Did John Calvin discourage harmonies in congregational singing?

He did not discourage congressional singing, but it seems that John Calvin did discourage congressional singing in harmony.

  In the area of church music, Zwingli, although an amateur musician himself, had not set down any of his ideas of congregational singing. Calvin, however, was well aware of the power of music and soon stated his ideas "in. Keeping with the austere simplicity of his religious views."(Re p.J58) He referred to St. Paul as his authority in advocating the singing as well as the reciting
  of the psalms, and he permitted no other texts to be used for this purpose. In keeping with his views that the psalms should be understood by the congregation, he adopted the use of French translation, in verse. He found no objection to singing these and other psalm adaptations
  to German melodies borrowred from the Lutherans. His main stipulation in regard to a melody was that it should be the equal of the text in majesty. (Re p.J59)

  Luther demanded of church song that it should be predominantly (but not exclusively) congregational, that it be in the vernacular, and derived from scripture, so that through the medium of song, the Word of God might remain among the people. Unlike Calvin, Luther had no objection either to the traditional Catholic chant or to contemporary part-music. Calvinists on the other hand, steadfastly refused to countenance any of the trappings and ceremonies of Romanism.(Sc xvii) They, too, insisted on the uses of the vernacular and, with the same motive they avoided such musical elaborations as tended to make difficult the understanding of the words being sung or to distract attention from these by linking them with polyphonic settings which openly displayed vocal skill, appreciation of which they regarded as
  a species of sensual enjoyment.

  Calvin states his idea of the role of singing and of the danger of distraction in Book III of the Institutio, (chapter 20, sections 31 and 32):

  "It is fully evident that unless voice and song, if
  interposed in prayer, spring from deep feeling of heart,
  neither h9.s any value or profit in the least with G:od. But
  they arouse his wrath against us if they come only from the
  tip of the lips and from the throat, seeing that this is
  to abuse his most holy name and to hold his majesty in derision.

  Yet we do not here condemn speaking and singing but
  rather strongly commend them, provided they are associated with the heart's affection. For thus do they exercise the
  mind in thinking of God and keep it attentive , unstable
  and variable as it is, readily relaxed and diverted in different
  directions, unless it be supported by various helps.
  Moreover, since the glory of God ought, in a measure, to
  shine in the several parts of our bodies, it is especially
  fitting that the tongue has been assigned and destined for
  this task, both through singing and through speaking, For
  it was peculiarly to tell and proclaim the praise of God.
  But the chief use of the tongue is in public prayers, which
  are offered in the assembly of believers, by which it comes
  about that with one common voice, and as it were, with the
  same mouth, we all glorify God together, worshipping him
  with one spirit and the same faith. And we do this openly,
  that all men mutually, each one from his brother, may receive
  the confession of faith and be invited and prompted by his
  example.

  And surely, if the singing be tempered to that gravity which is fitting in the sight of God and the angels, it both lends dignity and grace to sacred actions and has the greatest value in kindling our hearts to a true zeal and eagerness to pray. Yet we should be very careful that our ears be not attentive to the melody than our minds to the spiritual meaning of the words.

  Such songs as have been composed only for sweetness and delight of the ear are unbecoming to the majesty of the church and cannot but displease God in the highest degree." (Ca pp.894 and 895) - John Calvin and music: the rise of protestant psalters in the sixteenth century

Tim Montgomery goes on to say:

  Bourgeois favored part-singing. Calvin did not. His opposition not only ultimately dismayed Bourgeois so much that he left Geneva in 1557, but the use of unaccompanied melodies characterized the Reformed singing
  of the Psalms, in most places, for centuries. (Ge p.?4)

  In spite of Calvin's opposition to harmonization, four part settings were made by Bourgeois in 1547. His latest known publication (1561) included settings a 4, 5, and 6, described as suitable for instruments as well as voices, of eighty-three of the melodies he had arranged at Geneva. While none of his harmonic versions found permanent acceptance, his melodic settings influenced the harmonization of other composers, especially Goudimel.

Ca, pp. 894-895: Calvin, John. "Institutes of The Christian Religion."
translated by Ford Lewis Battles. The Library of Christian
Classics ed. by John T. McNeill. Vol.'s XXI and
XXII, (Philgdelnhia, The Westminster Press,Vol. XXI,1960,
Vol.XXII, 1954.)


Refutations of, or Thoughts on How Jesus Became God (Bart D. Ehrman)

I have not read either of the books, How Jesus Became God or  Misquoting Jesus, but I have read another of his books, Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (HarperCollins, 2011). In Forged, Ehman condensed a lot of challenging conclusions into a single volume, but I found nothing that many other scholars have not stated in other publications.

Ben Witherington sets out to refute some of Ehrman's arguments here, along with an link to Witherington's book, Bart Interrupted. Given that this article sets out to be a refutation, not a peer review, it is reasonably objective. Witherington says Ehrman is a a gifted writer and a gifted lecturer, with the ability to distil difficult and complex material down to a level that undergraduates and ordinary lay folk can understand. Against this, he says that Ehrman is not writing from a position of long study and knowledge of New Testament Studies, and has never written a scholarly monograph on NT theology or exegesis. In fairness to Ehrman, it should be pointed out that he is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and that he has written three college textbooks, so he is hardly an intellectual novice.

This site is more extreme, accusing Ehrman of lacking intellectual honesty. It says that Ehrman should not write on ethics, as this is outside his area of expertise. To help you judge his discussion on Christian ethics, a conservative, but thorough review of Christian ethics can be found in Christian Ethics:Options and Issues, by Norman L. Geisler.

The title of your question asks about thoughts on and refutations of the arguments of Bart D Ehrman,but the question in total seems to be broader than this. You mention an ongoing examination of what you believe, and I assume this will be based on more than what Ehrman says, or any refutations of what he says. In fact, you want to make sure that your research includes information from a diverse range of source material. A quite neutral introductory text by Raymond E. Brown is An Introduction to the New Testament. Burton L. Mack's Who Wrote the New Testament covers some of the ground covered by Ehrman, allowing you to see whether Ehrman is an ideosyncratic outsider, as sometimes portrayed. Mark as Story, by David Rhoads, Joanna Dewey and Donald Michie, discusses nothing of what Ehrman says, but will give a fresh look at the earliest of the New Testament gospels, how it was written and how it influenced its intended audience.


Do Calvinists believe that God is the author of evil?

The Westminster Confession of Faith (the doctrinal standard for many Presbyterians), Chapter III, makes it clear that at least one well recognized portion of Calvinists firmly rejects the claim that God is the author of evil (emphasis added):

  I. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

Point VII might also be worth mentioning (emphasis added):

  VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.

This clearly shows that these Calvinists recognized such as a "high mystery" and vulnerable to careless interpretation and application.

On the "please elaborate" front, I think Calvinists are trying to embrace God's omnipotence, omniscience, and Goodness (and pancracy--all-ruling, "Almighty" in Revelation) while still recognizing the presence of evil in the world--all of which are strongly witnessed in Scripture.  Accepting God's absolute sovereignty and goodness (so could not be the author of evil) and the presence of evil results in a logical problem that is resolved by assuming that the understanding of the terms is inadequate (i.e., mystery).  This, of course, does not mean that one should reject one's partial understanding of the terms even when one does not yet know how they are reconciled.


When will believers of Christ get punished?

That's the whole point of Christianity: We don't get punished!

The most fundamental distinctive of Christianity is this (from 2 Corinthians 5:21):

  For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ.

We believe that when Jesus was killed, he was killed for our sins:

  But he was pierced for our rebellion, crushed for our sins. He was beaten so we could be whole. He was whipped so we could be healed.

Long story short - God already punished Christians - through Jesus.  That is the "Good News" of grace.


Where in Old Testament is said something like we must be cautious reading it because prophets can make mistakes?

I think the passage you are asking about is:

  Jeremiah 14:13 through 17 KJV  Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! behold, the prophets say unto them, Ye shall not see the sword, neither shall ye have famine; but I will give you assured peace in this place. 14  Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart. 15  Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning the prophets that prophesy in my name, and I sent them not, yet they say, Sword and famine shall not be in this land; By sword and famine shall those prophets be consumed. 16  And the people to whom they prophesy shall be cast out in the streets of Jerusalem because of the famine and the sword; and they shall have none to bury them, them, their wives, nor their sons, nor their daughters: for I will pour their wickedness upon them. 17  Therefore thou shalt say this word unto them; Let mine eyes run down with tears night and day, and let them not cease: for the virgin daughter of my people is broken with a great breach, with a very grievous blow.

If this is the passage it must be noted that it is referring to False Prophets as stated in verse 14.

If these are not the verses you are asking about let me know and I will do some more research.

Hope this helps.


Why doesn't the Catholic Church support female priests?

Short answer:

Jesus did not ordain women.

Long Answer:

It is because of Christ's example in sacred scripture and because of Apostolic Tradition (Tradition with a capital 'T'). The Church does not consider herself authorized to change this.  Christ could have ordained women to priesthood. He had the power to do that and he chose not to. Christ chose those whom he willedMk 3:13-14; Jn 6:70, and he did so in union with the Father, through the Holy SpiritActs 1:2, after having spent the night in prayerLk 6:12. These chosen men were the one who were present at the institution of the Priesthood in the Upper Room on Holy Thursday.src1 src2 src3

There were women priests in other religion. So it wold not be a scandal if he did ordain women. Also priests are at mass in Persona Christi, so it would be proper for them to resemble Christ in body too.

Also remember that the perfect non-divine human being, the mother of God was not a priest.


As there are so many documents of Catholic doctorine that are considered infallible in content, how to search them?

Your best source for Papal Encyclicals (official statements of the Pope ex cathedra) comes from the Vatican itself comes from EWTN.  Check out: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/.  The official http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm houses several documents, but the search interface is more difficult.

Additionally, while not an official source, the Catholic Encyclopedia tends to be a good summary of issues from an informed theological perspective.


Where is the martyrology in my breviary?

The Breviary and the Roman Martyrology are two separate books. In the Pre- Vatican II Divine Office the Martyrology was read at the conclusion of Prime. The reading of the Martyrology is added to the Office of Prime and is not an essential part of it. Thus the reading of the Roman Martyrology can be dispensed with.

The Feast of St. Martin for the universal Church is November 11 and not November 12. However if the "Laudate App" is originated from a diocese from which the Feast of St. Martin has been transferred to the 12th of November and is ranked as a major feast (solemnity) then all the Psalms would reflect this.

At worst, the App has made a typo in its' assessment of the Divine Office for this day.


What steps has the Catholic Church taken as a whole to address a shortage of priests?

The comments by Pope Francis about allowing older married men to be ordained and serve in isolated areas is interesting, although I don't think this will happen any time soon, and certainly not in the numbers needed if 25 per cent of churches do not have a resident priest.

What I have observed being reported is that dioceses around the world are addressing the shortage of priests as best they can, by merging parishes. This seems to have been made possible because fewer Catholics are attending mass at the same time as there are fewer priests1. Another thing I have noticed in a limited way is the employment of lay ministers to assist the priests.

1The RCC is growing in sub-Saharan Africa. Gross numbers are steady in US, balancing leavers with Latin immigrants, but with falling attendances at mass, which is what we are talking about. Numbers are falling in Europe because of a move away from religion, and also in South America, where significant numbers are converting to evangelical denominations.


Was William of Ockham the first sedevacantist?

It's frustrating when an asker of a question then goes on to provide what he or she considers to be the correct answer. Perhaps that is why nobody has bothered to give an answer until now (2 years and 4 months later). After all, what is there left to say when you provide fulsome quotes that appear to confirm your conclusion, namely, "This is sedevacantism because sedevacantism doesn't deny the papacy (as Protestants do)."

Based on the information you impart, I would agree with you. However, I would just point out that in the past, many a Catholic has claimed acceptance of the papacy when suspected of some error in that regard, to save themselves from severe punishment, in this world, not the next. I would also add a few interesting points about William of Ockham, some which partially challenge your account of this man.

He was a medieval English philosopher and Franciscan monk (1285-1349). Basically, one of his philosophical claims was that you shouldn’t make more assumptions than the minimum needed. It can be called the principle or law of parsimony, but this has a long history, predating William  - e.g. Aristotle (384-322 BC) with a claim of the superiority, other things being equal, of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates of hypotheses. Later, Robert Grosseteste (1168-1253), who greatly advanced the use of experimental methods in science, explained the principle of parsimony as “that is better and more valuable which requires fewer, other circumstances being equal.”

William of Ockham’s near contemporary Thomas Aquinas (1224-74) wrote that, “If a thing can be done adequately by means of one, it is superfluous to do it by means of several; for we observe that nature does not employ two instruments where one suffices.” Ockham advanced the discussion with, “Plurality should not be posited without necessity” and also, “What can be explained by the assumption of fewer things is vainly explained by the assumption of more things.” But the phrase ‘Ockham’s razor’ did not arise till 1852. Although the term is used to advance atheism, Ockham (being a Christian) believed in God as Creator, despite his criticisms of philosophical proofs for the existence of God.

However, when you say that Paul V. Spade claims that William "invented his dead-end nominalist philosophy," that is not the case as he elaborated a new form of existing  Nominalist theory. He rejected the prevailing view the 'universals' really exist. He argued that they are simply artificial products of the human mind, necessary for communicating by means of language. Only individual or 'particular' things have real existence. Since knowledge was based on experience of individual things, natural science took on new significance.

Apparently denounced as a heretic to Pope John XXII, William was summoned to Avignon in 1324. There, a controversy arose about apostolic poverty, which made him more critical of the papacy. He called for a college of popes to rule the church, and claimed that Christ was the church's only head. He entirely rejected papal authority in secular matters.

Being "excommunicated for leaving Avignon without permission," as you pointed out, could be a vital clue as to the extent of bad feeling between him and papal authorities of his day. By then he had stressed that God was known by faith alone, not by reason or illumination, and that God's will was absolutely supreme. That would not have endeared him to the papacy, nor helped remove the charge of heresy. Perhaps, after such controlling tactics against him had failed and he was excommunicated, William of Ockham might have switched from being a sedevacantist to then being explicitly against the papacy per se. We do know that he fled, with the charge of heresy still threatening his very life, to the service of Emperor Louis of Bavaria, who supported him in his struggles with the papacy. William died in Munich.

As for him being "the first sedevacantist", the answer to that question would require deep knowledge of all Christians recorded in history from the time the papacy started until the time William of Ockham became a monk. My answer to that question is simply that he may well have been a sedevacantist (though eventually turned against the papacy per se before he died) but that many Catholics were sedevacantist either privately or simply unknown to Catholic authorities who never wrote anything about them. Given the immense hostility many individual popes aroused even in loyal Catholics, it is impossible for the long era of the papacy, until William's time, to have been devoid of sedevacantists. (Main source, article by Dr. H. D. McDonald, formerly Vice-Principal and Senior Lecturer, History of Doctrine and Philosophy of Religion, London Bible College.)


Recommendations for Ancient Greek NT "versions"

The Nestle-Aland/UBS text is standard. This is an edited text which shows what the editors think the original text was most likely to be based on the evidence they have researched. The NA and UBS names refer to two editions of the same base text. They have occasional differences in punctuation or spelling, but the main difference is their apparatus. The main body of the text shows what the editors think is the most reliable option for each verse, but it then has detailed footnotes showing the evidence for all the textual variants, as well as a confidence rating. The apparatus shows not just which families of texts have which variants, but even lists the individual manuscripts for hundreds of the earliest known manuscripts. Even if you disagree with the editors' choices, the apparatus is an invaluable tool, letting you see the evidence to make up your own mind. The biggest difference between the NA and UBS editions is their apparatus: the NA apparatus is somewhat more detailed, while the UBS apparatus has some material that is useful for translators. Copies of the UBS5 text are $31USD with free shipping worldwide at the Book Depository. (The description is in German, but this is the same ISBN as those sold in Australia so I'm pretty sure it's got English footnotes.)

Or if you're happy with a digital text then the SBL GNT is free. It is a different edited text that mostly agrees with the Nestle-Aland/UBS text, but disagrees in 540 places (out of possibly as many as half a million total textual variants). Its main draw back is its inferior apparatus, which lists other edited texts rather than their sources. But hey, it's free!

The Tyndale GNT is another new option, but I don't have any personal experience with it yet.


What is the biblical meaning of "believe"?

To start, it is instructive to understand that the words "faith", "trust" and "believe" in English translations all come from the same Greek root (pisteuo).
Charles Spurgeon describes it well in his book, All of Grace:

What is faith? It is made up of three things—knowledge, belief, and trust.
Knowledge comes first. "How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?  I want to be informed of a fact before I can possibly believe it..."
The mind goes on to believe that these things are true. The soul believes that God is, and that He hears the cries of sincere hearts; that the gospel is from God; that justification by faith is the grand truth which God hath revealed in these last days by His Spirit more clearly than before. Then the heart believes that Jesus is verily and in truth our God and Saviour, the Redeemer of men, the Prophet, Priest, and King of His people. All this is accepted as sure truth, not to be called in question...
So far you have made an advance toward faith; only one more ingredient is needed to complete it, which is trust. Commit yourself to the merciful God; rest your hope on the gracious gospel; trust your soul on the dying and living Saviour; wash away your sins in the atoning blood; accept His perfect righteousness, and all is well. Trust is the lifeblood of faith; there is no saving faith without it.

He later summarizes it this way:

Faith is believing that Christ is what He is said to be, and that He will do what He has promised to do, and then to expect this of Him.

In reality, the Greek word is not anything mysterious.  However, it does not mean intellectual assent, as the demons believe there is a God--and tremble in fear as a result.
So, the definition comes from understanding the Gospel--what is to be believed and why.


How did the man with leprosy come into the city?

The biggest clue here is in the very last words of the verse "outside the encampment". Just with a superficial reading you can see that the cultural context between the command being given, and the point in time which the gospel refers to, are completely different.

This in itself isn't enough to answer the question though because you could argue that the city is effectively the new "encampment" and the verse might still apply despite the change in context.

To answer this it's important to understand more of the differences in context, and what exactly the Leviticus verse was originally addressing. When the command was given, the Israelites effectively lived "in the presence of God" (signified by the pillar of fire/smoke). It was a theocracy, with God giving commands to Moses directly. Because of such close communion with God, there was a degree of ceremonial purity that was necessary even to reside in the camp- the idea is that ceremonial impurity can not exist in the presence of God.

After the time in the Wilderness, Israel became a nation, and progressively became more like the other nations around it. The King ruled, and the King didn't necessarily submit to God. There is no one City that can really be described in such a way that would be equivalent to "the encampment" - rather the people are scattered across several settlements and cities, in much the same way as any other nation would be. Instead, most of the ceremonial purity laws now apply more directly to the Temple, as this is now the place that is considered to be where God's presence rests.

By the time we get to the Gospels, the Temple has been destroyed, but also rebuilt, and the nation of Israel doesn't even rule itself (politically), but is under the rule of the Romans. So really, the man with leprosy was in the city because he had every right to be in the city. It might be more of an issue if he was wandering around the Temple.


According to mainstream Christianity, who is God?

What you are having difficulty grokking is a concept known as the "Trinity."  The historically correct definition of the Trinity is that God is "three persons in one."

When Jesus says, "I and the Father are One" (in John), he is claiming that he is God.  Historically, God the Father, Jesus (God the Son), and the Holy Spirit are all considered the three persons of the Trinity.  They are all equal, they are distinct, and yet they are all the same.

This link explains the relationship as well as any :)

Don't worry, its a difficult concept, but it is the basis of Nicene Christianity's understanding of how God exists.


Were Jesus’ hands tied on the way to Calvary?

Was Jesus tied to the patibulum on the way to Calvary?

It is quite possible that Christ was tied to the patibulum or crossbar of his Cross, but the Catholic Church has no official stance on this subject. The Church has no traditions of such things being done to Jesus during his Passion.

Some might say that victims to be crucified were so weak after their scourging that there would be no reason to tie the condemned to their patibulums.

Some Catholic sources claim that yes victims were indeed tied to their crossbar, but the Church has no official pronouncements on it.

  What was a typical crucifixion like?

  After the flogging, the victim would carry his own cross bar (called a patibulum) from the flogging area inside the city to the crucifixion area outside of the city walls. The crucifixion area was always outside the city, because the process was horrible and disturbing to citizens.

  The upright part of the cross (the stipe) was permanently mounted in the crucifixion area. The part that the victim carried was the cross bar, weighing in at 75 to 125 pounds. The cross bar would be balanced on the victims shoulders, and their arms would be tied to the crossbar. In this position, if the victim tripped or fell, they could not use their arms to break their fall, and they would likely fall face first into the ground.

  The victim was escorted by a Roman guard (probably a centurion and several soldiers), who were responsible for guarding the victim until his death. One of the soldiers would display a sign with the crime written on it.


What is the process for remarried couples to convert to Catholicism?

G.K. Chesterton discusses the logical absurdity of pretending to "cancel" a life long vow with a piece of paper from a government in "The Superstition of Divorce".  I highly recommend reading or listening to (free on Librivox) this short book.
Disclaimer, I am not Catholic, but try to study their positions seriously.  I think a friendly outside perspective may be helpful.
Catholics focus on verifiable objective facts.  The couple did make vows as nominal Catholics according to the premises of the question.  This can be verified from Church records, signed and witnessed.  Protestants focus on subjective realities.  Possibly, the individuals were just following family tradition getting married in a Catholic Church, and did not comprehend the seriousness of their vow.  The Catholic annulment process attempts to address the situation of making vows in ignorance or under compulsion (forced marriage) or false pretences.
If the the original vows were real, then both parties have been living in adultery, and had multiple kids in adultery.  The kids are going to be scarred.  The Law of Moses said: "No one of illegitimate (adulterous) birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD unto the 10th generation."
Nevertheless, Children of "putative marriages" (Canon 1061.3 An invalid marriage is said to be putative if it has been celebrated in good faith by at least one party. It ceases to be such when both parties become certain of its nullity.) are considered legitimate by the Catholic Church.
There is no way to unscramble this egg.  The Catholic prescription of "living as brother and sister" with the adulterous partners is as good as anything a Protestant denomination might suggest.  The Catholic Catechism paragraph 1649 and 1650 ends with:

"Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence."
Toward Christians who live in this situation, and who often keep the faith and desire to bring up their children in a Christian manner, priests and the whole community must manifest an attentive solicitude, so that they do not consider themselves separated from the Church, in whose life they can and must participate as baptized persons:
They should be encouraged to listen to the Word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts for justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God's grace.

If the original vows were made in ignorance by both parties, then we have two (nominally Catholic) pagan families, at least two members of which now seek to obey Christ and rejoin the Catholic Church.  In this case, the original marriage was effectively pagan fornication.  This statement does not dismiss the Catholic ceremony - the couple disrespected it while making serious vows they did not mean.  In this case, the way forward is clear - stay with the current partners.  If the Catholic church cannot annul the vows made in ignorance (due to their unarguable objective reality), then the new marriages cannot be validated with (real this time) vows by the Church, and "living as brother and sister" is again the only option to avoid fornication in the eyes of the Church.
Since the first answer got voted down, I'm sure this one will too.  Broken eggs make a big mess.  GOD HATES DIVORCE.  Malachi 2:13-16
Not mentioned in the question is whether the new partners are also Believers seeking to obey Christ.  Are they also Catholic?  Or something else?
Now, because you are seeking to Obey Christ, it is up to Christ to make something beautiful out of this screwed up mess.  You don't have to understand the whole picture, or know the ultimate outcome.  Just do what is clear, and trust God to work all things together for good.
Addendum from comments:
Canon law site: http://www.catholicdoors.com/misc/marriage/canonlaw.htm
This confirms that the first marriage is the only valid one - but doesn't say what to do about this mess.  If there were no children, the clear course would be to separate from the adulterous partners.
It also has a web form to ask questions of a presumably knowledgeable Catholic.  I had previously discussed a similar situation with a serious and knowledgeable Catholic friend - not a source I can link to, but that is where my understanding about "living as brother and sister" as the Catholic approach to dealing with the mess comes from.  The Canon law page linked above confirms the necessity of protecting children in any decision.
The confessions (e.g. Westminster Confession) of most Protestant groups are just as strict about divorce - there are different approaches to dealing with the messes caused by divorce and remarriage.  The practice of these ideals has deteriorated horribly in all communions, including Catholic.
We all need to repent - Holy Marriage is the divinely chosen living illustration of Christ and the Church. 2 Corinthians 11:2 Revelation 19:7-9 When marriage is defiled, Christ is obscured.


What is the name of God in the Bible, Quran and Talmud?

1.The Jewish and Islamic concept of God is the same: one God, one person, one mind.This is same in Talmud, a central text of Rabbinic Judaism written between  200 CE/AD- 500 CE/AD.Thus it is different from the Triune God of Trinitarian Christianity, God as three persons, three minds, co-equal and co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action, and will.

2.The Talmud does contain references alleged to be a about Jesus Christ and his mother Miriam, where he is referred to as Yashu (believed by some Christians to be derogatory). For example:

Yashu is in Hell being boiled in hot excrement.” (Gittin 57a)

Yashu (Jesus) was sexually immoral and worshipped a brick.” (Sanhedrin 107b)

“Yashu (Jesus) was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness and refused to repent.” (Sotah 47a)

“Miriam the hairdresser had sex with many men.” (Shabbath 104b, Hebrew Edition only)

“She who was the descendant of princes and governors (the virgin Mary) played the harlot with carpenters.” (Sanhedrin 106a)

“Christians who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations.” (Rosh Hashanah 17a)

However, this does not mean that what is written in Talmud is what all Jewish people believe or practise or most of them for that matter.It only reflects Rabbinic exegeses and commentaries.


How does a Catholic theocracy differ from other Christian theocracies?

There were many theocratic states in Germany, taking OP's definition of a theocracy as a state in which the civil power is vested in an ecclesiastical official. One example was the Hochstift of Cologne, an area not identical with the Archdiocese of Cologne. This area was ruled by the Prince-Archbishop.
The position of Archbishop of Cologne was, for centuries, filled by a member of the Bavarian ruling dynasty, usually a younger son of one ruler and brother of the next. Joseph Clemens was appointed archbishop at the age of 16 in 1688.
Since the archbishop held the civil power, it could be seen as a theocracy. In practice, far from theocratising the state, it secularised the Church.
Even in the case of the Papal States the ruler, the Pope, was usually drawn from the ruling families and was expected to appoint his nephews as cardinals. It is questionable whether at conclaves the good of the Catholic Church was uppermost in all cardinals' minds. With whom would a papabile side was always an issue.
Luther's objection to the sale of indulgences was widely approved in Germany in part because it could be seen as the abuse by the rulers of Central Italy of the fact that they were, ex officio, popes. It is a perspective which is easy for moderns to overlook.
Pope Sixtus V in the sixteenth century devoted a lot of time and energy, and his subjects money raised through very heavy taxation, to rebuilding and beautifying Rome. He brought in vigorous methods to reduce crime, executing around 5,000 brigands. He tried to stamp out corruption.
Church of England Bishop Lee of Lichfield was credited with hanging 5,000 Welshmen as well as "some of the best blood in Shropshire".
Until 1836 he Protestant (i.e. Church of England) Bishop of Durham was known as Pronce-Bishop within the county of Durham, where he had the same powers as the monarch did in the rest of England. Shute Barrington was bishop from 1791 to 1826. He was responsible for many public works. When the miners in pits owned by the Diocese went on strike he sent in troops against them and came down very harshly on poachers even in a time of hunger.
It would be hard to say there was any significant difference between Protestant and Catholic theocracies though there were enormous differences in conditions at differing times and places. It is perhaps more a question if there was any difference between a prince-bishop and any other prince.
Mount Athos is an autonomous peninsula under the direct authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. However it contains only monasteries and no civilian population so perhaps is not truly theocratic government in the general sense.


Which "Church of God" believes in "God the Mother"?

I think you're talking about the World Mission Society Church of God. Or Church of God for short. It was founded in Korea in 1985 by Ahn Sahng-Hong, and according to them has almost two million members.

After browsing their website for a short time it definitely falls in line with the following.

They do specifically cite Galatians 4:26 and 4:28 for this belief as well as others.
This one is a bit harder to find but this alludes heavily to it, if not out right says it.
These were a bit harder to find.

I could not find this
This is spelled out here
This is covered here
This is their page about Heavenly mother but it doesn't mention the apostasy.

Here it states "We should not understand this word just literally but put it into practice." but that is the closest I could find.
This one is pretty much everywhere. This page says

  "Just as salvation was withheld from those who were stuck on the name
  of Jehovah and failed to receive Jesus as their Savior in the age of
  the Son (Rom. 15:4), salvation will never be given to those who are
  stuck on the name of Jesus in this age."

and then goes on to say

  "Please believe in Christ Ahnsahnghong, our Savior in the age of the
  Holy Spirit, so that you may receive eternal life!"

Note Ahnsahnghong is the name of the founder of the church.

Your confusion on the first point makes sense because of the following found under the link in #1 above.

  The Bible clearly testifies that our heavenly Mother exists, and that
  only our heavenly Mother can give us eternal life.

and the below is after quoting Gen. 1:26-27

  The above verse states that God has two images—a male image and a
  female image.

The wikipedia page about them paraphrases much of this.


Does the Orthodox Church accept the Athanasian Creed?

For the Orthodox, there is precisely one Creed: the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

That being said, it depends on what you mean by 'accept'.  The theology of Quicunque Vult / (Pseudo-)Athanasian Creed is definitely Latin in origin, but, generally speaking, it is theologically acceptable to the Orthodox once the filioque is removed. It is occasionally included in Russian psalters without the filioque. For example, see here for a ROCOR view.

However, Quicunque Vult is not considered normative in Orthodoxy. It is a useful historic document of the Church, but it was never endorsed (or to my knowledge, mentioned) by an Ecumenical Council. It is not creed.

Most of this is covered by Wikipedia.


How is Derek Prince viewed by mainstream Christianity

When I was young I was tormented by many false teachers so I looked the guy up for you. Derek Prince looks like a not so bad guy among some pretty bad ones.  Yet he also seems pretty bad under the names you provided.

As an Arminian with a very strong almost hyper Charismatic bent and bizarre over emphasis and horrible obsession with demonic activity, you can be sure people like John Piper and John MacArthur would throw up red flags all over.

To show how this guy is at his worst he claims to have cast seventy some demons out of a woman and each demon had a name of a false doctrine, and one was called 'eternal security.' Well that is more or less saying Calvinism is demonic and Piper and MacArthur are in bondage to demonic heresies.

Anyway safe to say, I would stick to more mainstream people as you mentioned. They would not get along with this guy. To supplement people like Piper and MacArthur I would also find out what older Bible commentaries they like to read and read one. Christian books are ok, but Christian Bible commentaries are generally much, much better.

Note: I found almost your same question and a few insightful responses here while I was looking.


The Catholic Encyclopedia article gives a good albeit old insight into canonical age.  In those days 100 years ago and previous, confirmation was before first Communion.  Nowadays in most diocese in the USA that's flipped around.

The terms, age of discretion and age of reason are used to describe what is needed for a youth to fully understand what they're doing and freely choose to do it.  Why this is required for the Eucharist and Confirmation and not for Baptism is not exactly obvious, unless you consider:

A. Sts. Peter and John confirmed those who were already baptized, but didn't know much about the faith (Acts 8:14-17) - after instruction. And

B. St. Paul said it would bring condemnation on yourself if you eat the Eucharistic Sacrifice unworthily

So, a person needs to be in a state of grace to receive communion, and because they need to be in a state of grace, they need confession and because they need confession, they need to be aware of their sins and because they need to be aware of their sins they need to be at the age of reason, which the Church has fixed at around 7 years of age.


Was the Gathering Relics of Holy Men in 1st Century common in the Early Church?

Neither Britannica nor Wikipedia list any form of relics within Judaism.

Collecting relics was effectively never done by the Israelites or Jews.  To them, only God (and God through his agents) has supernatural power.  Believing that relics or other objects have supernatural power, in principle, violates the first and second commandments, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" and "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image".  It in effect turns the object into a form of god.

Ancient Greeks though, did believe in the power of relics, and this belief passed on to the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire.

It wasn't until the Roman Church became the official Christian form of Christianity that anyone thought to collect Christian relics.

Constantine's mother, Empress Helena, was particularly interested in relics, artefacts, and locations.  She herself made a pilgrimage to Palestine and other provinces where she built churches on holy sites, including the location of Moses's burning bush.  At the site of Jesus's tomb, she had three crosses excavated and used a miracle to determine which one was the True Cross.  She also discovered the crucifixion nails and placed one in Constantine's helmet and one in his horse's bridle.  She is also thought to have found Jesus's Holy Tunic.

Helena explicitly sent her men to locate holy relics. Given what failure would have meant, all these missions were of course successful.  Other finds included the rope used to tie Jesus to the cross, more pieces of the cross, and more of the Holy Tunic.

Centuries later, many Crusaders returned with "genuine" relics they had liberated from the holy land.  Some were naïve dupes, while others were scoundrels in their own right.  The number of nails and pieces of the true cross that were brought back would have been sufficient to build a church or two.

In reality, the chance that anyone would have preserved Jesus's cross or its nails, his crown of thorns, his blood, etc. are extremely close to zero.


What is the origin of the Covenant of Grace?

Who first developed this concept of a covenant of grace?

Much like the doctrine of the trinity, to proponents of the doctrine, the answer is, "It comes from the Bible." But obviously the actual historical development and refinement of definitions is less straight-forward than that. But do keep in mind that to those explicating covenant theology, all they're doing is teaching what's in Scripture.

It's hard to pin down exactly who was first. Heinrich Bullinger, Huldrych Zwingli, and Johannes Oecolampadius all wrote letters and delivered sermons in the 1520s about the covenant of grace. They are difficult to date with precision. In the case of Oecolampadius, he was teaching the covenant of grace as an "outworking" of the covenant of redemption (though he does not explicitly name it) in 1521.

Reformed theologians contend that Martin Luther's law/gospel distinction, first developed around 1525, is just another way of speaking of the covenant of works and covenant of grace.

From what I can tell, the two most commonly cited as the originator of the covenant of grace are Bullinger and Oecolampadius. In my non-scholarly opinion, I'd give the edge to Oecolampadius.

Were the other two metacovenants developed at the same time?

Roughly. The ideas are implicitly there (even as early as 1521, as I mentioned above). The covenant of grace assumes a covenant of works (or else, what is there to be gracious about) and also a covenant of redemption (or else God was blindsided by humanity's fallenness and made the decision to intervene temporally rather than eternally). But it took some decades before all three ideas were talked about simultaneously, as part of a "package deal." The order seems to be that first the reformers were eager to talk about grace (often "using the covenant of grace as a summary of biblical theology"), then started discussing the covenant of works as a "creation covenant," then developed the doctrine of the covenant of redemption to round it out.

Zacharius Ursinus, one of the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism, is credited as one of the originators of the idea of the covenant of works in the 1560s. Johannes Cocceius is credited as an originator of the covenant of redemption around the same time. Coeccius, Ursinus, and Herman Witsius wrote systematic theologies in the latter half of the 17th century organized around the three covenants.

Are there differences from how the Covenant of Grace was first conceptualised and how it is understood now?

No substantial differences I'm aware of. Though I haven't read the primary sources pre-1700, I've never read any indications that it underwent significant changes through the years.

Sources

I consulted these works to write this post:

Covenant theology - Wikipedia article
A Brief History of Covenant Theology - a 2001 Westminster Seminary at California lecture by R. Scott Clark
The History of Covenant Theology - a 2006 Table Talk magazine article by R. Scott Clark and an abridgement of the lecture above (don't be fooled by the titles, this is the brief one)
Henry Bullinger and the Covenant of Grace - a 2005 article by George M. Ella, published by Martin Bucer Seminary


What is the Biblical basis that prayer is sufficient as a way to recognize truth?

When you say "truth" I'm going to assume you mean eternal truths, such as the existence and nature of God, the legitimacy of scripture, and the gospel of our Saviour.

James gave this counsel on asking questions:

  "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men
  liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him
  ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of
  the sea driven with the wind and tossed. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." (James 1:5-7)

James states that any man may receive wisdom from god, but only if he asks in faith, nothing wavering, meaning that he does not allow his thoughts or biases to get in the way of receiving an impression from the Lord, you must be open to the answer the Lord gives you, even if it isn't the answer you want.

Double-mindedness refers to fickleness, being noncommittal, and wavering in one’s loyalty. Here in the Epistle of James it means to vacillate in one’s commitment to the Lord (see also 1 Kings 18:21; Matthew 6:24; 1 Corinthians 10:21).

This is how some people end up with different answers to the same prayer; they ask truth questions, but do not approach the Lord unwavering, they are fixed already in their mind about what the answer is going to be, or what they want it to be.


Why did John the Baptist compare the holy spirit with dove?

Although I cannot give you a definitive answer to your question, I will tell you what I have come to believe from my study of the Bible.

It may have been God himself who decided to use the image of a dove in this case.

At that time the heart of worship was the Pentateuch, or the first five books of the Bible written by Moses. these were supported by the prophets.

All Israelite children were educated on these books, since the Law was the guide for all facets of life.

They would be very familiar with the story of Noah and the flood, and when Noah sent out  Raven to see if the waters had begun to dry up the Raven did not return, so Noah then sent out a Dove which returned with an olive branch.

Gen 8:7 through 11

  7  And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.

  8  Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;

  9  But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

  10  And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;

  11  And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

And just as the Dove announced that the world was beginning to become available as a habitant. So the Dove in:

Matthew 3:16  KJV

  And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Mark 1:10  KJV

  And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

Luke 3:22  KJV

  And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

John 1:32  KJV

  And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

Announced that Heaven was beginning to become to become available as an eternal habitant for man.

Of course that is only my belief and you may or may not accept that.

"you can vote however you want"


The inhabitants of Heaven will express love intimately through the use of their sex organs?

The strong implication of Matthew 22:30* -

  For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. - NKJV

Is that no they won't.

*Given the overall context of what scripture says elsewhere about sex and marriage.


According to premillennialism, are the nations in the New Earth still procreating?

In the historicist framework of Ellis Skolfield, Christ returns at the last trumpet (the seventh trumpet) and the time of the new Earth is immediately ushered in. The righteous receive their new bodies, while the damned are immediately dispatched to Hell. No one from this time forward has any children. In Matthew 22:29-30 it says:

  Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the
  Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will
  neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels
  in heaven.

According to Skolfield, the tribulation and the millennial reign of Christ coexist simultaneously. Thus we are currently in the midst of the tribulation, and we are also in the Kingdom of God, because Christ ascended to the throne about 2,000 years ago.

As for the length of the time periods, he argues that the word for millennium used in the Greek, chillioi, is an indefinite plural, hence can refer to multiple thousands of years.

As for the time when the nations will once again be deceived, he argues that over the course of the last century, especially since the founding of Israel, many nations (faithful or not) that once gave lip service to Christ being their ultimate sovereign have since abandoned even the pretense of following him.


ESV verse removed? Where are the explanations found?

The alteration, omission and addition of words in the Greek text is being highlighted by that site. They are comparing the Textus Receptus, the 'Received Text' (on which the KJV is based) to the Westcott & Hort/Nestle Aland Greek text (on which the ESV is based).

Scrivener's text of 1881 shows clearly the differences between the two Greek texts.

The main difference between the two is that Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are given very significant weight in the W&H/NA Greek text.


What is the Biblical basis for Mary being the Tree of Life?
This is a metaphor for Mary. Christ is the source of our salvation and our eternal life. Mary is the one that bore Jesus into the world. Thus Mary is the Tree that produced the Fruit which (who) is no other than Jesus of Nazareth, who is called the Christ!
Catholics believe in the Eucharist! Thus Jesus is the fruit. Mary is the tree of life that produced the God-Man, who in turn gave us his flesh to eat at the Last Supper.
For a biblical basis, I would recommend St. Like’s narrative on the birth of Jesus:

The Birth of Jesus
2 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.
4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.
8 And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9 An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10 But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. 11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. 12 This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”
13 Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,
14 “Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”
15 When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.”
16 So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. 17 When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, 18 and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. 19 But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. 20 The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.
21 On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived. - Luke 2


What common dog species were the ancient Jews familiar with?

Today, as well as in ancient times, it depends on where you are.

A grave example is Romania. Under Ceaucescu the country underwent a forced industrialization that resulted in people flooding the cities. To make room they tore down houses and built high-rises. But as apartments (generally) was small etc. dogs were left on the streets where they was left to breed. Today it is close to an epidemic.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/attack-prompts-romania-to-euthanize-unwanted-stray-dogs-a-922103.html
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Romania-Is-Dog-Hell-2801741.php

There are also a lot of other places around the world that has similar issues. Wild dogs, and half-wild etc. are generally sick ridden, full of flees, can be really dangerous, etc.

From what I have read one had the same issues back in the day. Dogs roamed around outside (and surely inside) the cities. (They licked the wounds of Lazarus.)

And let's face it. Dogs are scavengers as well as predators. There are even several passages where dogs eat the flesh of man.

They also kept domesticated dogs as we for example read in Job (one of the oldest books):

  Job 30:1: But now they that are younger than I have me in derision, whose fathers I would have disdained to have set with the dogs of my flock. (sheepdogs.)

In Mark we are presented with a verse that tells us dogs were also allowed in house (pets?):

  Mark 7:28: And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.

Dogs are lovely animals, but they can surely also be grim. Especially dogs that are not domesticated living from trash, carcasses, etc. There is also a reason we have expressions like dog-fights etc.

Even today it is common to use dogs as a way of low word. Bitch and "dog of a man".

Update

Actually the word dog in GT has (mostly?) the strongs definition:

3611 keleb keh'-leb
from an unused root means. to yelp, or else to attack; a dog;
hence (by euphemism) a male prostitute:--dog.

Not the most positive one.

At the same time the Hebrew word for dog is "kelev" and from what I have read Caleb (with Moses) actually comes from "dog". We know Caleb was faithful, has a big heart etc. but if this has any linkage is pure speculation on my part. The 16th century rabbi Maharal wrote that a dog is called "kelev" in Hebrew as it comes from "“k’lev," which means "like the heart" ... ;)

The first passage I can find is Exodus 11:7

  But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the Lord doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.

As such it is worth mentioning Egypt. Dogs was wholly for the Egyptians and the Abuwtiyuw is one of the earliest documented domesticated animals we know of. It is believed to have been a guard dog. There are also paintings like this one:

Generally dogs were used both as guard dogs, hunting dogs etc. in Egypt.

Find it difficult to say anything concrete about how dogs was used beyond as sheepdogs and (perhaps) some kind of house dog, but the verses about "throwing meat to the dogs" indicate that they might had dogs around beyond sheepdogs. If so the case of giving them unclean meat would also mean they acted like disposal animals. If not they would have had to get rid of unclean meat by other means.

Even though the word "dog" often are used in a negative setting the overall treatment of animals is very strict in the Bible. One shall treat them with respect and work animals are to be allowed to rest on Sabbath etc. In general: respect for the creation.

You might find this interesting:

http://www.jewfaq.org/animals.htm

Small addendum. Not that much on species. Have not found any good source on that topic, but came across this paper while searching that I guess you find interesting:

Geoffrey David Miller, Attitudes toward Dogs in Ancient Israel: A reassessment

The article also list quite a few resources that might shed some light on the topic of species.


Is there an example in the Bible of a human ever praying [a prayer] to someone other than one assumed to be God/god?

As far as the Hebrew הִתְפַּלֵּל (hitpallēl) goes, I’m pretty sure1  the only example of prayer clearly directed at people (rather than God/gods) is Isaiah 45:14, which doesn’t come across as "pray" in most translations I’ve looked at, presumably because the idea is troubling.

  Thus says the LORD:
       “The wealth of Egypt and the merchandise of Cush,
            and the Sabeans, men of stature,
       shall come over to you and be yours;
            they shall follow you;
            they shall come over in chains and bow down to you (אֵלַיִךְ יִֽשְׁתַּחֲוּוּ)
       They will plead with you (אֵלַיִךְ יִתְפַּלָּ֔לוּ), saying:
            ‘Surely God is in you, and there is no other,
            no god besides him.’” (ESV)

The phrase "plead with you" uses the verb/stem of interest (hitpallēl) with the preposition אֶל (ʾel = "to", here in its emphatic form), which standardly identifies the object of prayer. The object ("you") is feminine singular and thus probably refers to Jerusalem rather than Israel (which is consistently referred to using masculine pronouns) or (more problematic still) Cyrus.  The semantically related verb יִשְׁתַּחֲוּוּ (yištaḥăwwû = "they will bow down") - makes it all the more jarring.

There is another set of occurrences of this same verb + preposition pair (hitpallēl ʾel) that is usually translated differently but involves precisely the same Hebrew construction. This is exemplified by 1 King 8:29 // 2 Chr 6:20:2

  that your eyes may be open night and day toward this house, the place of which you have said, ‘My name shall be there,’ that you may listen to the prayer that your servant offers toward this place (yitpallēl....ʾel–hammāqôm)

Here, as in other similar examples 1, hammāqôm ("this place") refers to the temple. The preposition generally translated "toward" is ʾel, the same word used to denote the recipient of prayer elsewhere.

With regard to the Greek terms, both the noun προσευχὴ and the verb προσεύχομαι are applied exclusively to the religious sphere throughout both the LXX and the NT. This distinguishes the term from εύχομαι, a more common word outside of Jewish literature where it often carries a sense of "to vow".3

1.  "Pretty sure" because this is drawn from David Clines’ Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, which comprehensively catalogues the objects of this verb + preposition combination in the entire corpus of known Classical Hebrew.

2. The notation // indicates parallel passages. See also: 1 King 8:30 // 2 Chr 6:21; 1 King 8:35 // 2 Chr 6:26; 1 King 8:42 // 2 Chr 6:32.

3. Heinrich Greeven. "εύχομαι". Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. Geoffrey Bromiley. Eerdmans, 1964.


What does "son of thy handmaid" means in Psalm 86:16 and Wisdom 9:5?

" I am the handmaid of the Lord." ( Luke1:38 )

Luke 1:38 could be translated the following way:

  Because the Lord is my boss, he can demand whatever he wants and I have to do what he asks me.

I know that in Germany decades ago there were a lot of prayers in the Catholic church where the faithful were naming themselves as handmaids and servants of God.

This has the same meaning: The Lord is the boss of all people, so we have to do what the Lord wants us to do.

  King Solomon and King David identified themselves both as servant although King and more so, both of them said they are the "son of thy handmaid"

Same meaning here: Both Kings say that the Lord is their boss ("I am your servant") and that he already was the boss of their parents ("son of your handmaid").

EDIT

  Your answer is purely personal opinion.

There is one aspect I forgot to mention, and this time it is definitely verifiable facts:

Luke wrote his gospel in Greek language while the Psalms are written in Hebrew language.

This means that it is hard to say if both texts use the same word ("handmaid") at all because when translating a text into another language the translator always has the choice between different words.

So it depends on the translators of the Bible if Luke 1 and Psalm 86 use the same word or if these texts use different words!

Comparing the Book of Wisdom to the Gospel is easier: Both books are written in Greek language.

Unfortunately I don't speak Greek. However, as far as I understand the words translated by Google Translator correctly, Mary uses the same word in Luke 1:38 that Solomon uses for himself (and not for his mother!) in Wisdom 9:5:

The same word is translated as "handmaid" in Luke 1:38 and as "servant" in Wisdom 9:5. Google Translate translates the word as "slave".

So arguing "it is the same word" will not work with translations but only with the original texts.

Edit 2

  Does the word "boss" ever appear or been use in the scriptures to address God?

It seems to me that you think the Bible has originally been written in English language. However, this is not the case.

The Bible has been written in Hebrew and Greek languages and has been translated to English language.

In the original texts you will neither find the word "boss" nor the word "Lord" because these are English words.

It was the personal choice of the translators of your Bible translation to use the word "Lord" and not the word "boss" to address God.

Other translations use other words: Although English is not my native language, I know about one existing English translation of the Bible that does not use the word "Lord" at all!

And as far as I understand the Greek translations correctly, in the original text Solomon and Mary use the same word to describe themselves, but Solomon uses a different word describing his mother.

This means that your initial observation (Mary uses the same word for herself as Solomon uses for his mother) is only true for the English (and the German!) translation of the Bible, but it is not true for the original text written by Luke.

I doubt that you believe that a translation of the Bible written by some translator contains information that the original text written by Luke does not contain.

EDIT 3

  ... failed to answer, why King David and King Solomon called their mother a handmaid, ...
  They both identified themselves as "son of thy handmaid"

You didn't get the point:

Up to the 4th century, the Gospels and the book of Wisdom were only available in Greek language. But the original texts are looking like this (I hope I did not make a mistake because I don't speak Greek):

  Book of Wisdom, chapter 9:
  For I thy doulos (= male slave) and son of thine paidiske (= female servant) am a feeble person, ...

  Gospel of Luke, chapter 1:
  And Mary said, Behold the doule (= female slave) of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.

So the answer to your question is simple:

The two verses in the book of Wisdom and in the gospel of Luke DO NOT use the same word!

And of course the Psalm and the Gospel cannot use the same word because they are not written in different languages.

As far as I'm informed correctly, the first translation of the Bible that uses the same word in the different verses has been written about 300 years after Mary's death!

And ...

  ... or speaking in prophecy?

... a text that is written 300 years after some event is not a prophecy!


LDS teaching about man being able to become God, and the snake telling Eve that she can become "like God"

Let me see if I can answer those questions:

1) As stated by "staples", we believe the story to be both literal and symbolic, though some Mormons tend to a little all over the place as to how much is literal and how much is symbolic.

2) The "snake" was lying by telling a half-truth.  Yes, Adam and Eve would become "like God" in the sense that they would know good from evil (something they didn't have), but it wouldn't .

3) Perhaps the "snake" was referring to exaltation, but the fruit never had that capability.  It would simply cause them to lose their innocence (thus covering their nakedness) and allow them to know good from evil.

4) We do see the "snake" as a bad character, but don't transfer that to all snakes, just that "snake" character.

5) This is actually a little bit more complicated.  You see, the purpose of the creation of the earth was to provide God's children an opportunity to learn and grow.  In order for their growth to matter, there had to be a Fall and that Fall had to be at the decision of a mortal.  Without the fall, Adam and Eve would have remained in innocence and never would have children (preventing the rest of humanity to come to Earth).  The Fall is what makes the Atonement so vital.

While this may seem like God set up humanity to Fall, but at the same time, God cannot infringe upon the agency of mankind.  By telling Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit and also to multiply (have kids), they're actually contradictory commandments that can only be resolved by a mortal's decision to break them.

For what it's worth, Mormonism is unique in the idea that we don't consider Adam's Transgression as this horrible moment, but a necessary step for the progression of all of God's children. (In fact, we regard Adam quite highly!)

For more information, I recommend this page from FairMormon.org, just in case my answer is inadequate (which it may be).


Why could not Mary Magdalene touch the resurrected body of Jesus?

A question from readers in a Watchtower magazine addresses this subject very well. It approaches this seeming conflict by examining the original language of the verses and what the literal original meaning would have been. Your question may be a duplicate of one already asked here on CSE. However below is an answer that I found plausible:

Why did the resurrected Jesus invite Thomas to touch him yet stop Mary Magdalene from doing so earlier?
Some older translations of the Bible give the impression that Jesus told Mary Magdalene not to touch him. For instance, the King James Version renders Jesus’ words: “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father.” (John 20:17) However, the original Greek verb, which is usually translated “touch,” means also “to cling to, hang on by, lay hold of, grasp, handle.” Reasonably, Jesus was not objecting to Mary Magdalene’s merely touching him, since he allowed other women who were at the grave to ‘catch him by his feet.’—Matthew 28:9.
Many modern-language translations, such as the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, The New Jerusalem Bible, and The New English Bible, help us to understand the real meaning of Jesus’ words by rendering them: “Stop clinging to me.” Why would Jesus say that to Mary Magdalene, who was a close associate?—Luke 8:1-3.
Evidently, Mary Magdalene feared that Jesus was about to leave and ascend into heaven. Moved by her strong desire to be with her Lord, she was holding fast to Jesus, not letting him go. To assure her that he was not yet leaving, Jesus instructed Mary to stop clinging to him but instead to go and declare to his disciples the news of his resurrection.—John 20:17.
The exchange between Jesus and Thomas was different. When Jesus appeared to some disciples, Thomas was absent. Later, Thomas voiced his doubts about Jesus’ resurrection, saying that he would not believe it unless he saw Jesus’ nail wounds and put his hand into Jesus’ speared side. Eight days later, Jesus again appeared to the disciples. This time, Thomas was present, and Jesus invited him to touch the wounds.—John 20:24-27.
Thus, in Mary Magdalene’s case, Jesus was dealing with a misplaced desire to prevent him from leaving; in Thomas’ case, Jesus was helping someone who had doubts. In both instances, Jesus had good reasons to act the way he did.

Why did the resurrected Jesus invite Thomas to touch him yet stop Mary Magdalene from doing so earlier?


To the Calvinist, is Romans 9:21 potter story based on Jeremiah 18:4?

Paul writes of the potter making a vessel to dishonor and another to honor. This is more akin to making an ashtray (dishonor), and a wine flask (honor), than to "ugly" and "not ugly".

It is true that, according to Paul (and, therefore, Calvinism), some are made to be children of wrath, and others children of mercy. In fact according to Romans 5, alll are naturally born into wrath - it is only those who, by no merit of their own, God has deigned to show grace & mercy who are now considered "vessels of honor".

But that is a different view than, "hey, I screwed up - let's try again" (a la Jeremiah 18).

Paul writes of the potter making a vessel to dishonor and another to honor. This is more akin to making an ashtray (dishonor), and a wine flask (honor), than to "ugly" and "not ugly".


Did Arminius believe Adam's actual guilt was imputed against all humanity?

Being impatient for answer I looked up the works of Arminias and found right away in Volume 1 - ARTICLES XIII AND XIV,  P228 that he argues against the imputation of guilt on infants.

For example, among many other statements against the imputation of guilt on infants, he says (in the words of his friend)

  "When Adam sinned in his own person and with his free will, God pardoned that transgression. There is no reason then why it was the will of God to impute this sin to infants, who are said to have sinned in Adam, before they had any personal existence, and therefore, before they could possibly sin at their own will and pleasure." (Arminias, Volume 1 - ARTICLES XIII AND XIV)

He also makes his sentiments known in a very indirect way, attributing these ideas ONLY to his friend Borrius whom his intention is merely 'to defend.' Borrius 'denies having ever publicly taught' them but only 'thinks them' and 'discusses them' and 'he considers that it was not unlawful for him so to do' and 'still beleives them unless proved wrong', etc.  If Arminias admits that these are bad ideas, or that shame is associated with them so as to 'deny that they are taught', why does he argue their merits in such detail as one who 'loves them', without ever opposing the folishness of them (if he actually opposed them) -- and thus -- famously teaches them?!

As Arminias seems to be very hard to pin down on this question, I will add two more quotes on the subject to further prove: ‘Arminias opposed the idea of actual guilt being imputed on all humanity, making every human creature no longer innocent but guilty.’

Arminias does not seem like to mention the ‘imputation of guilt’ so common among Calvinists, even as he argues against them, because he opposes it. But the declaration of ‘innocence’ which is just the same thing in reverse, he does do on a couple of occasions. In fact it is central to his thinking that those born innocent can’t be predestined to hell as this would be unjust.  The idea that a man is born innocent is what my question is trying to determine. ‘Did Arminias believe babies were born guilty of sin, or born innocent?

For example in arguing against the doctrine of predestination he says:

  If creation be the way and means through which God willed the execution of the decree of his reprobation, he was more inclined to will the act of reprobation than that of creation; and he consequently derived greater satisfaction from the act of condemning certain of his innocent creatures, than in the act of their creation. (THE WORKS OF
  JAMES ARMINIUS VOL. 1, P195)

Or again, he repeats his sentiments:

  It is far worse to predestinate a just man to sin than to predestinate an innocent man to death. Of this we have also, previously, spoken. (THE WORKS OF
  JAMES ARMINIUS VOL. 3, P369)

Please note, I was not asking if Arminias believed in original sin, in some other sense than that which is attributed by the ‘imputation of guilt’. I was only wondering about this one question.  My determination that he did not believe it is not meant to be a criticism against Arminians, or great men like Wesley who did believe it.


What do churches that prohibit the use of icons think an idol is?

From a Protestant perspective, an idol is anything that is worshiped and served in place of (or in addition to) God.

This could potentially include a statue of Buddha, an icon of a Saint, a girlfriend, a hobby, wealth, an iPhone, etc. None of these things are inherently sinful, but when worshiped and served they become an idol.

I think the accusation from some Christians against the Catholic & Orthodox churches that the icons are idols comes partially from misunderstanding, and partially from a concern that the prayers and attention directed to Mary and others detracts from prayer and attention to Christ.


According to Catholicism, do evil spirits need bodies to manifest themselves to people?

Demons can communicate with humans without bodily intermediaries

(My source throughout will be the First Part of St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica)

Although spiritual creatures can take on a bodily form, they are able to influence humans and creation without doing so.  First consider that the assaults of demons consist primarily in temptation and instigation to sin, and that this can be achieved through evil thoughts or near occasions of sin apart from bodily mediation.

Secondly, consider the fact that demons can work miracles (cf. ST Ia, Q. 110, A. 4; and ST Ia, Q. 114, A. 4).  St. Thomas defines the miracles that demons are able to work in a particular sense:

  But sometimes miracle may be taken in a wide sense, for whatever exceeds the human power and experience. And thus demons can work miracles, that is, things which rouse man's astonishment, by reason of their being beyond his power and outside his sphere of knowledge. (ST Ia, Q. 114, A. 4, corpus)

  So when the demons do anything of their own natural power, these things are called "miracles" not in an absolute sense, but in reference to ourselves. In this way the magicians work miracles through the demons; and these are said to be done by "private contracts"... (ST Ia, Q. 110, A. 4, ad 2)

Such a miracle could obviously include a communication with man apart from the mediation of a bodily form.  For example, a demon could tempt man by placing an evil thought into his mind.  This is an example of a "miracle" (in the broad sense) that a demon is capable of working, and the demon can do this directly, without the mediation of a bodily form.


In Catholicism, in what sense is free will restored by baptism?

The 2nd Council of Orange was assembled, as the document itself states, to address the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius.  In short, the Council was about whether original sin existed in new born or if they were born free from the stain of original sin.

If you read the first Canon you can get a better context of what the Council means by Free will.  If we are slaves to sin, we are not free.  Pelagius was teaching that a child was born in a state of innocence capable of Free will without the slavery of that sin.
Contrary to Pelagius, Augustine presented a case that a person was  “Good Enough” to exercise unredeemed free will (one bound to the sin imparted by the fall) and lay hold of the Grace provided by Christ.

  THE COUNCIL OF ORANGE (529)

  The Council of Orange was an outgrowth of the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius. This controversy had to do with degree to which a human being is responsible for his or her own salvation, and the role of the grace of God in bringing about salvation. The Pelagians held that human beings are born in a state of innocence, i.e., that there is no such thing as a sinful nature or original sin. As a result of this view, they held that a state of sinless perfection was achievable in this life. The Council of Orange dealt with the Semi-Pelagian doctrine that the human race, though fallen and possessed of a sinful nature, is still "good" enough to able to lay hold of the grace of God through an act of unredeemed human will.
  The Canons Of The Council Of Orange

  Canon 1.

  If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:126); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).

Paragraph 1705 (Provided), concerns the attributes given to a person made in the “IMAGE OF GOD” When we fell from the Garden, our first parents ate from the “Tree of GOOD and EVIL” not only the “Tree of Evil”.  Now, having an intellect and the ability to choose between Good and Evil, our redemption depends on our Free Choice.  The Baptized Christian, free from the stain of original sin, is totally free in his will, free from the Guilt and punishment of previous sins able to choose and through the Sacraments of the Church, maintain the family relationship they entered into.

In Apostolic tradition it is indeed a better free will after Baptism, it is a free will where even the damage caused by sin to a person’s soul has been removed, along with the guilt of any past sins.  They are truely Free, Not Slaves to Sin, but Slaves to God, and by living an obedience to that faith, perserveres to sactifiction and Glory.


This word is clearly defined here.

Basically Supralapsarianism is a big word meaning 'before' 'fall' i.e before the fall. Calvin was what many call today extreme Calvinists or 'High Calvinism'. It refers to those people who believe God chose who will be saved and who damned, sealing their fate, before Adam sinned. Low Calvinists just hold predestination of those going to heaven as something God did after the fall.

Calvin and Arminian are not the only cards on the table:

Luther said,

  He [Martin Luther] spoke at length about the idle people who occupy themselves with disputation about predestination beyond the limits of Scripture. It is most ungodly and dangerous business to abandon the certain and revealed will of God in order to search into the hidden mysteries of God. (Luther's Works Vol 54, P249)

Possibly if Calvin paid more attention to Luther's maturity on the subject of predestination Arminius would have been a Calvinist? Many of us are 90% Calvinists and 10% Arminian, but neither extreme likes us very much.


How do Traditional Latin Mass going Catholics usually prepare and receive their sacraments of initiation?

The ages rarely differ from the general practice in that region. As far as preparation goes, the particular pedagogy might vary (e.g expectations may be higher), but it's not substantially different, certainly not in any uniform way.
Some parishes that host both forms of the rites use a common sacramental preparation program (Especially for converts), some have them separate.

Is First Communion generally withheld until after Confirmation?

That would be up to the diocese and not dependent on the form of the Liturgy. The reason why some places do Confirmation before 1st Communion is a desire to restore the traditional ordering, but that ordering was displaced not with Post Vatican II reforms but with Pius X's lowering of the age of First Communion to 7.


According to mainline Protestant theology, why is Pentecost on Sunday and why did it lose its significance?

The count to Pentecost involves a start and an end requirement in order to reach 7 weeks of 7 plus 1 day to equal 50 days.  There's only one way to achieve that; start on a Sunday and end on a Sunday with 7 weeks of 7 between those two days.
THE START

And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. Lev. 23:11

THE COUNT

And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete: Lev. 23:15

THE END

Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD. Lev. 23:16

If one starts on any other day, one cannot achieve the start, count, and end requirements.  The start is always after the weekly Sabbath, the count always requires 7 sabbaths, and then the day after the 7th sabbath or 49th day, which is always a Sunday.
So, this is the reason Pentecost always falls on the first day (aka Sunday).
SABBATH/7th DAY
Sabbath (Shabbat) is on the 7th day (aka Saturday) with day 1 (aka Sunday) per creation week (Gen. 2:2-3).
IMPORTANCE
A number of Christian denominations continue to honor Pentecost, including Catholic, Orthodox, Pentecostal, Lutheran, Evangelical, and many more.
PS To be sure, there are some groups who believe that Pentecost may fall on other days of the week besides Sunday, but anyone may do the count and find it must start and end on a Sunday with 7 weeks of Sabbaths plus 1 day to get 50 days.
In addition, THE END requirement details that the 50th day is the day after the Sabbath.  That must be the referring to the weekly Sabbath and not to a feast Sabbath because there are no feast Sabbaths at that time, let alone on the 49th day.  Thus that 49th day must needs be another weekly Sabbath.
OBSERVANCE
On the question about why Christians don't celebrate the giving of Torah on Pentecost, but rather focus on the giving of the Spirit on Pentecost, the answer is two fold about the old and the new.
The Law was given to Israel and it would be their righteousness to follow it.

And it [the testimonies, statutes, and judgments v20] shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us. Deut. 6:25

Romans and Galatians and Hebrews contrast the Law and the Spirit in numerous ways.

That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Rom. 8:4
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.  Gal. 5:18

So, while Christians may understand that Torah was given at Mt. Sinai on Pentecost, we rather observe the giving of the Spirit to all who believe.

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.... And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Acts 2:1,4
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:... While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. Acts 10:34, 44


Is a Catholic dogma that Moses (as the Exodus prophet) actually existed?

Yes, Catholics must believe in the historical reality of Christ, Moses, Adam & Eve, et al.

Modernist heretics dispute their historicity, but magisterial teaching (DZ 1997) unequivocally says that Moses authored the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Old Testament), by answering the following question in the negative:

  Question 1. Whether the arguments accumulated by critics to impugn the Mosaic authenticity of the Sacred Books, which are designated by the name Pentateuch, are of such weight that, in spite of the very many indications of both Testaments taken together, the continuous conviction of the Jewish people, also the unbroken tradition of the Church in addition to the internal evidences drawn from the text itself, they justify affirming that these books were not written by Moses, but were composed for the most part from sources later than the time of Moses?

  Reply: No.

The same Pontifical Biblical Commission affirmed that at least

  The first three Chapters of Genesis contain narratives that correspond to objectively real and historically true events (rerum vere gestarum narrationes quae scilicet obiectivae realitati et historicae veritati respondeant), no myths, no mere allegories or symbols of religious truths, no legends.

If Moses were fictional, how could a fictional character author anything, let alone something that contains "historically true events"?

Also, the Catholic Encyclopedia isn't a magisterial document. Imprimatur simply means "let it be published," and nihil obstat means "nothing prevents [it from being published]." It doesn't make the publication an official magisterial pronouncement of the bishop(s) who gave the imprimatur and nihil obstat.


Why are Kingdom Halls sometimes built in the "quick-build" manner?

As another answer stated, we get the building done in 3 days for convenience mostly. The whole thing is amazingly organized and thus moves quickly.

Nothing is done to be cheap. That would be disrespect to Jehovah. The main concern is to not take time away from the builders lives and to continue the preaching work. The preaching work is the #1 priority to us. Look at Acts 6:1-4. A situation arose where the Greek widows weren't getting food, but the Hebrew ones where. Instead of taking up the time of the Apostles with fixing this the twelve assigned reputable men to take care of distribution. What is their motive? Furthering and focusing on the preaching work.

Like the apostles, we too focus mainly on our ministry. We use our resources and time wisely, so as not to slow the preaching works.

I don't know why we decided on 3 days, but we do it and do it well. The level of education doesn't matter. It matters only that you are motivated to do so. If you don't know how to do anything, then chances are you are going to learn a lot. There are a lot of skilled brothers on site working on whatever section is their trade.

We get a lot of volunteers from all over the state and some out of state. Here is a video showing the building of a kingdom hall. This one actually only took 2 days. Quickbuild

Most of us tend to not have a ton of money, but that is because we work to pay bills and provide for what we need. A lot only work part time, so that they have more time to go out and preach.

When building we want 3 things Quality, safety, speed. I think we achieve those remarkably well. Safety. To attest to the quality of the building, just attend a meeting. The building is not extravagant, but also not cheap. The buildings are made to last and are well maintained.

I am currently an unbaptized publisher working towards baptism. I am prospectively looking at going to trade school for something like electrician, HVAC, etc.. sometime early 2014. I will most likely be helping with quick builds very soon :)