does tell you that it was written by an eyewitness and, when combined with Mark, an apostle. I will be following D.A. Carson's discussion of authorship on John in his Introduction to the New Testament. I have scanned the relevant section from his book and put it in dropbox for your viewing, which can be accessed here. This is not an amazing scan, and it contains my underlinings and scribbles, but I did convert it to a (mostly) searchable pdf so a good portion can be copy and pasted.

  The fourth gospel does not explicitly assert its author’s name: like the Synoptics, it is formally anonymous. As far as we can prove, the title “According to John was attached to it as soon as the four canonical gospels began to circulate together as “the fourfold gospel.” In part, no doubt, this was to distinguish it from the rest of the collection; but it may have served as the title from the beginning (see chapter 3 on Matthew). (p. 229)

F. F. Bruce observes:

  “It is noteworthy that, while the four canonical gospels could afford to be published anonymously, the apocryphal gospels which began to appear from the mid-second century onwards claimed (falsely) to be written by apostles or other persons associated with the Lord.” (The Gospel of John, cited in Carson).

The book of John does, however, claim to be written by an eyewitness:

  John 21:24 “This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.”

Read John 21:20-23 to find out who “this” is. It is the disciple that was rumored to not die.

That being said, what evidence is there that this book was, in fact, written by the apostle John?

External Evidence

Explicit

First unambiguous quotation and attribution of the book of John to the apostle John was Theophilus of Antioch (c. AD 181)
Irenaeus (disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John) specifically claims John wrote the Gospel. “John the disciple of the Lord, who leaned back on his breast, published the gospel while he was resident at Ephesus in Asia” (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1).

The disciple who leaned back on Jesus’ breast is equated to the disciple whom Jesus loved in John 13:23-25. )

Eusebius reports that Clement wrote, “But that John, last of all, conscious that the outward facts had been set forth in the Gospels, was urged on by his disciples, and, divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.” (H.E. 6.14.7)

Implicit

Quotations from John as an authoritative source:

Tatian (a student of Justin Martyr)
Claudius Apollinaris (bishop of Hierapolis)
Athenagoras

Irenaeus reports Polycarp discussing his conversations “with John and with others who had seen the Lord…and how Polycarp had received them from the eyewitnesses of the word of life…”
Polycarp was “entrusted with the oversight of the Church in Smyrna by those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Lord” reports Irenaeus (H.E. 3.36). He is typically referred to as a disciple of John.

Complications

An important consideration in discussion early church testimony surrounding authorship of John's Gospel, 1-3 John, and Revelation is the issue of there being two potentially different or potentially identical Johns in discussion, John the elder or John the apostle. To summarize, there is some confusion about which John is in reference between Papias and Eusebius’ writings, whether it is John the elder (see 2 John 1, 3 John 1) or John the apostle, or whether or not those are two different people. Some of Papias’ words (such as those on Matthew’s Gospel) have caused lots of confusion, even over just the translation. I won’t go into that here.

Internal Evidence

The book claims to be written from an eyewitness (John 21:24)
The beloved disciple = the one who reclines next to Jesus/leaned back on his breast at the Last Supper (John 13:23)

This gets combined with the external evidence to that this was John.

The beloved disciple was likely an apostle, since the twelve apostles were at the Last Supper (Mark 14:17) (though not necessarily exclusively the Twelve)
The beloved disciple talked with Jesus on the cross (19:26-27)
The beloved disciple raced with Peter to the tomb after hearing the report from the women that the tomb was empty (John 20:1-4)

There is more evidence and complications that I don’t have time to enumerate because I’m studying for finals. I encourage you to read the linked document to look at these.
The disciple whom Jesus loved is used 6 times John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 21:20. Wikipedia has some discussion on who this disciple is. Further discussion can show that this disciple was a son of Zebedee.

The full discussion in Carson's Introduction (my scanned version) can again be found here. This introduction has by far the most thorough evaluation of authorship on the NT documents (especially the Gospels) that I have seen, and it defends traditional authorship.


Is Jesus speaking from Himself or is the Holy Spirit speaking through Him?

Jesus spoke for the Father.

John 12:49 says,

  "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak."

John 14:10 says,

  "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works."

So the words that Jesus spoke were the Father's words. Now, how he came to know and speak those words is that the Spirit of the Father rested upon him. The words that he spoke are the Fathers words, and he only spoke the words that the Father bade him speak, and did the things that the Father bade him do.


The founder of Zion's Watch Tower Charles Taze Russell made the following statements and now directly contradict new information by the organization

The organization of Jehovah's Witnesses is guided by the Governing Body.
In contrast to most other religions, the Governing Body does not claim to be inspired or infallible.

The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870.
Watchtower February 2017 p.26 paragraph 12

Therefore, there is no 'magical' or 'divine' inspiration or change of dogmas because there are no dogmas. There are sometimes changes in understanding. Before some things were understood in a different way than now. And maybe in some time in the future, they will be understood in another way. The point is that because the Governing Body does not claim inspiration or infallibility, there is no big conflict if they change the understanding. As imperfect people, they can be wrong. Like mature imperfect people, they can admit when they are wrong, and correct their point of view.

“The Governing Body gives all credit for the success of this organization to Jehovah and the appointed head of the congregation, Jesus Christ. We are just imperfect men trying to follow the lead of Christ and the Holy Spirit.”
JW Broadcast July 2017, timestamp 12:18

So as they are all "imperfect men", there is no conflict or problem, with a change of "light" or understanding, between themselves, or previous members of the governing body, or Mr. Russell, or any other imperfect man. Problems only occur because people and also some JWs expect them to be infallible. It seems a deep desire of many believers to worship or blindly follow human religious leaders. Some people can not imagine having a religion where the leaders do not claim to have divine inspiration. I personally think it is very liberating, that leaders of my religion are aware that they are imperfect, that their organization is imperfect, and that they are not too proud to even keep a list tracking changes in understanding throughout history. In the same video linked above a member of the Governing Body quotes the line: “this is the best imperfect organization on earth.” (timestamp 14:17)
The topic of the new understanding of the identity of the Archangel Michael is addressed in the Watchtower 1984 12/15 pp. 26-29 ‘Michael the Great Prince’—Who Is He?

For many years Jehovah’s Witnesses have taught that Michael is a heavenly name for the only-begotten Son of God, who was named Jesus while on earth. However, most other religions view Michael as one of several archangels, as if there were more than one archangel.

More specifically in this paragraph.

"We learn from Jude that Michael had the post of archangel. In fact, he was the archangel, since no other archangel is mentioned in the Bible, nor does the Bible use “archangel” in the plural. “Archangel” means “Chief of the angels.” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) Among God’s spirit servants, only two names are associated with authority over angels: Michael and Jesus Christ. (Matthew 16:27; 25:31; 2 Thessalonians 1:7) This, too, argues that Jesus and Michael are the same."

More information can be found in the Watchtower 1984 12/15 pp. 26-29, the article is about 4 pages. But again there are no new Bible scriptures, the Governing Body did not have a dream or vision. They just changed their understanding. These changes often take many years' time from initiating to publication. More information on that can be found in the talk of Mr. David H. Splane (a member of the Governing Body) in the JW Broadcast of August 2016 (timestamp 18:15).


If Jesus is the son of God then why bother listing his genealogy?

As Westerners, we live in what is known as a "guilt culture". Accordingly, we lack an understanding of the importance of familial lineage. Most of the Middle-east operates on what is know as an "Honor-Shame culture"

In a lecture before the Biblical Archaeology Society, Anthropologist Dr. Richard Rohrbaugh explains the significance of Geneologies. He explains that this establishes the reputation and credentials for Jesus.  I have transcribed some relevant excepts of this lecture below:

  Now, The Baltic Culture Continent that you and I live in, anthropologist call a “Guilt Culture”. ...the Mediterranean Culture Continent both today and in antiquity is what anthropologists call an “Honor-Shame Culture”.

  ...

  Honor is relatively simple actually to understand. Honor is your standing in the pecking order of the village, together with the public recognition of that.  There is no such thing as claiming honor that the village does not recognize. To claim honor that the village does not recognize is to be uppity; brash; a braggart; a fool. Honor is public reputation in the village and everybody in the village knows exactly where you stand in the pecking order. The reason for that is there are two primary ways in which you can get your honor rating or ranking in a village. ...

  The overwhelming way in which you get your honor rating is from your birth. It's what anthropologist call “ascribed honor.” It's the honor that you get the day you pop out of the womb. It's the honor that you and every member of your extended family has - male and female - everybody in your family has, has always had, and always will have. That kind of Ascribed Honor means that if you are born in a very high family, you have a high honor ranking. If you are born a low-life, you have a low honor ranking and you're probably going to have a till the day you die. So the overwhelming way in which you get your honor is from the family of your birth. Do you now understand why genealogies are so important in the Bible? Genealogies indicate in writing what a village knows orally. Namely, the family you were born in and hence the on a ranking you have.

  ...

  I spent some time living in the little Palestinian village of Beit Jala in the West Bank doing research. My primary area of interest is peasant studies and in living in Beit Jala, I discovered that when I would be introduced to peasants they would often immediately tell me their genealogy. For most peasants it's only three generations long: me, my father, and my grandfather. Maybe my son - Maybe four. Sometimes in an oral setting like that they will go back and add the eponymous ancestors of the community - Abraham Isaac and Jacob.

  ...

  Genealogies are, if you will, a kind of a map for the whole community - describing exactly where in the scheme of things you fit. Among non-literate people (which in antiquity was about ninety-six percent of the population); among non-literate people genealogies would be very short. Only upper class wealthy people have written genealogies. And you understand that the longer the genealogy, the better? Because it means you're from old money not new money. You understand?

  ...What I find interesting is the genealogy in Luke - It goes all the way back to “son of seth, son of Adam, son of God”. That is, it traces it to the beginning. That's the longest genealogy possible. Do you understand that in honor claim is being made? In fact we know from Roman texts that people in the Roman world who did become newly rich and wanted to move up the social ladder hired genealogists to create fictive genealogies for themselves and there were a few stars in the pantheon of Roman ancestors they all wanted to be associated with. For a fee, you could get that association. Now you have the map that tells everybody where you fit in the pecking order of things and that had an enormous impact on your life.

  I’m going to show you some slides in a minute of some ancient text that describe the fact that your honor ranking determine who ate with whom, who could marry whom, who spoke to whom, who listened to whom.  It determined who would speak first in a conversation. It determined who would marry whom and who would do business with whom. In fact it determined most of the social patterns of your life. It's therefore critically important that everybody in the village know exactly where you stand - because it provides the road map for how you and I are going to interact with each other.

  ...

  Jesus comes from a no-account little village. He's a village – a τέκτων (tektón) he is called in the Greek. We translate it carpenter – it could be a worker in metal, stone, or wood. I don't have time today but to show you just how low on the social scale that really is - It's very near the bottom. People like that don't get up and talk in public. So when Jesus does, It confuses everybody. In the Middle-East they expect somebody born of a great family to be great. You're born of a low family you're going to be no-account. What does not compute in their social compass is somebody born to a low-life family who turns out to be great. How do you explain that?

  Well of course what Matthew and Luke do to explain it is they give us these very elaborate birth stories in which they try to tell us that God was somehow unusually involved in this birth. Otherwise there could be no expectation that anybody would listen to Jesus. What do his opponents do in the twentieth chapter of Luke? They say, “Who gives you the authority to speak like this?” Note that they didn't say, “Did you have this authority from your birth?” They know that's not true. “Who gave you this authority?” Their assumption is somebody had to have acquired the honor from somebody who recognized it because all honor has to be publicly recognized.

So, in short, the genealogies are given because 1) they have traditional and cultural significance and indicate great standing and importance and 2) Just as you note, (at least one genealogy) claims Jesus to be the Son of God - it just does it via a more circuitous route in order to lend Jesus the honor ranking implied by all those ancestors who came before Jesus. (the other genealogy links Jesus to the eponymous ancestors of the community which is nearly as significant).

Despite both genealogies of Jesus listing Joseph as the father of Jesus, one of the given genealogies does, in fact, appear to go through Mary's side of the family. In the genealogy of Matthew, Joseph is listed as the son of Jacob while in another he is listed as the son of Heli. The first several generations of the genealogies are radically divergent, so either one is fictitious or one is the genealogy of Joseph while the other is the genealogy of Mary. Presumably, at the time of writing the gospels, children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren of Mary and Joseph were alive at the time of the writing of the gospels and would have known the genealogy of Christ. These records might also be obtained through the Roman census data at various times, so the most probable option is that one of the genealogies belong to Mary.

The translators of the NET point out that the parenthetical remark in the text is meant to indicate that the genealogy might not be Joseph's:

  The parenthetical remark as was supposed makes it clear that Joseph
  was not the biological father of Jesus. But a question still remains
  whose genealogy this is. Mary is nowhere mentioned....

Another reason that this makes complete sense is that Jewish heritage does not come through the masculine side, but instead is a function of the maternal heritage. Wikipedia has an excellent article on Matrilineality in Judaism and in it it, they explain,

  The Mishnah (Kiddushin 3:12) states that, to be a Jew, one must be either the child of a Jewish mother or a convert to Judaism

Later, it states

  In the Hellenistic period of the 4th Century BCE – 1st Century CE some evidence may be interpreted to indicate that the offspring of intermarriages between Jewish men and non-Jewish women were considered Jewish

  ...

  Josephus (37 CE – c. 100 CE), in Antiquities of the Jews, refers to marriages between Jewish men and Gentile women without much commentary and seems to assume that the offspring is Jewish;

It is thus not unlikely that one of these genealogies comes through Mary, and both Aquinas and Clement as well as numerous others have shared this view. Even if one of the genealogies is fictitious however, a great honor claim is made nonetheless as Rohrbaugh explained.


What KJV publishers today include the "Translators to the reader"?

The Trinitarian Bible Society has published the 'Translators to the Readers' section in my copy which I bought on-line from them.

The front page says this:

  The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments translated out of the original tongues and with the former translations diligently compared and revised by His Majesty's special command (that would be King James VI of Scotland and I of England)

Here is the note that precedes the section 'The Translators to the Reader':

  This preface was written by the translators of the Authorized Version, and appeared in full in the original 1611 printing. It was omitted for reasons of space as smaller-sized Bibles were produced in later years, and is rarely to be found in modern editions.  The text of this Preface is taken from F. H. Scrivener's 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible.

The Trinitarian Bible Society is based in London, U.K. https://www.tbsbibles.org/default.aspx