Is ex-nihilo creationism irreconcilable with the concept of individual free will?

With all due respect to Mark Hausam, the logic just doesn't hold water.  That sounds like a category error.

  Category Errors

  These fallacies occur because the author mistakenly assumes that the
  whole is nothing more than the sum of its parts. However, things
  joined together may have different properties as a whole than any of
  them do separately. The following fallacies are category errors:

  Composition (Because the parts have a property, the whole is said to have that property)
  Division (Because the whole has a property, the parts are said to have that property)

Free will is not dependent on our origins. To illustrate this, we can look at a polar opposite theory of origins and show that the same argument can be stated, and it's equally nonsensical.

Creationism implies a first cause, which is God. It deals with the origin of everything. Ex-nihilo creationism claims God as a first cause, leaving the question "where did God come from?"

Current Atheistic Naturalism also assumes a first cause - the Big Bang, and question "what existed before it?  Where did the energy, which eventually became matter, come from?"

Both claim either a first cause, or a first known cause, leaving the question of whether or not this known first cause is truly first... But I'm getting off the subject.

Let's rephrase the question attempting to tie free will to this alternate theory of origins:

  The Big Bang theory implies a radical metaphysical dependence upon
  energy and matter.

To which we can only reply "duh."

If the Big Bang is true, and we have a metaphysical dependence on matter and energy, that has nothing to do with whether or not we have free will.

The existence of free will has nothing to do with origins. It doesn't matter if the proposed theory of origins is the Big Bang, or Ex-nihilo Creationism, or the idea that a Turtle god barfed up the universe. (Sorry. I've been reading some odd legends lately.)


Name changes in the Bible indicate a significant change in the life of the person. For example,

Abram became Abraham.

  "No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham;
  for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations." (Gen 17:5)

Jacob became Israel.

  Then he said, "Your name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel,
  for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed." (Gen
  32:28)

Simon became Cephas, which means rock.

  "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which
  means Peter). (John 1:42)

Having said that, it is really up to the individual to take a new name. Usually, they like to take the name of a saint whom they are inspired by.


Is Mary, "Mother of God," the mother of the Son or of the whole Trinity?

But the title seems to refer to God the Trinity. Is that correct?

No it does not.

First trinity is not God. Trinity is how God is. That is trinity is not a person, it is a relationship. So Mary cannot be the mother of Trinity.

Secondly it would be nice if you know the context why and when this was declared as a dogma. The problem rose when Nestorius said the Mary held within herself only the human Jesus and not divine Christ. That is Mary is the mother of human Jesus. But as we all know mothers don't give birth to "human nature", but to a person. Hence Mary is the mother of a person named Jesus, who happens to be divine in an Hypostatic union. Since Mary is mother of His humanity, she is also the mother of His divinity.

When we say Mary is the mother of God, we do not mean that she is the author of His Divinity. But we mean that she held in herself and gave birth to God and Human Jesus.


What is the difference between a Christian and a Messianic Jew?

The term Messianic Jew refers to Christians who identify as Jewish, as compared to those who identify as Russian, English, Thai etc. Most of them are of Jewish descent, though there are some who are not but have chosen to identify themselves as Jewish.

Most Messianic Jews believe there is a very strong continuity between the Hebrew scriptures and Christianity. Many uphold the Mosaic Law and, for example, celebrate its festivals. They believe that Jesus is the fulfilment of many of the prophesies of the Hebrew scriptures, just as Christians do. In general their beliefs are likely to be largely the same as other Christians, though there's also just as much diversity among them as there is the rest of us.

There are also Christians who are of Jewish descent but who do call themselves Messianic Jews. Jewish identity is more complex than other ethnicities as it may involve an identification with the Jewish people, their history, their culture and the religion of Judaism, or it may involve an identification with only some of those things. These people may acknowledge their Jewish descent but not strongly identify with the Jewish culture or religion, perhaps because contemporary Judaism has significant differences from how it was practiced in Biblical times.


Eastern Orthodoxy: What is the 'nous' and how is it distinguished from your mind and the rest of your spirit?

If you are using the word theologian in the traditional sense, I'm not sure if Frederica Mathewes-Green counts (I won't judge her) but I can tell what she has to say on the topic in Welcome to the Orthodox Church.

I don't have the book with me or I'd quote it. However, she says the mind has two gears in which it can operate. In one, it is producing information by engaging in analytical thinking. In the other (the nous) it is receiving information and experiencing reality directly.

For example, take Sherlock Holmes. He uses powers of physical observation to gather facts and then use deductive "fleshly reason" to analyze these facts and draw conclusions. On the other hand, St. Mary of Egypt knew everything about Fr. Zosimas as soon as she laid eyes on him (possibly before, I do not know).

While Sherlock had to think in order to learn about others, St. Mary was of such purity that she simply experienced Fr. Zosimas and immediately experienced his entire life as well.

Everyone experiences things and gains insight by the nous in the same manner as St. Mary.  When I return home from work, it's difficult to look at my children and not admire them simply and without contrivance. However, doing so teaches me nothing about them because sinners such as myself see through a glass darkly while the glass of St. Mary was polished, clear, and shining.

Frederica says that we can only use one of these gears at a time and that, as soon as you begin critically evaluating something, you stop experiencing it. This does not mean the nous is a magical device which, upon our access and after much striving, will immediately grant us all knowledge.

Anytime you stop analyzing and start experiencing, you are using your nous. The difference between ourselves and a great saint is that our nous is dirty and darkened and theirs is full of light. Also, that we tend toward neglect of it and exercise of the analytical mind.

There are of course many other mental faculties such as will, emotion, etc.


According to reformed theology, why are certain important doctrines not "obvious"? [i.e. why does the Westminister Confession even exist?]

While this is easy enough to answer from a Reformed point of view, I'd like to start by pointing out that the felt need for extra-Biblical statements on matters of faith is not limited to Reformed circles or even Protestantism. In fact they are common to all traditions and sects in Christendom.1 Even your most run-of-the-mill non-denominational half-baked-evangelical Church in Podunk middle-America will have a Statement of Faith somewhere on their Bulletin, website or other literature. These statements serve both a declarative role in announcing what they believe are the key points to the Christian faith and a discerning role in separating them from any group or church that would make a contrary statement.

At the core is the issue of language. Words by themselves are of little consequence until they are interpreted. Lets try an example. Let's say I were to make a simple statement as follows:

  I do not deserve to be mistreated by the world! -- Caleb Maclennan

You read that and now you think you know what I meant.

Maybe you nod your head in approval—or maybe you wonder what happened to me that I consider myself so mistreated. Maybe it moves you and you start an activist group. You use my statement as a slogan and you gather a bunch of followers. They all are motivated to end the wrongs done by humanity to itself. The only problem is, you completely misunderstood what I said. Now my name is on a whole bunch of things I do not actually approve of.

My statement requires interpretation. Even when you think you are "just reading it at face value", you are actually interpreting it based on whatever background knowledge you have of the world and myself and of language. You also bring your presuppositions about what is right and wrong, what human rights are, etc.

You see, if you really knew my perspective on those factors, a different meaning will show up in the same words. I believe that I am a wretched sinner who does not deserve the grace I have been shown in Christ to whom I owe all of my allegiance. As the author and perfecter of my faith was abused and mistreated by this world having done no wrong to deserve it, I having done great wrong feel unworthy of the lesser mistreatment that I receive. Behind my statement lies an understanding that even the world's mistreatment is better than I deserve.

The need for Creeds and Confessions stems from this issue of all language requiring interpretation. Over time as contexts change and we lose perspective on the original authors, sometimes it becomes necessary to clarify to ourselves in what way we are interpreting the teachings of Scripture.

In reading the Scriptures we each bring different light to bear on them. It is only by comparing our understanding with each others' that we come to realize places where we may have erred, and it is partly by seeing the different outcomes that we come to understand how different presuppositions affect our understanding. Creeds and Confessions help bring interpretation full circle, demonstrating to others how we have interpreted the Scriptures and affirming our beliefs. They are a way of echoing back what we have gleaned from the Bible with the Spirit's help, allowing others to verify our interpretations and hold us accountable to them.

They also serve as a measuring stick for other believers. As a minister of the word ordained by a Reformed denomination, part of the ordination process I went through was an examination of my own beliefs in comparison to a number of Creeds and Confessions, including the Westminster Confession of Faith. I will use the WCF as an example because you mention it, but the principles I'm talking about here and the necessity of such confessions is universal and just as relevant for those who hold a confession that conflicts with the WCF.

I actually took exception to a number of points in the WCF. I do not hold it to be an infallible guide or standard of interpretation nor a dictate on my life. However it is incredibly valuable to able to compare my own interpretation of Scripture (particularly in a case like mine where I go on to teach and preach based on said interpretations) against a third party articulation of the Christian faith. Many people use their Bibles to preach sermons, but just because they used a verse or two doesn't mean they are preaching orthodoxy. In fact many of them babble nonsense and even heresy. Having agreed upon fixed standards of interpretation for certain key issues allows other churches, my own congregation and myself to judge my own beliefs and determine if I have wandered from sound teaching. I do not agree with everything in the WCF, but I have made my exceptions known and that gives people a measure with which to evaluate me and keep my teaching accountable.

Confessions are not divinely appointed standards, but they are a mutual aide for us as fallible individuals that we are correctly interpreting God's word.

The necessity for these started very early in Christian history. It actually can be traced back before the NT church into creedal statements made that existed as markers between Israel and other nations and in between different sects of Jews. Some of these were as simple as a fragment of a verse from the OT, some as complicated as a law dictionary.

But let's pick up some traces from the NT. Please note there are huge gaps between each of these steps, I'm not noting some mile markers along the road here.

  1 John 4:2 (ESV)
  2  By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,

The early church had trouble with this one right away. How were they to tell who was a follower of Christ? Among the very early church (the first handful of generations after the original disciples) articulating their faith in a way that distinguished them as uniquely Christian is what we know as a Rule of Faith. Wikipedia has the following to note on the subject. Understand that Irenaeus was writing about 120 A.D. and recording what was already a widely circulated Confession of the time.

  In Christian theology, it is a principle which evaluates religious life and theological opinions by testing them for consistency against what has been firmly believed. The original rule of faith in the Early Christian Church as Irenaeus knew it, included the following:

    … this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas and all the things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who made known through the prophets the plan of salvation, and the coming, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his future appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise anew all flesh of the whole human race … :

Gradually, these Creeds grew in length. And for good reason. Beset with heresies as each new group and idea came along with some new and unique way to reinterpret Scripture differently than was understood by the early churches under the guidance of the Apostles, it was necessary to add statements on these issues clarifying what was orthodox belief and what was deviant. While sticking to the core details, these expressed in detail the specific things understood about the faith and the teachings of Scripture in a way that set Christians apart from people whose doctrinal systems had other allegiances.

For example the Apostles' Creed, known to have been coined by at least 215 A.D but has several variations, of which we typically use a little later more developed one, goes something like this:

  I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

  I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again; he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.

  I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. AMEN.

That covers a lot of little details about the person of Jesus, but groups still arose that claimed various teachings that subverted what Christians understood the teaching about Christ to be. The bit I bolded above from 215 A.D looks more like this in the Nicene Creed from 381 A.D.

  [...] And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; [...]

One could go on and on, tracing the development of longer or more specific Creeds and Confessions in response to heresies and misunderstandings. As the number of ways man invents to deviate from the teachings of the word grows so will the need to state clearly what the orthodox teaching on those issues is. However, I digress from your question.

Specific points of doctrine such as those you give as examples do not originate with the Confessions that most clearly express them, rather they originate with the Scriptures and are the articulations of orthodox interpretation which the church in various ages felt the need to articulate when faced with influxes of teachings that did not match its own yet claimed to be Christian.

One must be clear on this: Creeds and Confessions do not hold authority over Scripture nor is it the confessions themselves that we teach, but rather our interpretation of God's word using the wisdom of the church that has gone before us as a measure or guide to make sure we have correctly understood it. The WCF itself clearly states this in Article 31.42:

  All synods or councils, since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.

Many other written confessions include a similar note about themselves.

I do mean all. Even sects such as the Bereans who insist on having no creed but the Bible, have as a commonly agreed upon statement that in order to make any doctrinal point, only the text of Scripture can be used. In effect this is their confession. Their collective interpretations also tend to have some unique flair to them do end up documented as statements of faith that set them apart from non-Bereans.
This is not one of the points to which I take exception. ;o)


Do the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches observe different dates for Pascha?

Disagreement about the date for Easter goes back to the very earliest years of Christianity.  Pope Anicetus and Polycarp are said to have disagreed about the correct date, as early as the middle of the second century, both finally agreeing that they could not convince each other to change.  Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in what is now France, mentioned this in a letter to Pope Victor, as a precedent to press Pope Victor to allow Eastern Christians to continue their tradition when they were in Rome.

Easter continued to be celebrated on different days in the east and in the west, but this was almost the least of the issues that divided Christianity. What today would seem to be a trifling issue, the insertion of the filioque clause into the Nicene Creed was to be the major issue that finally sealed the division of the eastern and western branches of Christianity, in the Great Schism of 1054. Pope Leo XI insisted on inserting the filioque clause, providing a subtle change in the definition of the Trinity, into the Nicene Creed in spite of a requirement that no change could be made to the Nicene Creed other than by a council of the bishops. Another trigger was that the western churches insisted on celibacy for the clergy, whereas the eastern churches regarded marriage by the clergy as acceptable.

While the disagreement about the date of Easter may be about genuine, firmly held views on proper theology, many of the other divisions that occurred in the Christian Church have been about power. Pope Leo was arguably more concerned to assert his authority over the entire Christian Church than whether priests could marry. The secular world talks of the division between Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox as the 'Great Schism', but more often, when the Catholic Church talks of the 'Great Schism', it is the western schism of 1378-1418, in which various claimants vied for the power and wealth that came with the papacy. This western schism was called the 'Great Schism' in order to differentiate it from the several other papal schisms in the Catholic Church, with John W. O’Malley SJ saying in A History of the Popes, page 150 that the schism was certainly not the first papal schism, nor would it be the last.

The earliest Christian writings, from the epistles of St Paul and the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas demonstrate that the Christian Church has never been united. Differences over theology, such as the date of Easter or the providence of GThomas are arguably more noble than the disunity over power and access to the vast wealth of the Church.


In Oriental Orthodox sacramental theology can a mixed marriage be valid?

From The Sacrament of Holy Crowning in the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church

Today, this Eucharistic tradition is confronted with many challenges.
In our pluralistic society the great diversity of religious faith
confessions makes the “ideal” of a marriage between Armenian Orthodox
partners less a reality in the Church community. The Church now
encounters the condition of a “mixed marriage”; a marriage between an
Armenian Orthodox and a Christian from another faith confession. Such
situations do not change the general meaning of marriage with regard
to its intent but certainly present problems when celebrating the
rites of blessing.
It should be understood that mixed marriages are neither encouraged
nor forbidden by the Armenian Orthodox Church. Sacramental blessing by
the church granted through the person of the officient Priest could
only be administered and celebrated for those who are baptized
Christians. Canonically there is no separate liturgical rite for an
Armenian Orthodox and a non- Christian.
As stated, mixed marriages are those between Armenian Orthodox and
persons from Christian confessions that acknowledge belief in the Holy
Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. The
celebration of the Sacrament of Crowning, as it is traditionally
called, is allowed for a mixed faith union out of concern for the
couple’s well being inviting them both to share in prayer and affirm,
however possible, their common faith within the rite without
compromise of personal or Church integrity. This practice of
“oekonomia” thus allows both to share as much as possible. It should
remain clear that the acceptance and participation of a non-Armenian
Orthodox Christian in the marriage rite does not imply his/her
conversion nor does it grant him/her the privilege to actively receive
the other Sacraments of the Church. It is only by the Sacrament of
Chrismation that one becomes a member of the faith community; after
proper catechizes before or after marriage.

Arguably, this is a palliative measure as a consequence of declining religiosity in Europe. The same phenomenon can be identified for other denominations in many European countries with low religiosity:

(Pew Research)
Which clearly reflects in the proportion of mixed marriages:

From Mixed Marriages in Europe, 1990-2010


Why were Anabaptists called Anabaptists?

Anabaptists do not consider themselves to be 'rebaptizers'. Their view is that baptism is only valid if it is done as a result of a personal faith and particularly they consider that baptisms of people too young to understand what is happening are invalid. Their members are required to be baptized as adults (or at least to be 'of an an age of understanding').

The start of the Anabaptist movement was at a time when virtually everyone would have been baptized as an infant. Anabaptists would require members to be baptized 'again' (as an adult), not because they believe two baptisms are required but because they believe the first (as an infant) was invalid. Similar situations happen fairly frequently today.

The name 'anabaptist' (rebaptizers) was applied to the group by detractors, who would have considered infant baptism valid and seen the Anabaptists as baptizing 'a second time'. Members of the groups came to accept the name, and use it to this day.

See: http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-28/1525-anabaptist-movement-begins.html


What guidelines should be followed using spiritual gifts?

Wowsers! Great question! Also a loaded one. I'll be deconstructing 1 Corinthians 14 since this is the clearest example of guidelines (I'm also assuming that you meant the spiritual gifts in 1 Cor. 12).

  Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.

I have so much to say about this in terms of non-cessationalism, but because it doesn't directly answer the original question, suffice it to say that Paul tell us that spiritual gifts are to be desired. We were never given a choice between chosing to love God and spiritual gifts. I often hear, "I rather love Jesus and focus on Him", as if that can minimize Jesus in some way to pursue spiritual gifts. So then, in this guideline, we're told first of all to desire spiritual gifts. Paul, as if to argue the possibility that some may doubt, establishes the topic of this snippet (chapter 14).

  6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching? 7 Even things without life, whether flute or harp, when they make a sound, unless they make a distinction in the sounds, how will it be known what is piped or played? 8 For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle? 9 So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. 11 Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me. 12 Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel. 13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. 16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? 17 For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified. 18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

This is one of the verses that I see that Paul clearly establishes a differentiation between two different kinds of "tongues". Here he is talking about the public use of speaking in tongues. Later in verse 28 he says that if there is no one to interpret, we speak in tongues privately (which is actually to God and for our edification as we see in verses 4, 14 & 28). We're told here that the public use of tongues is useless in terms of the edification of the Church as a whole when there is no interpretation. Thus, we should rather speak from our understanding if there is no interpreter present. Notice here, though, that the word is interpret and not translate. Because there are different kinds of tongues (1 Cor. 13:1), there will not always be someone there who knows that particular language and the Spirit gives an interpretation. It's not a word-for-word translation, but the message is conveyed the same. I've seen this happen many times in a service where one speaks in tongues and interprets what He feels the spirit is saying, then someone has stood up and said, "that was my native tongue and you have said everything exactly as you spoke it!". It an amazing thing to watch and it instills a fear and awe of the Lord.

  20 Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature.
  21 In the law it is written:

“With men of other tongues and other lips
I will speak to this people;
And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me,”says the Lord.

22 Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all. 25 And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you.

Here is a good guideline. Be careful that you don't "overuse" tongues in a public service because those who are unbelievers will think you are crazy if they come in and you're babbling in languages that they don't know. Although, if there is prophecy and his heart is revealed then he will know there is a God. I've seen this many times. People who don't believe in God will quickly listen when you tell them the secrets of their heart that no one else could know but God alone.

  26 How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. (I've ommited verses 34-38 to keep from debating such a sensitive topic.) 39 Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

This is probably the "meat" of the guidelines section. Verse 40 basically sums everything up. The thing we need to keep in mind when operating in spiritual gifts in a Church setting is that things need to be done decently and in order. There should not be chaos in the Church of the God of peace. Each has his own part and there is no rush to make yourself heard since everyone can take a turn and be edified.

I hope this helps and makes sense. Sorry if it's too long!


Absolution without confession is valid or not?

You are already forgiven if your a believer and Love God with all your might, heart, soul, spirit, pinky toe. Lol Your confession doesn't have to be to the masses it can be to one believer and or from what i've experienced from the Spirit, while your in prayer and communion with God.


Did any Jesuit opponents of early Jansenism argue that Augustine was wrong on any points?

On the contrary, the detractors of Jansen argued that the doctrine of the Augustinus [or, what they said it was] wasn’t the one of St Augustine. Two examples of it in:

Les Véritables sentimens de saint Augustin et de l'Église, touchant la grâce by Claude Morel (1650)
[Translation: The true sentiments of St Augustine and of the Church about the grace]
Les sentimens de saint Augustin sur la grace opposez a ceux de Jansenius, by the oratorian Jean Le Porcq (1700)
[Translation: The sentiments of St Augustine about the grace, opposed to the one of Jansen]

The titles of those books are quite clear, and if you are unsure, just consider the summary of the first one, e.g.:

  Chap. III: Éclaircissment de quelques passages de S. Augustin dont abusent ceux qui veulent lui faire dire contre sa pensée que Jésus-Christ n’est pas mort pour tous les hommes.

Finally an other quotation from the Refutation des critiques de Monsieur Bayle sur Saint Augustin (1782), by the jesuit Charles Merlin:

  L’Augustin de Jansenius n’est qu’un centon composé de plusieurs textes de Saint Augustin pris à contre-sens.

  Translation: The Augustine of Jansenius isn’t anything else than a mingle-mangle of Saint Augustine’s texts in the wrong sense.


What was G.K. Chesterton's proof of original sin, and what is so unique about it?
For Chesterton not only is sin a fact, original sin is a fact, an observable fact one can "see in the street." It is his particular logical outlook on the matter.
Someone once asked Bill Vallicella his opinion on the following passage from G. K. Chesterton:my opinion of the following passage from G. K. Chesterton:

Modern masters of science are much impressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin -- a fact as practical as potatoes. Whether or no man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. Some followers of the Reverend R. J. Campbell, in their almost too fastidious spirituality, admit divine sinlessness, which they cannot see even in their dreams. But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street. The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument.

What Chesterton is saying is that sin is a fact, an indisputable fact, whether or not there is any cure for it. Not only is sin a fact, original sin is a fact, an observable fact one can "see in the street." Chesterton also appears to be equating sin with positive moral evil.
Is moral evil the same as sin? If yes, then the factuality of moral evil entails the factuality of sin. But it seems to me that moral evil is not the same as sin. It is no doubt true -- analytically true as we say in the trade -- that sins are morally evil; but the converse is by no means self-evident. It is by no means self-evident that every moral evil is a sin.  Let me explain.
Moral evil is evil that comes into the world from a misuse of free will. As such,  it could exist whether or not God exists as long as there are free agents.  All that would be required for the existence of moral evil, in addition to free agents, would be moral values and/or moral laws. Sin, however,  implies God by its very concept. Sin is an offense against God. A sinful act is not just a wrongful act, but an act of disobedience, a contravention of a divine command. From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on sin:

In the Old Testament sin is set forth as an act of disobedience (Genesis 2:16-17; 3:11; Isaiah 1:2-4; Jeremiah 2:32); as an insult to God (Numbers 27:14); as something detested and punished by God (Genesis 3:14-19; Genesis 4:9-16); as injurious to the sinner (Tob., xii, 10); to be expiated by penance (Ps. 1, 19). In the New Testament it is clearly taught in St. Paul that sin is a transgression of the law (Romans 2:23; 5:12-20); a servitude from which we are liberated by grace (Romans 6:16-18); a disobedience (Hebrews 2:2) punished by God (Hebrews 10:26-31). St. John describes sin as an offence to God, a disorder of the will (John 12:43), an iniquity (1 John 3:4-10).

My first conclusion, then, is that moral evil is not the same as sin. The concept of sin includes the concept of moral evil, but not conversely. This is because sin is an offence against God. If so, then it is difficult to see how sin could be a fact, as Chesterton claims. It is more like an interpretation of certain facts. We need an example.
One man brutally assaults another to get his wallet. He beats him to death with a baseball bat while the vitim's little girl looks on in horror.  The act is evil, and let's assume that the act's being evil is a fact not only in the sense that it is the case, but also in the sense that it is evidently the case, observably the case, indisputably the case.  But is the act of assault sinful? Only if God exists. For only if God exists can there be an offence against God, which is what sin is. But that God exists is not a fact in the sense I just defined. For even if it is the case that God exists -- even if the proposition God exists is true -- it is not evidently, observably, indisputably the case that God exists. Chesterton says one can "see sin in the street."  This is just false. For surely one cannot see God in the street, or in the sky, or in nature as a whole. The theist interprets what he literally sees in terms of, within the horizon of, his belief in God, and so he interprets the evil act as a sinful act. But the sinfulness of the act of assault is not a perceptible quality of it: it cannot be 'read off' the act.
My second conclusion, therefore, is that sin is not a fact in the sense defined. This is because calling an act sinful  involves an interpretation of the act in terms of an entity, God, whose existence is not a fact in the sense defined. It is interesting to note that if sin were an observable fact, then, given that concept of sin include the concept of God,  we would be able to mount a quick argument for God from the existence of sin. That is, we could argue as follows:
There are sinful acts; If there are sinful acts, then God exists; ergo, God exists. This argument is valid in point of logical form, but is not probative because it begs the question in the first premise: anyone who classifies some acts as sinful in so doing presupposes the existence of God.
So, contrary to what Chesterton says above, sin is not a fact one can "see in the street." It is no more an observable fact than the createdness or divine designedness of the universe  are observable facts. They may be facts, but they are not observable facts. I seem to recall Kierkegaard saying something similar to what Chesterton says above.  Kierkegaard, if memory serves, says in effect that Original Sin is the one dogma that is empirically verifiable. But this is the same mistake. The most one can say is that the fact of moral evil is plausibly explained by the doctrine of Original Sin. If the doctrine is true, then we have a plausible explanation of the ubiquity and horrendous depth of moral evil; but other explanations are possible which operate without theistic assumptions.- Is Sin a Fact? A Passage from Chesterton Examined


Historical evidence of Slaughter of the Innocents besides St. Matthew's Gospel?

What historical evidence is there of the Slaughter of the Innocents?

Apart from the Gospel of St. Matthew, it seems that there is a serious lack of any recognized historical evidence for the slaughter of the Holy Innocents.

  “Then Herod, when he saw that he had been outwitted by the wise men, flew into a rage. He gave orders to massacre all the male children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old and under, in keeping with the time he had learned from the wise men.” (Matthew 2:16)

Many historians now seem to be of the opinion that this event mentioned in the Gospel of St. Matthew is of minor importance in the annuals of the deeds of Herod the Great. The Catholic Encyclopedia puts it as follows:

  The Greek Liturgy asserts that Herod killed 14,000 boys (ton hagion id chiliadon Nepion), the Syrians speak of 64,000, many medieval authors of 144,000, according to Apocalypse 14:3. Modern writers reduce the number considerably, since Bethlehem was a rather small town. Knabenbauer brings it down to fifteen or twenty (Evang. S. Matt., I, 104), Bisping to ten or twelve (Evang. S. Matt.), Kellner to about six (Christus and seine Apostel, Freiburg, 1908); cf. "Anzeiger kath. Geistlichk. Deutschl.", 15 Febr., 1909, p. 32. This cruel deed of Herod is not mentioned by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, although he relates quite a number of atrocities committed by the king during the last years of his reign. The number of these children was so small that this crime appeared insignificant amongst the other misdeeds of Herod. Macrobius (Saturn., IV, xiv, de Augusto et jocis ejus) relates that when Augustus heard that amongst the boys of two years and under Herod's own son also had been massacred, he said: "It is better to be Herod's hog [ous], than his son [houios]," alluding to the Jewish law of not eating, and consequently not killing, swine. The Middle Ages gave faith to this story; Abelard inserted it in his hymn for the feast of Holy Innocents:

  “Ad mandatum regis datum generale
  nec ipsius infans tutus est a caede.
  Ad Augustum hoc delatum risum movit,
  et rex mitis de immiti digne lusit:
  malum, inquit, est Herodis esse natum.
  prodest magis talis regis esse porcum.
  (Dreves, "Petri Abaelardi Hymnarius Paracletensis", Paris, 1891, pp. 224, 274.)“

Historians do not always write down every event that has historically happened.

  Sometimes historians choose not to record an event, and their reasons cannot always be determined. In the nineteenth century Pope Leo XIII noted the double standard in critics for whom “a profane book or ancient document is accepted without hesitation, whilst the Scripture, if they only find in it a suspicion of error, is set down with the slightest possible discussion as quite untrustworthy” (Providentissimus Deus, 20).

  We should call out this double standard when critics demand that every event recorded in Scripture, including the massacre of the Holy Innocents, be corroborated in other non-biblical accounts before they can be considered to be historical. - Is the Massacre of the Holy Innocents Historical?


What is the Catholic explanation for temptation?

Good question.   As it turns out, there isn't an official Catholic position.  That is, the Catechism does not address the question of why temptation occurs.  What follows is an argument combining the thinking of several different Catholic scholars.

First, the definition of temptation is

  An attraction, either from outside oneself or from within, to act contrary to right reason and the commandments of God (Glossary to the Catechism)

To never be tempted would mean that God would have to both control your thoughts (making anything wrong repulsive to prevent internal temptation) and the actions of other people (to prevent external temptation).  This would clearly interfere with free will.  As Charles Pope says:

  temptation is the "necessary" result of freedom. As free persons who are invited to love God and to say yes to his will, we must be permitted to say no. There must be real alternatives to what God offers. If God could force our yes, then we would not be free and our yes would have no real meaning.

Additionally, facing temptation is actually beneficial to the believer.  As Father Fortea says:

  Without temptation, there would be no opportunity for us to grow in virtue every time we successfully resist the allure of sin and remain faithful to God’s will... In other words, we could say that God permits a certain amount of darkness in this world (temptation and sin) so that a purer and brighter light (virtue and salvation) can be gained. So God allows temptation because He knows that much good can come from it if we resist.

On this point, see also James 1:2-3:

  My brothers, consider it a great joy when trials of many kinds come upon you, for you well know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance (NJB)

God will, however, prevent us from facing temptations beyond our ability to resist.  (If we truly could not resist, we would not be culpable for our actions.)  See 1 Corinthians 10:13:

  None of the trials which have come upon you is more than a human being can stand. You can trust that God will not let you be put to the test beyond your strength, but with any trial will also provide a way out by enabling you to put up with it.

The Catholic Harbor of Faith and Morals takes this "moral shaping" idea a step further, writing:

  God allows us to be tempted out of mercy, for the good of our souls... He allows us to be tried by temptation to give us the opportunity of manifesting our loyalty to Him, and acquiring a claim to the recompense He promises us. Thus He has only our welfare in view.  (my bold)

On this point, the Vulgate version of Tobit is cited:

  And because thou wast acceptable to God, it was necessary that temptation should prove thee. (12:13, Douay-Rheims)

Additional that site offers the following positive benefits of facing temptation:

Rouses the believer from an otherwise apathetic state
Cleanses imperfections (by making us aware of them)
Humbles us
Increase spiritual strength (you can't grow in faith by standing still)
Make us more charitable in our dealing with others

It concludes:

  Thus we see that the tempter does us good service, and his temptations are steps in the ladder which leads to heaven. Therefore let him who is tempted rather pray for strength to resist the temptation than for its entire removal.


Has a study been done on the "Power of Prayer"?

Yes, at least for intercessory prayer. In 2005, the John Templeton Foundation conducted a carefully designed, double-blind trial of the effect of intercessory prayer on the outcome of surgery. The intention was to evaluate whether (1) receiving intercessory prayer or (2) being certain of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with uncomplicated recovery after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. It was felt that previous trials showing a benefit had used sub-optimal methods of data analysis, non-standard methods of randomisation and allocation concealment, and untested outcome measures, while those showing no effect had insufficient statistical power to reach this conclusion.

Patients were enrolled between January 1998 and November 2000. Of 3,295 eligible patients, 1,493 did not wish to participate and 1,802 patients enrolled (Oklahoma–548; Massachusetts–492; Washington DC–284; Tennessee–256; Minnesota–200; Florida–22) (Figure 1). Intercessory prayer was provided according to the protocol to 1,192/1,205 (99%) of patients randomized to Group 1 and Group 3, over the course of the study period (1,046 days). The overall daily mean of intercessors was 33 (range 10–58). Intercessors reported praying from 30 seconds to several hours, from 1 to 4 times per day.

The study had 2 main findings. First, intercessory prayer itself had no effect on whether complications occurred after CABG. Second, patients who were certain that intercessors would pray for them had a higher rate of complications than patients who were uncertain but did receive intercessory prayer. It is suggested this anomaly may have resulted from anxiety that resulted from knowing that others were praying.


Best wishes for a good week at the end of the mass?

I have noticed this practice either at the beginning of Mass or at the end of Mass in many different countries, at least since the late 1970s. It has almost become a local non-liturgical custom for some priests to speak off the cuff statements of this nature during the Sacred Liturgy of the Mass. I have lived in some four different countries and have stayed in another seven countries and am amazed how many times priests take the liberty to ad lib phrases into the Catholic liturgy that are neither encouraged or allowed by the rubrics. The rubrics not not say priests may ad lib such phrases during Mass. They just do it. I am not saying it is immoral, but it is simply not liturgically permitted. It lacks liturgical decorum to say the least.

This was simply not done in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass before Vatican II.

If it should not be said at the being of Mass, it should not be said at the end of Mass. The words may change, but the end result is the same.

  Priests should not wish their parishioners “Good morning” at the beginning of Mass, according to Archbishop Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle of Manila.

  The words “The Lord be with you” are sufficient, he said.

  “With all due respect, my brother-priests, I do not see the need for saying ‘Good morning’ and similar greetings when God’s Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist alone suffices,” he said.

  “Is not the expression ‘The Lord be with you’ more than enough?” he asked.

  Archbishop Tagle, who was speaking during his Corpus Christi Mass at the Santa Cruz Church in Manila, said that priests seem to give more emphasis on “Good morning” than on the all-important “The Lord be with you”.

  Anyone can wish someone good morning, but the words “The Lord be with you” are only heard during Mass, which is why they must be emphasised, he said.

  Some priests will repeat “Good morning” if they don’t hear the reply “Good morning, Father,” he said, but don’t seem at all concerned if no one responds to “The Lord be with you”.

  Archbishop Tagle’s comments were posted in an article
  on the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines website.

  The archbishop, who is often considered to be progressive rather than conservative, was appointed in 2011, and was made a cardinal in November 2012. - Don’t wish parishioners ‘good morning’ at the start of Mass, says Cardinal Tagle

The same could be be said for the end of Mass.

Thus there is no need to wish the faithful good morning, good week, happy Sunday or whatever the priest desires at the beginning or end of Mass.

As Cardinal Tagle states: “Is not the expression ‘The Lord be with you’ more than enough?”

The following is is somewhat indirectly related here.

  Curb the announcements.

  In an age when the secular world lays claim on most of our time, making a few announcements has become a pastoral necessity. Sunday Mass is often the only opportunity a pastor has to inform his flock concerning parish and community life. Few are lucky enough to have schedules that permit them to go to daily Mass, much less have their children attend Catholic schools, and gone are the days where the parish or church plays a central role in the life of the village.

  That being the reality, it’s wise to adhere closely to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal’s directive, inserting announcements after the liturgy of the Eucharist and before the dismissal, where they have the least chance of interrupting the framework of prayer set up by the liturgy. Welcoming statements from cantors or others before the procession even begins have nothing to do with the rite itself and are most likely utterances contrived for the purpose of artificially engaging the attention of the congregation. Announcements should not be made before Mass begins, save concerning matters absolutely necessary to the people’s understanding of that particular Mass itself or other issues prudentially suggested by the pastor.

  Mass doesn’t begin because a cantor gets up and proclaims when, where, and how it is to happen. Mass begins when the priest enters the church, with or without a cross bearer, book bearer, lector, or deacon.

  Don’t attempt a rousing good-bye.

  Mass ends with the words “The Mass is ended,” so nothing that happens after that should upstage what came before. The recessional, which is not mandatory, can be exuberant, of course. But many parishes have the problem of a great deal of talking and saying hello taking place after Mass, and upbeat recessionals can only make the problem worse. If the goal is to send people out into the world with a sense of what just took place, a recessional that recalls the quiet power of the whole liturgy is best. - Fourteen Easy Ways to Improve the Liturgy


Is there any extra-biblical evidence of tongues from the first, or even second, century?

Ronald A. N. Kydd in his book Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church mentions several second-century quotes that he argues refer to glossolalia, what we call speaking in tongues.  His work clearly deals with the first century as well, but in that period he mentions only prophecy, not tongues.

The first evidence for speaking in tongues that Kydd mentions comes from the Ecclesiastical History (5.16) of Eusebius.  He cites the second-century history of Apolinarius of Hierapolis, who criticizes Montanism.  Describing the movement's namesake, the text reads:

  And he became beside himself, and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the beginning. (§7)

Similarly:

  And he stirred up besides two women, and filled them with the false spirit, so that they talked wildly and unreasonably and strangely (§9)

Kydd argues that this is glossolalia, though the text does not state this explicitly.  Kydd makes the same argument about an ambiguous passage in Origen's writings Against Celsus, 7.9.  Celsus wrote his work around AD 177, criticizing Christianity, and Origen describes a portion of it as follows:

  Then [Celsus] goes on to say:  “To these promises are added strange, fanatical, and quite unintelligible words, of which no rational person can find the meaning:  for so dark are they, as to have no meaning at all; but they give occasion to every fool or impostor to apply them to suit his own purposes.”

I'll briefly mention that others reject these understandings, such as Nathan Busenitz, arguing that these references are not actually to glossolalia.

The clearest reference to glossolalia from the second century, then, comes from Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.6.1, written around AD 180:

  In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms “spiritual,” they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit, and not because their flesh has been stripped off and taken away, and because they have become purely spiritual. [emphasis added]

This quotation is more clearly understood as glossolalia, though there is debate over the nature of that – for more on the question of what these tongues were understood to be, see: Do any church fathers directly connect “speaking in tongues” with anything other than existing human languages?


What happens in Heaven when we come into contact with fellow Christians who don't wish to speak to us in this life?

This is in the realm of speculation, but for sure any Christian in heaven has already been sanctified completely so assuming that we and our friends "make it to the end" and enter heaven, there will be so much goodwill and catching up and learning of why we drifted apart on earth but then immediately forgive each other then focus our attention to have eternal great fellowship while enjoying the presence of God that all causes for drifting apart on earth would have vanished into insignificance.

C.S. Lewis's The Great Divorce, study guide here, has imaginative scenarios of this kind of meeting, including meeting a murderer who has repented.


What is God's definition of forgiveness?

Jesus said to be "as wise as serpents, but as gentle as lambs.". Being a Christian does not mean checking our brains at the door when it comes to interacting with the world. Indeed, we are often called to be "discerning."

My interpretation of that word is this - forgiveness doesn't mean forgetfulness.

We can still be guarded when dealing with others, and if they are looking like they are truly changing, give them more trust. When John Mark left Paul, for example, Paul initially said not to trust him. It wasn't until the end of his ministry that Paul changed his mind, mostly on the evidence of a track record.

Forgiveness would imply giving people a chance to make amends - to be different - but it doesn't imply an open invitation for somebody to demand trust that is not warranted by their behavior.


Are elders needed to have an "ordered" church?

I find your question as stated quite perplexing in view of the references that you give. Your question asks if the elders are necessary for and ordered church, while your references all distinguished them as two separate actions.

In order to better understand your question I have done some research into what constitutes an orderly church and what are the duties of the elders. Below are some examples of the duties of the elders as it pertains to the functions of the church.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation.

I have begun with an expansion of your original reference:

  Titus 1:5-9 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:  If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;  Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

After reading verses 5 through 9 I am left with a sense that Titus might have been somewhat remiss in the selection of Elders and Paul was chastising him for that, thus he reiterated his qualifications for Elders. there also may be some reinforcement for that in verse 3.

  Titus 1:3  But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

To my mind Paul might be telling Titus, that God had made Paul the church starter for the Gentiles, and that Titus was undercutting Paul's work by not appointing Church leadership in those critical areas of keeping the correct teachings in the Church.

In 1st Peter verses 1 through 9 we learn that Dependable Eldership in a church is indispensable. And Peter gives us some of the reasons for their allegiance along with the rewards they will receive.

  The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time: Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you. Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.

We must remember that Christianity was in it's infancy and as with any new concept there were some pretty far out ideas being introduced. Christianity was subject to being completely dismantled, and dismissed as Heretical in most of the world at that time. Christianity remained in a state of turmoil up until the time of Constantine and the Council of Trent when some uniformity of belief was established. This is born out by many Church history sites on the internet, which you can google or by Church historians in innumerable books.


The short answer to the question in the title is “yes,” a priest is a priest forever, and no amount of sinful behavior on his part can change that.

However, a Latin-rite priest who is married (save in a very limited number of converts from Anglicanism) would presumably have received an indult to leave the clerical state and a dispensation from the impediment to marry (see below).

Hence, such a priest would not be allowed to minister as a priest, save for giving confession in danger of death.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) explains,

  As in the case of Baptism and Confirmation this share in Christ’s office is granted once for all. The sacrament of Holy Orders, like the other two, confers an indelible spiritual character and cannot be repeated or conferred temporarily (No. 1582, emphasis in original).

What this means is that a person who has validly (i.e., really) received one of the degrees of Holy Orders—diaconate, priesthood, or episcopate—cannot possibly lose that degree for any reason whatsoever. Neither the Church nor the deacon, priest, or bishop himself has the ability to remove effects of ordination. However, as the Catechism explains,

  It is true that someone validly ordained can, for grave reasons, be discharged from the obligations and functions linked to ordination, or can be forbidden to exercise them; but he cannot become a layman again in the strict sense, because the character imprinted by ordination is for ever. The vocation and mission received on the day of his ordination mark him permanently (No. 1582, my emphasis).

In the case described by the O.P., presumably the priest in question is either in an irregular situation—that is, he attempted an invalid marriage while still in the clerical state (see Code of Canon Law 1087)—or else he received both a laicization and a dispensation from Canon 1087 in order to marry someone.

In either case, he is still, so to speak, ontologically a priest, no matter how immoral his behavior is. Depending on what the Church has done in his case, he may or may not be juridically in the lay state.

(But the fact that priest who, having received the necessary indult to leave the clerical state and the dispensation from the impediment to marriage, then commits adultery, does not affect his canonical status. He remains, juridically, in the lay state thanks to the indult—however distasteful and immoral are his actions after the fact.)

Note that, in the Eastern Churches, married men can be ordained priests (although they cannot marry after their ordination). There is also a small number of married Latin-rite priests that are converts from Anglicanism, as I mentioned. In such a case, adultery on the part of a priest would certainly be grounds for disciplinary action, although the law does not specify that laicization is necessarily the penalty.


What are the earlier references to Mary?

  Belief in the incarnation of God the Son through Mary is the basis for calling her the Mother of God, which was declared a dogma at the Council of Ephesus in 431.

  Development of Marian doctrine

  The theological development of devotion to Mary begins with Justin Martyr (100–165) who articulated Mary’s role in salvation history as the Second Eve. This was followed up by Irenæus, whom Herbert Thurston calls "the first theologian of the Virgin Mother".

  The Church's magisterium has identified four teachings about Mary as dogmas of faith. These include belief in her virginal conception of Jesus, taught by the First Council of Nicaea in 325. The Council of Ephesus in 431 applied to her the description "Mother of God", (Theotokos). The perpetual virginity of Mary was taught by the ecumenical Second Council of Constantinople in 553, which described her as "ever virgin", and was expressed also, by the Lateran synod of October 649. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception states that from the first moment of her existence Mary was without original sin. This doctrine was proclaimed a dogma ex cathedra by Pope Pius IX in 1854. The dogma of the Assumption of Mary, defined by Pope Pius XII in 1950, states that, at the end of her earthly life, she was assumed into heavenly glory body and soul.
  - Veneration of Mary in the Catholic Church

The Sub tuum praesidium is the oldest preserved extant hymn to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

  Sub tuum praesidium

  "Beneath Thy Protection" (Greek: Ὑπὸ τὴν σὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν; Latin: Sub tuum praesidium) is a Christian hymn. It is the oldest preserved extant hymn to the Blessed Virgin Mary as Theotokos. The hymn is well known in many Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox countries, and is often a favourite song used along with Salve Regina.

  The earliest text of this hymn was found in a Come the Coptic Orthodox Christmas liturgy. The papyrus records the hymn in Greek, dated to the 3rd century by papyrologist E. Lobel and by scholar C.H. Roberts to the 4th century. According to scholar Serafim Seppälä "there are no determinate theological or philological reasons to reject the 3rd century dating."

There is a pious tradition that holds that, in the early days of Christianity, the Apostles of Jesus spread the Gospel throughout the known world, with St. James the Greater evangelizing in modern-day Spain. He confronted great difficulties in his missionary efforts and faced severe discouragement. In AD 40, while he was praying by the banks of the Ebro at Zaragoza, Mary bilocated from Jerusalem, where she was living at the time, and appeared to James, accompanied by thousands of angels, to console and encourage him.

  Some of the earliest archaeological evidence of Marian devotion in Zaragoza is found in Christian tombs dating from Roman days, which appear to bear images representing the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. In the 4th century, the presence of votive images placed on columns or pillars is attested. The oldest written testimony of devotion to the Blessed Virgin in Zaragoza is usually identified as that of Pedro Librana in 1155. There is evidence that the site attracted pilgrims from across the Iberian Peninsula during the 13th century, e.g. reflected in the work Milagros de Nuestra Señora by Gonzalo de Berceo, dated to the 1250s or early 1260s. The appellation Santa María del Pilar is attested for 1299. The claim that the first church had been the oldest in Hispania, built in AD 40 by James the Greater, is first recorded in 1318.

According to tradition Mary appeared to St. James on January 2, 40 AD. Spain celebrates this event on October 12 each year.

Tradition also says that St. Luke painted icons of Mary.

  Though not included in the canonic pictorial of Mary's life, the scene became increasingly popular as Saint Luke gained his own devotional following as the patron saint of artists in general, and more specifically as patron saint of the Guild of Saint Luke, the most common name of local painters' guilds. The legend of Saint Luke as the author of the first Christian icons had been developed in Byzantium during the Iconoclastic Controversy, as attested by 8th century sources. By the 11th century, a number of images started being attributed to his authorship and venerated as authentic portraits of Christ and the Virgin Mary. In the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, Luke's ascendancy paralleled a rise in status of painters themselves, whereas before the Renaissance, sculptors' guilds and their associated craftsmen — which also included masons and architects, as all worked with stone — tended to be regarded more highly than painters. - Saint Luke painting the Virgin

More about the icons attributed to St. Luke can be seen in the following article:

Various traditions claim the Gospel writer drew one or more portraits of the Virgin Mary from life.

  Mary, as the mother of Jesus, is documented in Roman catacombs: paintings from the first half of the 2nd century show her holding the Christ Child. Excavations in the crypt of St Peter's Basilica uncovered a very early fresco of Mary together with Saint Peter. The Roman Priscilla catacombs depict the oldest Marian paintings from the middle of the 2nd century: Mary is shown with Jesus on her lap, a standing man with tunic left hand a book right hand a star over his head symbol of messiahs. Priscilla also has a depiction of the annunciation. Early veneration

[

Earliest fresco of the Virgin Mary, Catacomb of Priscilla, 2nd century.


Historicity of which Biblical characters is recognized by Archaeology/History?

There are tons of resources. I've never seen an itemized list, but I've seen dozens of resources like this one.

Of course, you'll find that some findings are disputed, and as is the case with any science, new discoveries often change existing assumptions, so such a list would be ever-changing.

There is  list of 61 such people here.

More at this set of search results.


What was John Wesley's view on Original Sin?

For Wesley and other Arminians, original sin is not a matter of predestination but of human nature.

In his sermon Original Sin, Wesley states:

  The Scripture avers, that "by one man's disobedience all men were constituted sinners;" that "in Adam all died," spiritually died, lost the life and the image of God; that fallen, sinful Adam then "begat a son in his own likeness;" -- nor was it possible he should beget him in any other; for "who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" -- that consequently we, as well as other men, were by nature "dead in trespasses and sins," "without hope, without God in the world," and therefore "children of wrath;" that every man may say, "I was shapen in wickedness, and in sin did my mother conceive me;" that "there is no difference," in that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," of that glorious image of God wherein man was originally created.

According to Wesley, our free will (which he calls "self-will") is inherently sinful. We have a choice of following God's will or our own. When we choose to exercise our own will, we turn our back on the will of God.

  Satan has stamped his own image on our heart in self-will also. "I will," said he, before he was cast out of heaven, "I will sit upon the sides of the north;" I will do my own will and pleasure, independently on that of my Creator. The same does every man born into the world say, and that in a thousand instances; nay, and avow it too, without ever blushing upon the account, without either fear or shame. Ask the man, "Why did you do this?" He answers, "Because I had a mind to it." What is this but, "Because it was my will;" that is, in effect, because the devil and I agreed; because Satan and I govern our actions by one and the same principle. The will of God, mean time, is not in his thoughts, is not considered in the least degree.


What is the biblical evidence against the idea that God, pre-Fall, always intended Jesus' crucifixion?

This is a Bible based answer. This is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, so it is how they interpret these scriptures. Since you asked for a Biblical basis, not the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, the reasoning behind this interpretation is also included in this answer.

Got created Adam and Eve to be good, not bad. So there was no wickedness within them at the time of their creation, otherwise that would mean God intentionally put wickedness inside them. That would be contrary to the principal at James 1:13 "When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone."

The placement and name of the tree of knowledge of good and bad, along with the command not to eat from it does not suggest God already knew they would choose a path of sin. Instead it suggests he knew they would need to decide for themselves if they would accept his sovereignty or not, that they were capable of choosing either path, and that this was a critical issue facing humanity. This was not an unreasonable command. It is not like he made them starve and then placed a tree in front of them and told them not to eat from it. In preface to this command, he said "From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction." (Genesis 2:16). He was not trying to trick them into going down a path of sin and death. The idea was to have them decide if they appreciated their heavenly father and all he had done for them, and express this appreciation through loving obedience, or if they would selfishly reject his authority. The choice was theirs to make, but he still did many things to nudge them toward choosing to obey him, which was the loving thing to do. For example, he gave them the life they had. God even created Eve as a wonderful companion for Adam, and Adam was so happy with this that he waxed poetic (Genesis 2:23). God placed them in a beautiful garden and gave them meaningful, fulfilling work to do (naming the animals, taking care of the earth, and filling the earth with their offspring) (Genesis 2:19, 20; Genesis 2:15; Genesis 1:28). Consider all God gave them prior to having them make a choice. Also consider his words at Deuteronomy 30:19 where God is pleading with the Israelites to choose life.

If Adam and Eve had chosen a path of obedience they would have produced perfect offspring, not sinful ones (Romans 5:12). It was only after mankind's fall into sin that the first prophecy involving Jesus' sacrifice came about, at Genesis 3:15. This does not mean God already planned for things to play out that way. It just means that man's actions, or anyone else's for that matter, cannot prevent God's purpose from being fulfilled (Isaiah 55:10, 11). Immediately after mankind's sin seemed to threaten God's original purpose for the earth to be a home for humanity, filled with perfect, happy people that live forever, he set things in motion to rectify the situation, and assured us of the outcome (Genesis 3:15).

It is true that details about Jesus' birth, ministry, and death were foretold in the scriptures. But this does not mean those details were already known prior to mankind's fall into sin. Whatever God does or does not choose to foresee, and whatever implications it may or may not have about our free will and the paths we choose, we can say he does have control over his ability to see into the future, as opposed to this being an out of control ability. Free will is a gift he has given us, and he makes sure to use his abilities in a way that does not infringe upon this gift. Our choices would be meaningless without that gift.

For more detailed information see this, which also explains a different interpretation of 1 Peter 1:20 than what might more readily come into a reader's mind. However, explaining that scripture gets into a whole other branch of our beliefs that is outside the scope of this topic.

References:

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/draw-close/wisdom/divine-wisdom-jehovah-god/
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/free-will-in-the-bible/
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-study/gods-promises-for-humans/


Mormon view of the wrong action committed by angels according to 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude

First, it's important to understand what an angel is. In Doctrine and Covenants 129:1-3 it says:

1 There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones—
2 For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
3 Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, they who are not resurrected, but inherit the same glory.

Both spirits and resurrected beings are considered angels.
These passages that you mention are actions of people before they died, in this case in the time of Noah. In the spirit world, there are two parts: spirit prison (usually referred to as hell) and spirit paradise (sometimes referred to as heaven). In 1 Peter3:19,20 the author is saying Jesus went and preached to those in spirit prison, and some of those people in spirit prison were those who sinned in the times of Noah.
The second passage in 2 Peter 2:4,5 refers to spirits as angels (which Mormons believe to be synonymous, but we know from the first passage what type of angels (spirits)) and how they are in hell or spirit prison awaiting judgment.
The third passage in Jude 1:6,7 mentions angels who kept not their first estate. From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism it says:

First estate refers to the unspecified period of time otherwise known as premortal life. The words "first estate" in Jude 1:6 are the King James translation of the Greek arché. In other English versions the word is translated as "principality," "domain," "dominion," "appointed spheres," "responsibilities," and "original rank." In the context of Jude 1:6 each of these implies that certain intelligent beings existed in significant positions in the pre-earth life and fell from their favored status with God.

This is all part of the Plan of Salvation. Mormons believe that before we lived on earth everyone lived in the Pre-mortal life with God as spirits. He presented a plan where we could come down to earth to gain a physical body. The plan involved us (man) to have a veil placed over our mind (so we wouldn't remember the pre-earth life) and we'd have agency, or the ability to choose and act for ourselves. This would mean some would sin and fall away, thereby not retaining one's first estate, or standing with God in the pre-existence. Man would also have the choice to be obedient and be able to return to live with God again (retaining their first estate).
To be clear the wrong actions these angels performed (before they were angels, when they were men) were various sins, but it does not necessarily say what sins except that they were disobedient (1st passage), they sinned(2nd passage), and  it mentions fornication and going after strange flesh (3rd passage).
emphasis added


How does Mormonism (the LDS Church) answer "the problem of evil"?

The problem with the Problem of Evil is that aside from the stated points, it also includes an unspoken premise that this life is all that matters.  If that premise is true, then the Problem of Evil exposes a very serious flaw in Christian theology: the very concept of the Christian God is self-contradictory, and therefore invalid.

Christianity, however, is fundamentally opposed to that concept, rejecting it in favor of what's known as "an eternal perspective": we believe that this life is a step along our eternal journey, that what truly matters is the afterlife, and that the most basic purpose of this life is to give us each a way to determine the state of our afterlife.

The Book of Mormon actually makes this explicit in various places.  For example, Alma 34: 32-34 states:

  32 For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God;
  yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their
  labors.

  33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many
  witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate
  the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life,
  which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not
  improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness
  wherein there can be no labor performed.

  34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I
  will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this;
  for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that
  ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess
  your body in that eternal world.

This passage establishes that this life is "the time for men to prepare to meet God," and that a person's fundamental character will have been established by the point of death.  This is a recurring theme; the Book of Mormon refers to mortal life as "[day/days/state] of probation" in nine different places.

The prophet Lehi explains the basic concept in 2 Nephi 2:11-27:

  11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

  12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

  13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

  14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.

  15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

  16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

  17 And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God.

  18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

  19 And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth.

  20 And they have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all the earth.

  21 And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents.

  22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

  23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

  24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

  25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

  26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

  27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

Important points found here:

There must be an opposition in all things, in order for meaningful distinctions between things to exist
Good and evil exist in opposition to each other
This life is a state of probation in which we are free to make meaningful choices between good and evil, and to repent of our sins when we choose evil
Satan entices mankind to choose evil, and Christ (the Messiah, the great Mediator) entices mankind to choose good
"Men are that they might have joy," which can only be meaningful if they also have an understanding of misery
Our moral choices have eternal consequences on the destiny of our souls

Therefore, if God were to do away with all evil, as the Problem of Evil suggests ought to be the case, there would be no meaningful moral choices to make, which would nullify the entire plan.


What might the capitalization of the word "church" indicate?

The Church is referred to as the "Bride of Christ" throughout the NT. It's capitalization simply reflects it's status as a proper noun, subject to capitalization.


According to Protestant trinitarians, what is the significance of the father-son relationship between God and Christ?

I think the logical place is to start with John 8:42, and I picked this translation: King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.), because they use the term proceeded.  In others Jesus stated that he was sent.

  Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I
  proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he
  sent me.

So, Jesus states that he proceeded from God, which is why God is referred to as the Father, as he is the principle (the first one) and the Holy Spirit and the Son proceeded from him, in eternity, not proceeded in terms of time, since all three exist before and outside of time.

So, Thomas Aquinas covers this well, in these links: Procession of the divine persons.

How the three relate to each other: http: The divine relations.

And this one actually covers the Father being called the Father and the Son also: The person of the Father.

We also have the Lord's Prayer where Jesus refers to God as "Our Father ...", and in various places He refers to God as His Father.

We also have Psalm 88:27 -

  He shall cry out to me: Thou art my Father.

I am not certain if you actually want to ask about the relationship between The Father and The Son, but Aquinas dealt with that in: Whether the word "person" signifies relation?

In Article 1 in this part: (Whether relation is the same as person) , Aquinas deals with whether relation is the same as person.

I can try to sum up that, in that the three persons of God are in substance God, their relationship is only in how the proceeded from the Father, but each is still fully God, with all the properties of God, so one is not inferior to any other.


It really doesn't matter where they were meeting.  Paul addresses the letter to the church.

  Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
  1 Cor. 1:2

He could just as well be speaking directly to us as them.

To your question though, at that time they very likely would have been meeting in one house, but given the nature of the contentions (I am of Apollos, I am of Paul, I am of Christ, etc; IOW, my lineage is better than yours, naynaynay), it is not impossible that they were already meetings in different houses.

Perhaps they were meeting in the woman Chloe's house.  There is lots of speculation about who she was, but obviously she had the Apostle Paul's ear.  He trusted, he listened to her.  She was important.  Like with Christ's ministry, it was supported by very important, well-to-do women.

  And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.
  Luke 8:3

If, however, they were meeting in different houses, which is very doubtful, how was the division stopped?  Clearly it wasn't.  See the letter of Clement to the Corinthians.  See also the history of Christianity.

Point is that distance, time, heritage, location is not as important as what is believed.

  Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.  1 Cor. 1:10


What are the natures of the different "priesthoods" mentioned in the old testament

The first order, the order of Melchizedek, is controversial. You can search this site, and especially see this question.

The Hebrews 7:17 reference is actually quoting from Psalm 110:4, which is a prophecy about Jesus, that he would be a priest in the order of Melchizedek.

I liked Mason Wheeler's answer on that question, which in part stated (emphasis mine):

  [T]he Order of Melchizedek is a higher order of priesthood than the order of Aaron, which the Levites operated under. It had the power of administering the "schoolmaster law," but not the full power and authority of the higher ordinances of the Gospel, and so by the Aaronic order alone, nothing could be made perfect. But the order of Melchezidek, which predates the Aaronic order, is the priesthood order of Christ himself.

Also, from Wikipedia:

  Abraham's transfer of goods to Melchizedek is seen to imply that Melchizedek is superior to Abraham, in that Abraham is tithing to him. Thus, Melchizedek's (Jesus') priesthood is superior to the Aaronic priesthood (who are descended from Abraham), and the Temple in Jerusalem is now unnecessary.

Whether you believe that Melchizedek was Jesus, or merely a "picture of" or a foreshadowing of Jesus, he is named as a priest, and clearly a highly ordered priest.

As to the priesthood of Jethro, the picture is not as clear. This article makes the argument that he was indeed a follower of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. After providing the background, it states that:

  Jethro was the priest of deity El, whose name was isolated and new name, taken up as Yahweh by Moses. Jethro is not a pagan priest, but the priest of the deity whose ancestors of Moses worshipped. This patron deity is now revealed to Moses as Yahweh, He is who He is, He was who he was and He is who He is to be.

However, two Jewish sources (here and here) state that he was a Pagan priest, who later renounced his Pagan gods. Evidence of this is given in Exodus 18:11, when Jethro says:

  Now I know that the Lord is greater than all other gods, for he did this to those who had treated Israel arrogantly.

The second article addresses this by explaining the situations surrounding Moses' meeting his future wife:

  Those who are certain that he really was a priest say that having realised that idol-worship was foolish, he resolved to abandon it. He was punished for this heresy; no-one would now keep his flocks, and this is why his daughters were tending the sheep and why the shepherds tried to drive them away.

Maybe the reason you know next to nothing on these two priesthoods is that there are two different views for both of them, and neither can be decisevely stated from scripture which view is correct.

As to the priesthood of Aaron, called the Aaronic priesthood by the LDS Church, and the Levitical priesthood by most others, this is the priest most people think about when they hear the word "priest" in a Bible context. Descendents of Levi, these priests were responsible for sacrifices, teaching, liturgical duties, everything pertaining to the tabernacle and later, the temple, and various other duties within the Israelite/Hebrew people. These two sources (src1, src2) provide an excellent history and summary of the Levitical priesthood.

As to a discussion from an LDS point of view on the differences of the priesthoods of Melchizedek and Aaron, see this question & answer.


Did most of the people that Jesus heal believe he was God? If so, why does the Bible not record them asking for salvation?

You are right to point this out (sort of). If you read Mark's Gospel closely, you'll notice that the question of "who" Jesus is is of central concern. You'll further notice that whenever someone does get healed, Jesus will often tell them not to tell anyone. The only characters who know who Jesus is, are the demons that he exorcises, and, the centurion (aka John Wayne), and as you observed, one of the theieves. Scholars refer to this as the "Messianic Secret" For example:

  and he shouted at the top of his voice, ‘What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? – Mark 5:7

In the above, oddly enough, Jesus does tell the demoniac to tell his friends what happened--but that is a matter for another question

  After sternly warning him he sent him away at once, saying to him, ‘See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.’ – Mark 1:43–44

Mark's version of Peter's Confession follows this trend:

  He asked them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Peter answered him, ‘You are the Messiah.’ And he sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him. – Mark 8:29–30

Now, even these passages don't really say that Jesus was "God"—there existed many miracle workers in ancient times, and the claim to be Messiah was only to claim "anointed" status, like that of a king or priest.

Finally, in Greek, the word often used of Jesus' healings is sōzō, which actually has the connotation of "to save from harm." The idea is that Jesus not only "heals" physical ailments (perhaps using the word theropeuō), but heals the whole person—body and soul. Note in the Mark 1 passage that Jesus not only "fixes" a physical problem, but makes the leper ceremonially "clean," hence allowing him to worship in the temple. This is a common theme in Luke's Gospel too.

So, the long-and-short of it is this: did they "know" that Jesus was God? I don't think so. But that doesn't mean that they were "only" physically healed or that being physically healed is entirely separate from spiritually saved. Mainline Christians have been saying this for decades; it is the basis for the so called "Social Gospel."

Don't over-spiritualize this stuff, we aren't gnostics.


Why are there so many translations of the Bible?

Being a speaker of a minority language, I can state one good reason and many -- well, not so good ones.
The good reason
Language changes. In some languages, you only have different Bible translations for this reason: the translations are temporally spaced maybe a hundred years apart.
Look at 2 Timothy 2:15 in different English translations:

The Wycliffe Bible, 1395
Bisili kepe to yyue thi silf a preued preisable werkman to God, with oute schame, riytli tretinge the word of treuthe.
Tyndale New Testament, 1526
Study to shewe thy silfe laudable vnto god a workman yt nedeth not to be a shamed dividynge the worde of trueth iustly
King James Version, 1611
Studie to shewe thy selfe approued vnto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly diuiding the word of trueth.
King James Version, 1769
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Young's Literal Translation, 1862
be diligent to present thyself approved to God -- a workman irreproachable, rightly dividing the word of the truth;
The New American Standard Bible, 1995
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

It's quite necessary to renew the Bible translation time to time, so that people can understand it. The 1769 KJV is still quite understandable for the most part, but the reasons are cultural. The huge popularity of the KJV has kept its language alive.
The not-so-good reasons
Translation philosophy
There are other reasons, which vary from good to bad in different instances. First, there are the different translation philosophies already discussed in another question -- this amounts to multiple reasons.  Note that there are benefits to having different types of translations.
Doctrinal reasons
Then there are the doctrinal reasons -- in my opinion, bad reasons. I'll show just one example, the New World Translation's take on John 8:58.

New World Translation
Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”
New American Standard Bible
Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

Looking at other English translations of John 8:58, every one of them translates the end as "I am." Looking at an interlinear version, one can be quite sure that the NWT translates the passage on a purely doctrinal basis.

What's very interesting is that the Watchtower Society has an interlinear of their own, and even that translates the phrase as "I am" while also showing the NWT "I have been":

The bad reason turned good reason
If the NWT was the only available translation in English, it would almost force a new translation to be made. Take a bunch of errors such as the one shown above, and the translation gets too unreliable.
Of course, the errors need not be especially crafted to suit some doctrine; they can be made of ignorance, disbelief in the original, etc. First translations in a new language (e.g. what the Wycliffe Bible Translators are doing) almost necessarily contain errors, as many needed terms are very hard to find for a non-native speaker. Whatever the reasons are, a large amount of errors is a good reason to create a new translation.