When and how did men and women start sitting together in church?

According to this source, women were not even allowed to be taught the Torah publicly in the Jewish faith, so they were not able to even sit in the same area as the men who were taught from the scriptures.

  Restrictions applied to any public reading of Scripture in the
  Synagogue (Megillot 73a) and they were unable to pronounce the
  benediction after a meal in the home (Mishna Bereshit 7:2)....
  This was practiced in the Second Temple period of Jesus’ time and in
  synagogues afterwards; they were separated from men in the service.
  This practice is continued today among Orthodox Jews. Although today
  in most areas of Judaism (the reform side) much of this has changed
  considerably.

It is clear that Jesus challenged this trend in His public ministry. Even still, by the fourth century it appears that men and women were separated in churches, as St. Cyril of Jerusalem says,

  Let men be with men, and women with women. For now I need the example
  of Noah’s ark: in which were Noah and his sons, and his wife and his
  sons’ wives. For though the ark was one, and the door was shut, yet
  had things been suitably arranged. If the Church is shut, and you are
  all inside, yet let there be a separation, men with men, and women
  with women : lest the pretext of salvation become an occasion of
  destruction. Even if there be a fair pretext for sitting near each
  other, let passions be put away. Further, let the men when sitting
  have a useful book; and let one read, and another listen: and if there
  be no book, let one pray, and another speak something useful. And
  again let the party of young women sit together in like manner, either
  singing or reading quietly, so that their lips speak, but others’ ears
  catch not the sound: for I suffer not a woman to speak in the Church.
  And let the married woman also follow the same example, and pray; and
  let her lips move, but her voice be unheard, that a Samuel may come,
  and your barren soul give birth to the salvation of God who has heard
  your prayer; for this is the interpretation of the name Samuel (Protocatechesis, 14,
  NPNF, s. 2, v.7).

It is unclear if St. Cyril was instituting a new practice or affirming an existing one. It should be noted that many Coptic Orthodox continue the practice of sitting on separate sides of the church to this day. Many Anabaptists also have followed this practice. Various cultures practice this also. Some old churches still have matroneums from when this was practiced.

It should be kept in mind that the early Church suffered intense persecution until the Edict of Milan issued early in the 4th century under Constantine. It wasn't until this time that Christians were even able to construct buildings that were considered to be "churches." Prior to that, churches were assemblies (ecclesiae) of believers who gathered in homes to avoid being killed for their faith.


What is the biblical basis for the concept of male headship?

The number one most quoted verse concerning this is from Ephesians 5.

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

What exactly this means is very debated among the many Christian groups.
However, these verses are surrounded by others about the hierarchical order of the family and the Church.

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

And also:

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

The Scriptures are not particularly clear about what submission is, but it is clear about love in 1 Corinthians 13. What is almost universally agreed is that the husband is "the spiritual head of the household". He is responsible for the spiritual well being of his entire family. Because of that responsibility he is held to a higher standard: to love his wife as Christ loves the Church and readily gave himself up for her. The wife, then, is to respect and trust her husband's decisions, and support him in the very difficult task of being to her like Christ is to the Church.
Chapter 6 carries on with the same principles concerning children and parents, especially fathers.

1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother”—which is the first commandment with a promise— 3 “so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.”
4 Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.

Again, the Father (husband) is given more responsibility and the more difficult task. He is to instruct the children in the ways of the Lord without making them feel demeaned or infuriating them. Anyone who has children knows this is very difficult. Like the wife, children should respect and trust their Fathers' decisions.
Genesis 2 is sometimes quotes as well. After Adam was created, God determined that it was not good for man to be alone so he made Adam a helper: Eve, the woman. The term itself do not necessarily imply a lesser standing, however, it does imply the purpose: the woman is to help the man.
I have heard this said before and I think is sums up the above quite well:

The glory of every husband is that the woman was made for him, but his humility is that he needs her.
The glory of every wife is that the man needs her, but her humility is that she was made for him.


Were any of the Apostolic Fathers Jews?

The short answer is yes!

St. Ignatius of Antioch

It is piously believed by many Catholics that St. Ignatius of Antioch was of Jewish origin. In fact, there is an ancient tradition that he was the child whom Christ took and presented to the apostles as the example of the one who is greater in the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 18:1-4).

  St. Ignatius of Antioch, the child who is greater in the kingdom of heaven

  At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who thinkest thou is the greater in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them, And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18:1-4)

  According to an ancient tradition, St. Ignatius of Antioch was the child whom Christ took and presented to the apostles as the example of the one who is greater in the kingdom of heaven. From that day the child, who was most beloved by the Savior and favored with the divine embrace, was also marked as the one upon whom lions would feast in the Roman Colosseum.

The Orthodox Church seem to piously hold to this tradition about St. Ignatius of Antioch also.

St. Barnabas

St. Barnabas was is considered an Apostolic Father and Barnabas was a Cypriot Jew.

  Barnabas, born Joseph, was according to tradition an early Christian, one of the prominent Christian disciples in Jerusalem. According to Acts 4:36, Barnabas was a Cypriot Jew. Named an apostle in Acts 14:14, he and Paul the Apostle undertook missionary journeys together and defended Gentile converts against the Judaizers. They traveled together making more converts (c. 45–47), and participated in the Council of Jerusalem (c. 50). Barnabas and Paul successfully evangelized among the "God-fearing" Gentiles who attended synagogues in various Hellenized cities of Anatolia.

  Barnabas' story appears in the Acts of the Apostles, and Paul mentions him in some of his epistles. Tertullian named him as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, but this and other attributions are conjecture. Clement of Alexandria and some scholars have ascribed the Epistle of Barnabas to him, but his authorship is disputed.

  Although the date, place, and circumstances of his death are historically unverifiable, Christian tradition holds that Barnabas was martyred at Salamis, Cyprus, in 61 AD. He is traditionally identified as the founder of the Cypriot Orthodox Church. The feast day of Barnabas is celebrated on June 11. - Barnabas


Do married couples need to live sexually?

The cessation of sexual acts between a married couple by common consent is seen as valid by the Church, particularly as they age. Also, the ancient interpretation (demonstrated by the Canons of the Councils of Carthage) is that upon raising a man to the diaconate (and, of old, presbyterate and episcopate) they must maintain perfect continence, that is, must cease sexual activity with their wives, if they have any.
That being said, the Catechism teaches:

The openness to fertility
1652 "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."Gaudium et Spes 48 #1; 50
Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: "It is not good that man should be alone," and "from the beginning (he) made them male and female"; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: "Be fruitful and multiply." Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.GS 50 #1; cf. Gen 2:18; Mt 19:4; Gen 1:28
1653 The fruitfulness of conjugal love extends to the fruits of the moral, spiritual, and supernatural life that parents hand on to their children by education. Parents are the principal and first educators of their children.Cf. Gravissimum Educationis 3 In this sense the fundamental task of marriage and family is to be at the service of life.Cf. Familiaris Consortio 28
1654 Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice.
1664 Unity, indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage. Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage; divorce separates what God has joined together; the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its "supreme gift," the child (GS 50 # 1).

In other words, though a couple need not have sexual relations constantly through their lives, they must make an honest effort, particularly in the beginning of their conjugal life, to open themselves to fertility and receive any children which the Creator has prepared for them. A Catholic who marries with no intention of ever having children does not marry validly, but once children have come or old age or the Diaconate have rendered unlikely or impossible their arrival, a couple may agree to end sexual relations without prejudice to their matrimony, provided they keep "radiat[ing] a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice."


Why does Mosaic Law insist on primogenitur even when the dad despises the first born son's mother?

This Mosaic Law on family inheritance is borne out of the story of Jacob and Joseph.

As you may remember, Jacob loved Rachel, and worked 7 years for her uncle, Laban, in order to be able to marry her.  Sadly, Jacob must have gotten really drunk, because of the day of his wedding, he finds out that Laban has tricked the trickster, and he's ended up being married to Rachel's older sister, Leah.  This being the day of polygamy, Laban says "Hey - don't worry! Just give me another 7 years, and you can have Rachel."

As a dad whose first daughter is named Rachel, I can understand why Jacob would worked 14 years as a bargain. But I digress.

Once Jacob has the two wives, the baby-making war begins. God sees Leah's sorrow and devotion, and so opens her womb first.  Jacob's first-born son, Rueben, should, as the first born son, have all the privileges. But, the truth is that Jacob loves Rachel, not Leah. As the story continues, Leah keeps popping out the little ones, but Rachel can't seem to make a baby.  Much fuss ensues, and like any good modern reality series goes, Rachel gets Jacob to make babies with her maid, then Leah does the same thing, and before you know it, Jacob has a lot of boys - but Rachel is still not pregnant.

Then, finally, the big day arrives.  Rachel gets pregnant, and Jacob is way, way, happy.  The boy, Joseph, quickly becomes Jacobs absolute favorite.  Hands down. In fact, Jacob loves Joseph so much that he gives him a technicolor coat and arranges for Andrew Lloyd Webber to write about him nearly 4000 years later. Well, we all remember what happens from there - big brothers get angry, sell Joseph off into slavery, and pretty much fill out the rest of Genesis.

  (Incidentally - bonus points if you know who Rachel's only other boy is.  That's right - Benjamin - the son of his right hand. Rachel dies in childbirth, and when Joseph later uses a ruse to put his only full brother in prison, the other boys realize this would pretty much kill their dad, hence the hysterics to get him back.)

This part of the covenant then, is as much symbolic as it is practical.  It is direct, received wisdom from the experience of Jacob and his favorite sons.

Is it possible for a despised wife to have a beloved son? Sure.  But we don't have any biblical stories about those prior to this law. The more practical point is "Don't gip your boys in the will," but the precedent that backs it up has its roots in history.


What is the meaning of "overshadowed" by the power of the most High in Luke 1:35?

The Power of the Most High as the Holy Spirit

I think anyone accustomed to the Hebraic parallelisms of the Bible will recognize in Luke 1:35 an appositive parallelism whereby the Power of the Most High spoken of is made identical to the Holy Spirit:

  Luke 1:35 And answering the angel said to her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the Power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: on account of which also the Holy One to be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Note here that at once we learn the reason Christ is to be recognized as not a mere man, or 'mere' son of Mary, but who He is in truth: the Son of God (cf. Jn 1:1, 14—Lk 1:43). Gabriel is saying 'on account of this conception,a nd by the power of God and not by the involvement of man, you will concieve' (the thrust of Mt 1:25)—in answer, mind you, to Mary's inquisitive and mild objection, "How is this to be [accomplished], seeing as I know not man?"—a euphamism for 'do not have sexual relations' and so 'wonder how I am to concieve.' It was her will to remain a virgin, (cf. 1 Cor 7:34,37) as is in keeping with the "mother of the Lord," and "the Holy One;" "God among us" (Mt 1:23) and "the Lord of Glory," (1 Cor 2:8), even "the First and the Last" (Rev 1:17-18)! cf. Ezek 43:1-2; 44:1-2.

So the the overshadowing being the answer to the question 'by what means shall my concieving a son be, if not by intercourse?' shows us the function and purpose of her being overshadowed: to work the miracle of the Incarnation (Mt 1:18). No matter the referent of the overshadowing (her soul or her body) it is necessary that she be prepared in both to contain the Word of God (Wis 1:4).

Mary's 'Fullness of Grace'

The traditional rendering of the Greek word κεχαριτομένη (her-having-been-graced) as 'full of grace' is certainly a valid one (especially since it stands as a vocative 'title,' and in place of her name), and in any case bears witness to the Chirstian people's belief concerning its significance. It probably best renders the sense of the word, which denotes a completedness to God's 'gracing' her (much like how 'burned' denotes the completedness nature of the act of burning, and now 'having been burned' characterizes the thing which was burned.)

Significantly, the only other time this verb χαριτόω (to grace/show grace) is used in the New Testament is in speaking of the action by which God "[redeemed]" Christians, and made them "holy and blameless" before Him: 1

  Ephesians 1:3-7 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in heaven by Christ: just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, to [make] us holy and blameless before him, forordaining us in love unto the adoption as sons, (through Christ) unto himself: according as it shall have pleased him; [all] unto the praise of his glorious grace, with which he graced us [ἐχαρίτωσεν] in the Beloved, [and] by which we have redemption, through his blood—the forgiveness of sins—according to the plenitude of his grace.

We might say that at the very least, Mary was sanctified even from her mother's womb, or "from the first instance of her conception" (Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus) in the same or in a greater way than was John the Baptist from his mother's womb (Lk 1:15): him a herald of the Lord, whereas she is His mother and the one who clothed the Him with His very flesh (Lk 1:43; Jn 1:1,14; Gal 4:4). As the Ark was made according to specific measurements and to be covered with pure gold and carried reverently on poles gilded with gold, so we expect Mary to have been chosen and prepared in a much greater way: who didn't contain mere symbols of Christ (manna which fell from heaven in the desert, the rod of Aaron, the tablets of stone with the Debarim or Words of God inscribed on them: Heb 9:4) but Christ Himself (the living Bread, born in the city called House-of-Bread, which comes from heaven Jn 6:48-51, the true high priest Heb 4:14, and the Word of God in the flesh Jn 1:14).

It's noteworthy that Mary, the Mother of God, is nowhere said to herself have been graced or filled with the Holy Spirit in preparation for her unparalleled role of honor, except being described as 'already' "having been graced;" if anything, she could be seen as carrying the Holy Spirit with her due to whom she was carrying in her womb, meaning the 'overshadowing' was during the whole time "the Word...tabernacled" (Jn 1:14) in her:

  Luke 1:41-44 And it came to pass that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 And she cried out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43 And why is this given to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.

Inspiration vs. Overshadowing of the Holy Spirit / The Significance and Usage of 'Overshadow' in the Bible

Inspiration of the Holy Spirit is nowhere correlated with being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. ἐπισκιάζω (to overshadow; envelope; [h/c]over over by presence) is a Greek verb used relatively few times in the Bible, and every time (with one exception) it refers to the direct presence of, or being surrounded by, God's glory.2

Interestingly, in concordance with the connections between the Ark of the Covenent and Mary discussed above, and elsewhere, God's glory cloud also filled or 'overshadowed' (Ex 40:35 LXX) the placed where the Ark was kept in the Tabernacle (Ex 40). cf. Rev 11:19-12:1,5.

Foonotes

1 In the Greek Old Testament we have another use in Sir 18:17: "Behold, is not a word better than a gift? Even these both are with a man graced [by God.]" (Vul. justificáto—made just/justified).

2 That I can find: Mt 17:5/Mk 9:7/Lk 9:34 (God speaks from a cloud which 'overshadows' them at the Transfiguration of Jesus); LXX: Ex 40:35; Ps 90:4; Ps 139:8 (God's most intimate presence or protection). Heb 9:5 uses a synonymous verb meaning roughly the same thing, describing the cherbubim of glory 'positioned as they were above' (κατασκιάζοντα) the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant. In Prov 18:11: "to the rich man, his wealth is the city of [his] strength, the great glory of which surrounds him."


God is speaking about himself and his "master worker" Jesus. Proverbs 8:30 refers to Jesus as a "master worker" and Colossians 1:16 indicates that God used Jesus as a worker while creating all of creation (including man). This is in much the same way that an architect or engineer could be called the "creator" and his laborers could be called "master workers".

He also could have been speaking to the angels. We know they existed before man was created because Job 38:4, 7 shows that they shouted in applause when the earth was created.

Now remember that Genesis 3:22 doesn't say that the man has become one of us; it says has "become as one of us". This means that they made themselves like God.

Look at this explanation for more info: http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2003766


How do the Catholic and Protestant understandings of "Regula Fidei" differ?

From Wikipedia:

The rule of faith (Latin: regula fidei) or analogy of faith (analogia fidei) is a phrase rooted in the Apostle Paul's admonition to the Christians in Rome in the Epistle to the Romans 12:6, which says, "We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith."
The rule of faith is the name given to the ultimate authority or standard in religious belief, such as the Bible alone, as among some Protestants; the Bible and tradition, as among Catholics; reason alone, as among rationalists; as among the Eastern Orthodox it is theoria the inner light of the spirit, as among mystics.
In the Roman Catholic Church, the Bible and Sacred Tradition (that is, things believed to have been taught by Jesus and the apostles that were not recorded in the Bible but were transmitted through the church) are considered a rule for all believers for judging faith and practice.
In conservative Protestantism Romans 12:6 is viewed as the biblical reference for the term "analogy of the faith" (i.e., αναλογἰα τῆς πἰστεως). The Bible alone is considered the word of God and the only infallible standard for judging faith and practice; hence, for conservative Protestantism, the analogy of the faith is equivalent to the analogy of scripture – that is, opinions are tested for their consistency with scripture, and scripture is interpreted by the Holy Spirit speaking in scripture (compare sola scriptura).

In Methodism, John Wesley described a quadrilateral of faith, which held that Scripture, Reason, Experience and Tradition were interdependent.


What is the biblical basis for the belief that destroying a grave or body is an act of desecration?

No, this is not the only example.  The prophecy of 1 Kings 13 must also be taken into account, and especially its fulfillment.

  2 Kings 23:20 is its fulfillment: "And he slew all the priests of the
  high places that were there upon the altars, and burned men's bones
  upon them, and returned to Jerusalem."

It's also paralleled in 2 Chronicles 34:5

The reason why I am citing this as an example is because this was pronounced as a judgement much like Amos 2:1 which was referenced.  So then if these false prophets were the recipients of an unusual pronouncement from a prophet of G-d, and they were singled out for punishment then the opposite is proven as the rule.

Should that not be enough, commandments such as

  Deuteronomy 21:22,23 "If a man has committed a sin worthy of death and
  he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23 his corpse shall
  not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the
  same day (for he who is hanged is accursed of God), so that you do not
  defile your land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance."

Despite the focus being on avoiding the polluting of the land it is clear that the action is barred for additional reasons, such as keeping the "humanity" of the corpse in mind and that some kind of burial is necessitated.

  Joshua 7:26 "And they raised over him a great heap of stones unto this
  day. So the Lord turned from the fierceness of his anger. Wherefore
  the name of that place was called, The valley of Achor, unto this
  day."

And

  Joshua 8:29 "And the king of Ai he hanged on a tree until eventide:
  and as soon as the sun was down, Joshua commanded that they should
  take his carcase down from the tree, and cast it at the entering of
  the gate of the city, and raise thereon a great heap of stones, that
  remaineth unto this day."


What is significant about the torn curtain? What about Jesus' death impressed the centurion at the cross?

Two things are significant. The first is that the curtain symbolically divided the Holy of Holies, the most revered place in the temple where God was believed to dwell and only priests were allowed to enter, from the rest of the temple where ordinary people were allowed. Removing that division was a symbol that there was now no barrier between ordinary people and God; we no longer needed specially appointed people to intercede for us.

The second is that the curtain was torn from top to bottom, as opposed to from bottom to top. This indicates that the curtain was not ripped by man but by God.


Why is Jesus' name pronounced differently in each language?

Your premise that other names are said the same across languages is simply not correct. Lots of writing systems and spoken sounds don't have one-to-one equivalents in other languages, and over time it is quite common for names to morph to things that are easier to write or say. Sometimes the name will be spelled the same but pronounced locally, then somebody will come along and start writing it how it sounds and so on. Sometimes names have meanings and it is common to translate the meaning into a new name. Then that name gets transliterated and the process continues.

The main point is that Christianity's use is no different than common language practice. If anything there are some very common threads that connect all the dots—more so than you might find for just any name.

A simple example is my own name. Caleb on English is neither pronounceable nor spellable in Turkish. They can't actually say it well even repeat-after-me style because they never end words with "b" and the other sounds just don't go together well. If they see it written, they say it differently entirely. Usually I go by a rough sound equivalent and don't worry about how they spell it. If I'm doing documentation of any kind, I go by the spelling and just introduce myself with their pronunciation of that to save trouble, and I am accustomed to answering to that name as well. The other alternative would be to use the name as it had come to be translated in scripture, which through hand-me-down tradition and various language transitions is rendered "kalev". Incidentally this is actually closer to the Hebrew version of the name than my given English name.

For reference, Jesus is rendered as "İsa" in Turkish.


Reading the genealogy of Adam up to Noah as a sentence in Hebrew

You are probably familiar with this already, but the 'original' Hebrew contained no vowels (see, e.g., Alan Smith's paper, "Introduction to Hebrew Verbs", or hebrew4christians.com).  The effect would be similar to rendering "Love the Lord your God" as "Lv th Lrd yr Gd".  As far as I know all the grammatical features of the verb would have been known from context or recalled from oral tradition.  The vocalizations that are in the Masoretic Text that is the basis for most Old Testament translations came into existence in the 7th century AD.

Also, as far as I know, the name correspondences you list are correct, although I think that only the verb root is what is given (e.g. "appoint" instead of "appointed", "come down" instead of "shall come down", etc.)

As a result of all of the above, I think one could take the original written Hebrew and string the words together as you suggest, but the result would be meaningless without arbitrarily appending some voice, mood, tense, aspect, etc.  One could, of course, simply take the vocalizations of the Masoretes and apply those, but I don't know how meaningful that would be, since you are constructing a sentence from medieval classical Hebrew words, and not from the original.

Furthermore, striving to search for hidden meanings in Scripture not hitherto revealed smacks to me of gnosticism (The English word "occult" comes from the Latin "occulere", meaning to hide).  This is just my opinion, though.


Why baptise or christen a child multiple times?

Christening and Baptism are the same, and the Church of England doctrine is that it can be administered only once to any child.

The usual arrangement was for the baby and godparents to go to church. The godparents, speaking on behalf of the baby, renounced the devil, declared belief in the Christian creed and expressed the intention to obey God's will and commandments and walk in the same. Water was poured on the baby and the minister said " (baby's name) I baptise thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost".

Sometimes, especially if the baby was weak, the water was poured and the "I babptise thee" etc said at home. The baby was then, as stated in the rubric in the Private Baptism service in the Book of Common Prayer

  lawfully and sufficiently baptised and ought not to be baptised again. Yet nevertheless if the child do afterward live it is expedient that it be brought into the Church

and there are prayers for such an occasion and the godparents then speak on behalf of the child making the same declarations that would normally have been made at the baptism.

Records were not always well or consistently kept and it is possible that some records may show both the date of the private baptism and the date the child was subsequently received into the church (building). These would then appear as two separate entries in the register.

However it would not be usual for there to be any large gap.

There are however other reasons a child might be baptised more than once. As Ken Graham points out it is possible that a child might be christened in the Church of England but also by another denomination. It may be possible to see from the records you are examining whether this is the case, as they may be amalgamated. If so it is possible that the girls in a family were taken to their mother's denomination, in the place she grew up, as well as having been baptised in the parish church where they now lived. This would be irregular, and most other denominations would not knowingly re-do a baptism.

If the records you are examining are purely C of E, which is very likely the case, then social entitlement may be a factor. Many charities were limited to persons baptised within a particular parish. The Poor Law also required destitute persons to be maintained at the expense of the parish, usually where they were christened or had established some other connection. To be baptised in more than one parish was, of course, not something the Church would approve of, and the second one would be invalid if discovered. It is possible, for example, that there was some charitable provision for girls education in a particular parish.

Again however there would seem unlikely to be any gap of as long as 18 months since suspicions would be aroused as to why the child hadn't already been baptised.

I suspect however that the most likely cause of the duplicate baptisms in the records is that the records may include both originals and transcripts.

Every christening, marriage and burial was entered in the Parish Records. Every year the churchwardens were responsible for making transcripts. A transcript was a copy of every entry in the past year, and they had to be sent to the bishop, or to the archdeacon, or both, and in some cases to other authorities. The fact cited by OP that his data usually has the second event 6 to 18 months after the first is suggestive. The practice in the locality may have been to send a full years transcript within six months of the end of the year, or at least that is when the Archdeacon etc entered them in his own records.

It is possible that your data includes parish records and transcripts, with only the date of notification in the transcript. Not all parish records have survived and  so sometimes the transcript may be the only record.

Where the same date is given for a christening/baptism service in more than one church, it is likely that the service occured in a chapel of ease or district chapel. These are official Church of England churches, but which are not the main church of the parish. In such cases the event was recorded immediately in the log book of the church where it occurred and then as soon as convenient afterwards would also be entered in the parish records, maintained at the parish church. In this way the event would be recorded in two plavces (quite apart from subsequent transcription).  But there wouldonly have been one event. This was particularly common in the north where parishes tended to be larger.


Do any church fathers interpret Luke 18:17 as teaching the necessity of infant baptism?

Yes – in a letter to Augustine, Pope Innocent I interprets this passage as supporting the teaching that the baptism of infants is necessary for their salvation.  He writes:

  That other doctrine which your Fraternity claims that [Pelagius and other heretics] preach, that little children can attain the reward of eternal life without the grace of baptism, is very foolish.  [...] Those who claim this for them without regeneration seem to me to wish to nullify baptism, since they teach that these children have what they believe is not to be bestowed on them in baptism even by themselves.  If, then, they do not wish anything to stand in their way, let them confess that there is no need of rebirth and that the sacred stream of regeneration has no effect.  But in order to disarm the vicious doctrine of vain men by the swift reasoning of truth, the Lord proclaims this in the Gospel by saying: "Suffer the little children and forbid them not to come to me." (Letter 182, January 27, 417)


How are Christians expected to live up to the standards of following Christ?

All Men Are Sinners

After Adam sinned, the human race was corrupted, and everyone born was born separate from God.  (Genesis 2:15-17, 3:1-24, 8:21, Romans 5:12, 3:10-18, James 2:10-11)  Even a man's "righteous" deeds, prayers, sacrifices, etc. are offensive to God in that state!  (Isaiah 64:6, Isaiah 59:1-2, Proverbs 28:9, 15:8)  NOTE: Christians generally believe that this is why Jesus had to be born of a virgin - the sinless sacrifice of Jesus was essential to God's plan. (Luke 1:26-35, Hebrews 4:15, 1 Peter 2:21-23)

  "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23, NASB)

This is a major problem which earns us eternity in Hell.  (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9, Revelation 20:11-15, 21:1,10,27)

God's Redemptive Plan

God had a plan for redemption though, and immediately began reaching out to mankind, foreshadowing the coming of Jesus, and encouraging people to return to Him and trust Him for their salvation.  (Genesis 3:21, Hebrews 10:1-10, Romans 7:7, Galatians 3:24, Colossians 2:16-17)  In God's love, He sent His only Son to come and pay the penalty for our sin - death.  (John 3:16, Romans 5:8, 2 Corinthians 5:21)  In fact, not only was justice served, but those who belong to Christ actually have their sins removed. (1 John 1:7, 3:5, Psalm 103:12, Isaiah 43:25, Hebrews 10:14)  This fixes the "problem".  (Romans 6:23, 8:1)

"Life in Christ"...?

There are essentially three things which define the life of someone who is "in Christ":

Living in submission to His Lordship (Matthew 7:21, Romans 6:22)
Walking in His love (John 13:35, 1 John 4:7-8, Luke 10:25-28)
Being led by His Spirit (Romans 8:9, 13-14)

(With some understanding it becomes clear they are all the same thing.)

  "and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf."  (2 Corinthians 5:15, NASB)

It is important to note, though, that God's will is often different than what we think is good.  (Isaiah 55:8)  If God has called you to work in a factory, but you lock yourself away in an Abbey somewhere, you are in disobedience.  (1 Thessalonians 4:11, Hebrews 5:4, 1 Corinthians 7:17)  If God calls you to rebuke someone, but you shrink back, you are in disobedience.  (2 Samuel 12:1-15, Hebrews 10:38)

Crossing Over

A life "in Christ" is the opposite of a life "outside of Christ".  (1 Peter 4:1-5)  So to "repent", or "convert" is to die to your old life and live for Him.  (Acts 17:30, Romans 6:6, Galatians 2:20)  This death involves turning everything over to Him.  (Luke 14:27-33, Galatians 5:17,24)  This is a drastic decision that can only truly be made out of sincere sorrow for our old life of offense to God.  (2 Corinthians 7:10)

  "For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls. "  (1 Peter 2:25, NASB)

Judge Yourself

It is good for us to consider carefully whether we are "in Christ".  (2 Corinthians 13:5)  Have I surrendered my life to the Lord?  (Luke 17:33)  Do I desire to do His will above my own?  (Matthew 6:10, 26:42) Am I living ("dying") this way daily?  (Luke 9:23, 1 Corinthians 15:31)

We all make mistakes, but God is patient and forgiving toward His people.  (James 3:2, Nehemiah 9:17, James 5:16, 1 John 2:1)  The question is - are we sincerely trying to follow Christ out of a serious repentance and love?  (Hebrews 10:26)  If we are, God will honor that.  (Proverbs 24:12, Jonah)


Yes, there was / is / will be a war in heaven, as described in Revelation 12:7-9:

  Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down – that ancient snake called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

But the specifics of when that might be in relation to Earth history (or even if that makes sense from a heavenly perspective) is speculation, this side of eternity.

Some of the speculation includes:

During creation: see Bye's answer
During Jesus' earthly ministry: compare Revelation 12:9 with Luke 10:18
At some unspecified point in the future, taking the futurist interpretation of Revelation. (This interpretation implies that Satan is more active on Earth than currently, directly causing suffering to humans (see eg Revelation 13).

To your numbered points:

The Bible does not specify or even hint as to when the angels were created.
Isaiah 14:12-13 is believed by many Christians to hint that Satan wanted to be like God.
We know about the war but not when it was, see above.
This story is detailed in Genesis 3.
Job 1-2.
See Revelation 20:1-3. Many Christians believe in a literal 1000 year reign of Jesus on Earth during which Satan is bound (the Millennium).
Detailed a few verses later, Revelation 20:7-10.
See above passage.


What is the origin of the "in sæcula sæculorum" of the «Gloria Patri» being translated as "world without end"?

The Vulgate Psalm 83:5 has saecula saeculorum, so I suppose a useful starting point would be an Anglo-Saxon psalter, as these did exist whereas vernacular Bibles didn't; but I can't find one online.

Wycliffe (around 1390) translated Ps 84:5† into Late Middle English as "into the worlds of worlds", which is a fairly literal rendering of the Latin.

Tyndale (1494–1536) didn't complete the Old Testament, but he translated Rev 1:6 (where the Vulgate again has saecula saeculorum) into Early Modern English as "for evermore".

The earliest readily-available English psalter after Tyndale is Myles Coverdale's (1537) who translates Ps 84:5 as "alway".

The Gloria Patri itself comes from the Hours of the Divine Office and would not have appeared in any English book before an English prayer book was mandated by the 1549 Act of Uniformity. The probable culprit for "world without end" is Cranmer, who prepared the Prayer Book of 1549.

† The different numbering comes from the Septuagint. This may indicate that the translation is closer to the Hebrew than the Latin.


Why didn't Jesus want the demon possessed people to tell who he was?

Demons can say pretty much whatever they want, lying or telling the truth as it suits them.

Jesus had already been accused of consorting with demons by such groups as the Sanhedrin (for example, in Matthew 12:24). He refuted those claims, of course, but they kept coming up, so it's likely that at least some people believed them. In that context, a demon claiming that Jesus was the Messiah would have hurt him much more than it helped. His enemies could not only have handwaved it as a lie, they could claim that Jesus had commanded it to lie "to help its master." So commanding them to tell the truth would have done no good. Even if he hadn't commanded them to tell the truth, they could have said it anyway, precisely because it would have hurt him.

So the truth was no good. But it would have been grossly out of Jesus's character to command the demons to lie, and ultimately, it wouldn't have done any good anyway. If they'd said that Jesus was their master, then his enemies would try to claim that this was, in fact, the truth. If they claimed he was an ordinary person -which would have been obviously untrue to anyone nearby- it would have cast more suspicion on him even without anybody saying anything. There is also, of course, the possibility that they could have lied without being commanded, again because it would have hurt him.

In short, anything a demon said would have been used against Jesus, one way or another. He could not allow them to tell the truth, and he could not allow them to lie, so he took a third option: he didn't let them say anything. It was the only way to avoid getting trapped by their words.


What does "Jesus did not commit himself unto them" (John 2:24) mean?

There is some fun linguistic gymnastics going on there and two things are being played off of each other.

First, remember that Jesus was fully God and he was omniscient* and knew the hearts of men. He knew what people were thinking even when they didn't say it.

Now note that while your question is in 24, the play here starts in verse 23. Let's look at these two verses again:

  John 2:24-25 (ESV)
  Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.

When we believe in Christ and choose to follow Him, we entrust ourselves to him.

Even though our English translations usually use different wording for thse two verses, in the Greek original both "believed" in verse 23 and "commit" (KVJ) or "entrust" (ESV) in verse 24 are the same root word πιστεύω (pisteuō) that is widely translated as 'believe'.

In other words, Jesus knew that something was wrong in their hearts in spite of their profession of faith.

* Actually in his role as the Son there were things he chose not to know because there were rights that he voluntarily surrendered in order to fulfill his calling, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he knew mens hearts.


Why did Mary and Joseph look for an inn?

Perhaps, it seems that you might think there were other options available to them. There simply were not.

In those times, and until very recently actually, women birthed their children at home (or where ever they were comfortable (ie. by the river, a relative's home, etc.)). Also, the idea and treatment of pregnancy and birthing as a medical condition is very modern and very western.

Women also didn't really have the choice to go to the hospital. Most cities worldwide did not even have them! And Bethlehem was a little backyard town.

So Mary and Joseph had only a few options really:

Relative's or friend's home
Inn
Wilderness

The first two were apparently unavailable and the third seems less comfortable and safe than the manger.

Source:

The History of Hospitals
"The shift to hospital births started in the 20th century."
"At the time, Bethlehem’s population was between five and six hundred people." (Not a bad size for an ancient town, but certainly not big enough to spend the resources for a hospital)
AiG makes the claim that Jesus was born in a peasant's home, which looked a lot like today's barns.


Does the Evangelical Free Church allow women elders?

Error: When I wrote this up I, I had misread the question and focused my answer on the office of Deacon. I will need to revise this to focus on the office of Elder. It won't be substantially different but there are a few extra considerations.

There is not a very clear answer to this question, but the statement on the CBE seems to beyond the scope of documentation coming from the EFCA itself.

The terminology used in the EFCA is a little bit confusing. You have the common monikers of "Ordination", "Elder" and "Deacon", but you also have the terminology of "Credentialing" (not at all the same as "Licensure" in Reformed circles) and various forms of "ministry" that have qualifications but do not require ordination.

Relevant to this issue is something the EFCA calls a Certificate of Christian Ministry:

  The primary purpose of the Certificate of Christian Ministry (CCM) is to identify theological proficiency. (This expands on the License, which focuses on theological competency and alignment with the EFCA, and is distinguished from the Certificate of Ordination, which focuses on theological mastery.)

(source: Certificate of Christian Ministry, 2008 EFCA Statement of Faith)

This so called CCM can be issued to both men and women:

  Who can be credentialed? Can a woman be credentialed?
  Any who are in a qualifying ministry and fulfill the requirements as stated in “Steps” can be credentialed. This means women serving in local church staff positions can receive the Certificate of Christian Ministry. (The Certificate of Ordination is reserved for men who are qualified, as the EFCA Conference determined our national credentialing process would be complementarian.) Because of the importance of credentialing to the local church ministry and the EFCA, all women serving in qualifying ministries ought to be encouraged to be credentialed.

(source: EFCA Credentialing FAQ)

This is distinct from a Certificate of Ordination which only men may hold:

  The ordination credential may be issued to candidates who:

  Are male in gender;

(source: Credentialing: Certificate of Ordination)

So far those procedures are pretty standardized. The remaining question is what kind of certification is necessary to hold the office of deacon. This is where things get foggy. Is a Certificate of Christian Ministry enough or must one be Ordained?

The answer is, unfortunately, you don't actually need either, although the former is highly encouraged. EFCA churches are considered to be somewhat autonomous and each have their own constitution. You can see in the sample constitution that what offices a local church even consists of is something that a local church could amend. They are encouraged to change as little as possible here, but that doesn't mean that all local churches will have the same church governance structure. The exact role of Deacons is notably not well defined by the denomination.

The EFCA lumps Deacons in as part of the "Church Board" responsible for governance of the church (along with the Pastor and Elders), but they also draw a distinction between them, often citing "Elders/Overseers/Pastors" as one thing and "Deacons" as something different (along with different verses used to define their qualifications).

Likewise strange to me, EFCA churches often allow non credentialed people into ministry roles (including holding titles of Pastor and Elder) before having completed (or even without) their credentialing process.

One hint can be found in the Credentialing FAQ cited above (emphasis mine):

  Scripture clearly teaches that each believer has been given a grace-gift in order to serve our Lord and His Church. In addition, some believers have received the call of God upon their lives for vocational ministry and have been given grace-gifts for the task of preparing God’s people to carry out the works of service which build up the body of Christ. It is those in vocational
  ministry which God Himself has chosen and appointed and which the local church affirms, and is subsequently recognized by the EFCA by the act of the laying on of hands and the granting of an EFCA credential.

In other words the credentialing process can be done post hoc in recognition of those already called to vocational ministry. This may or may not include Elders, much less Deacons. Local churches are encouraged to have their ministry staff pursue the credentialing process, but it is not necessarily a given. In particular, the requirements for credentialing define vocational ministry as at least 30 hours a week of compensated ministry time. Exceptions are made particularly for bi-vocational ministers because the importance of the credentialing process is stressed over other particulars, but the fact remains that it is not a strict requirement at all unless the local church makes it so.

In short, you cannot learn whether a woman may serve as a deacon in an EFCA church based on any ordination or certification requirements. The certification requirements are valid for woman, and neither ordination or certification is actually required. The ordination process is for men only, but according to denomination minimum standards a woman could serve with the title of "youth pastor" and receive a Certificate of Christian Ministry rather than a Certificate of Ordination.

It seems quite likely to me that any given local congregation might be confused on the exact difference between ordination and certification. A deacon might be hold a certificate of ministry and installed by the local church but that isn't actually the formal definition of ordination.

Conclusion

One can definitely say that according to EFCA standards those ordained for Ministry of the Word, especially to include lead Pastors, must be of the male persuasion. This is traditionally understood to also include Elders (who may be ordained if ministry roles call for it but are at least encouraged to hold a Certificate of Christian Ministry). On the other hand woman are clearly allowed to hold a CCM and participate in staff positions including vocational ministry, even hold the title of Pastor (in the context or Youth Pastor, Counseling Pastor or other administrative roles) but not that of a Lead Pastor. Whether the office of Deacon is seen as part of a Ministry of the Word and thus limited to men or whether it includes other acts of ministry is something decided on by the local church and hence their gender requirements may vary.


According to the doctrine of the LDS Church what is man's relationship with God

I like your question.  It is well thought out and sincere.  As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I strive to have a close relationship with my God. I will answer your questions to the best of my ability in the order they were asked.  I will refer to hymns in my answer because they often convey the doctrine simply and beautifuly.

According to the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints what is man's relationship with God?

Although we believe God is our Father, He is our God who is just and who is merciful. If we offend our God, justice will have hold on us until we repent through the Atonement of Christ. That being said, God does not want us to fail, we were sent to earth to get what we couldn't as Spirits (a body and experience) and then work our way back and prove our selves. God's whole work and Glory is the "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39).

As a parent, I understand this concept a lot better. I have children, and I love them and I want the best for them, however, I cannot stop bad things from happening to them, nor would I want to all the time, for how would they learn?  When they are disobedient, they are punished, when they are obedient they are blessed. All children have a different relationship with their parents. One may not be so good, another better.  Our relationship with Him is what we make of it. If we ignore Him, He still loves us, but won't push His way into our lives. If we allow him in we will build trust and a strong relationship with him.

Specifically what does the LDS church teach about God's view of man and how man should view God?

God the Father is the Supreme Being in whom we believe and whom we worship. He is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things. He is perfect, has all power, and knows all things. He “has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's” (D&C 130:22).

We believe that while Christ was on the earth, he was trying to teach us who God is and what He is like (John 5:30). The First Principle of the Gospel is to know for a certainty the character of God, who we come to know through living Christlike Life. I recommend you listen to Elder Holland's talk entitled "The Grandeur of God" He answers this question clearly and perfectly.

How are God and man related?

We believe that God is our Father, and we are His children. One of the most sung hymns in the church is "I Am a Child of God" The lyrics to verse 1 are as follows:

  I am a child of God, And he has sent me here, Has given me an earthly home With parents kind and dear. Chorus: Lead me, guide me, walk beside me, Help me find the way. Teach me all that I must do To live with him someday.

And "Oh my Father", Only verse 1, but follow the link for more:

  O my Father, thou that dwellest
  In the high and glorious place,
  When shall I regain thy presence
  And again behold thy face?
  In thy holy habitation,
  Did my spirit once reside?
  In my first primeval childhood
  Was I nurtured near thy side?

Scriptures referenced in the hymns: Romans 8:16-17, Acts 17:28-29 (22-31),       Psalm 82:6, Mosiah 4:15, Doctrine and Covenants 14:7


What is Thomas Aquinas' perspective on salvation for baptized heretics who believe in the Trinity?

As far as what's necessary for salvation, we'd have to start with Baptism:

  Men are bound to that without which they cannot obtain salvation. Now it is manifest that no one can obtain salvation but through Christ; wherefore the Apostle says (Rom. 5:18): "As by the offense of one unto all men unto condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men unto justification of life." But for this end is Baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be incorporated in Christ, by becoming His member: wherefore it is written (Gal. 3:27): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ." Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men.

(Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 68 Article 1)

Note, however, that Aquinas recognizes the possibility of "baptism by desire":

  the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly.

(Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 68 Article 2)

The other Sacraments, Aquinas says, are necessary in certain situations, but not absolutely necessary to salvation.

The biggie, however, which interferes here is that Aquinas does state specifically that "there is no entering into salvation outside the Church" (S.T. Third Part, Question 73, Article 3). This will be a big problem, considering that heretics are ipso facto cut off from the Church.

In fact Aquinas is quite severe on heretics. He does believe that they should be allowed one opportunity to repent—but only one; and if they don't repent, or if they fall away a second time, they should be put to death:

  On the part of the Church ... there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death.

(S.T., Second Part of the Second Part, Question 11, Article 3)

Aquinas says nothing that I can find to indicate that he considers any particular heresies less noxious than others; I'd have to conclude that Aquinas believes that any heretic (and he would probably count those professing Protestant beliefs as heretics) should be given an opportunity to recant; but failing that, they should be handed over to the State to be put to death.


Why Jesus taught differently on “sin and treating sinners” as compared to Old Testament?

In the 10th chapter of The Pursuit of God, A. W. Tozer says this:

  Here are the facts as I see them. For four hundred years Israel had dwelt in Egypt, surrounded by the crassest idolatry. By the hand of Moses they were brought out at last and started toward the land of promise. The very idea of holiness had been lost to them. To correct this, God began at the bottom. He localized Himself in the cloud and fire and later when the tabernacle had been built He dwelt in fiery manifestation in the Holy of Holies. By innumerable distinctions God taught Israel the difference between holy and unholy. There were holy days, holy vessels, holy garments. There were washings, sacrifices, offerings of many kinds. By these means Israel learned that God is holy. It was this that He was teaching them. Not the holiness of things or places, but the holiness of Jehovah was the lesson they must learn.

Thus, the Law was partly intended to teach the Israelites - who followed the Most Holy God - what was holy and what was not. Like you mention, Jesus took this one step further and made clear that sin included not just one's external actions but also one's own inner, private thoughts. Basically, He took the Law that was extremely hard to keep (being a full-time job) and made it effectively impossible to keep.

The Law that God gave Moses was also part of the covenant between God and Israel. This site covers the topic nicely and succinctly, but to summarize: 1) the Israelites' end of the agreement was to follow the Law completely, 2) God described in great detail how He would punish the nation if they failed to keep the Law, and 3) God promised to establish a new covenant.

As shown in Judges, Israel got themselves into a cycle of falling into idolatry, getting punished, crying out to God for help and repenting, being rescued, having a good time and worshiping God, and then falling back into idolatry a generation or two later. Every time the Israelites disregarded the Law and God's commands, people died. Every time a person was caught willfully breaking the Law, they died.

The Law brings death, not life.

  2 Corinthians 3:6 (NIV)

  6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

God, being who He is, couldn't very well let this go on forever. And so, He sent His Son Jesus, who is life, life, life! Jesus came so the Father could show mercy, which is repeatedly mentioned throughout the New Testament.

On one hand, Jesus made the Law even harder to follow, effectively impossible to keep perfectly. That was to show that no one can satisfy God and His commands completely. On the other hand, Jesus also came to establish a new covenant, and it is one we keep not by good works, but by faith. Thus, peoples' actions mattered less than their hearts for Him. That was why He advocated a more-lenient justice system, one that included forgiveness.

God promised to the Israelites a new covenant, Jesus came to establish it, and in the process, made the old one, the Law, obsolete.

  Hebrews 8:13 (NIV)
  13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

In summary, the reasons Jesus advocated these changes from the Old Testament that you mentioned are: 1) to make the Law effectively impossible to keep and 2) to show mercy and give life, and in the process of doing so, He made obsolete the Law based on works and instituted a new one based on faith.


During Catholic confirmation, what criteria should be used to choose a saint?

Your instincts are good. I found this answer here:

  The custom of adopting a saint’s name at confirmation was done in
  order to adopt the saint as a special heavenly patron or to honor a
  saint to whom one had a special devotion. In short, the purpose was to
  give the confirmand the opportunity to develop his understanding of
  and reliance on the communion of saints.

In my own case I chose Joseph as my confirmation name because we had a neighbor that was a good Catholic role model named Joseph (he was our boy scout troop leader) and I also thought Mary's husband didn't get enough devotion.

Apparently some parishes no longer ask you to chose a confirmation name. I think that's sad. Misplaced liturgical "reform".


According to Calvinists, does God command the non-elect to do what is for them impossible?

Monstrous surely is the madness of the human mind, that it is more disposed to charge God with unrighteousness than to blame itself for blindness.

Before answering positively, allow me to object to the scripture you cited as an argument to the contrary. The passage 1 Corinthians 10:13, cannot be interpreted to mean that God only commands men that which they are able to attain.
First, the passage does not refer to a command in the nature of your question, but rather to temptation. The distinction is important. A command originates in the holiness of God, while a temptation originates in the aberration of sin. However, to give you the benefit of the doubt, suppose that the passage did say that no command would be given except that which could be followed.
The audience to which the passage was written was not a universal one, and so you ought not apply universally. Paul addresses his letter thus,

To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and our:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

That is, the letter is written to the Church in Corinth, and the Body of Christ elsewhere. So, the “you” in the passage you cited cannot be generalized beyond that. Then, even if it says that God will not command “you” in a manner “you” cannot follow, “you” here can only mean the Church.
In the passage, Paul has just recounted to the Church, in light of his concern regarding wickedness among them (e.g, 3:4, 5:1, ), of the judgements upon the wicked in Israel, that his elect among them might be preserved, according to his promise to Abraham and for the redemption of the gentiles, among whom they were counted. And so in like manner the passage is an encouragement to the whole church, that as his people then were preserved among those trials while the wicked were purged from among them, God is still faithful to preserve the elect.
Now, the converse, is not as you suggest, that God is unjust to offer a command that the wicked cannot attain, but rather that God would be unfaithful to his promise if he were to allow his Church to be overcome. And since it cannot be said that God is in any sense unfaithful, we are assured of the perseverance of the Church.
Since I have addressed the passage, let me address the question you actually asked.
Does God, according to Calvinism, command people He has specifically given neither the ability nor choice to do so to repent and believe in Christ or be damned?
The call to repentance is universal. In his commentary on Acts 17:30, Calvin reiterates Paul’s teaching,

In these words Paul teacheth that we must give ear to God so soon as he speaketh, as it is written, “Today, if ye will hear his voice harden not your hearts,” ( Psalms 95:7; Hebrews 3:7.) For the stubbornness of those men is without excuse, who neglect this opportunity when God doth gently call them unto him. Also, we gather out of this place to what end the gospel is preached, to wit, that God may gather us to himself from the former errors of our life. Therefore, so oft as the voice of the gospel doth sound in our ears, let us know that God doth exhort us unto repentance.

And again he confirms the universal call to repentance in his commentary on Romans 3:23,

He urges on all, without exception, the necessity of seeking righteousness in Christ; as though he had said, “There is no other way of attaining righteousness; for some cannot be justified in this and others in that way; but all must alike be justified by faith, because all are sinners, and therefore have nothing for which they can glory before God.”

Now, since it is clear both that the call to repentance is universal, and also that not all repent, it is certain that God commands of many an act with which they cannot comply, by their will or ability. So, to answer your question in the affirmative, the command is made to all, and can be attained by none, so indeed God commands both the elect and the reprobate alike to repentance though they have neither the ability nor choice.
The nature of the question though, I conclude, is whether God makes the command, knowing full well that they are unable to comply- that is, you ask not “Does God do so?” because you already know the answer, but rather, “How does God do so justly?” I’ll continue after reminding you that one need not visit Calvin for an answer, but simply look to Paul’s answer to this very question in Roman’s 9.

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

You might also consider Calvin’s discussion of your very question in “A Treatise of the Eternal Predestination of God,”

For, pretending a great concern for the honour of God, they bark at us, as imputing to Him a cruelty utterly foreign to His nature. Pighius denies that he has any contest with God. What cause, or whose cause is it, then, that Paul maintains? After he had adopted the. above axiom--that God hardens whom He will and has mercy on whom He will--he subjoins the supposed taunt of a wicked reasoner: " Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will? " (Rom. ix. 19.) He meets such blasphemy as this by simply setting against it the power of God. If those clothe God with the garment of a tyrant, who refer the hardening of men even to His eternal counsel, we most certainly are not the originators of this doctrine. If they do God an injury who set His will above all other causes, Paul taught this doctrine long before us. Let these enemies of God, then, dispute the matter with the apostle. For I maintain nothing, in the present discussion, but what I declare is taught by him. About these barking dogs, however, I would not be very anxious.

So how can God condemn them if they are not free to choose?
The reprobate, though depraved, are not automatons. Though their will is not free because of their nature, the vice of the wicked is voluntary.   In Book 2 of his Institutes, Calvin writes

Another objection [to predestination] is founded on a mode of speaking which is constantly observed both in Scripture and in common discourse. God works are said to be ours, and we are said to do what is holy and acceptable to God, just as we are said to commit sin. But if sins are justly imputed to us, as proceeding from ourselves, for the same reason (say they) some share must certainly be attributed to us in works of righteousness. It could not be accordant with reason to say, that we do those things which we are incapable of doing of our own motion, God moving us, as if we were stones. These expressions, therefore, it is said, indicate that while, in the matter of grace, we give the first place to God, a secondary place must be assigned to our agency.

In addition, their condemnation is not from their actions alone, but they are guilty of the very sin of Adam.

For whence that impotence of which the wicked so readily avail themselves as an excuse, but just because Adam voluntarily subjected himself to the tyranny of the devil? Hence the corruption by which we are held bound as with chains, originated in the first man’s revolt from his Maker. If all men are justly held guilty of this revolt, let them not think themselves excused by a necessity in which they see the clearest cause of their condemnation. […] The second step in the reasoning is vicious, because it leaps from voluntary to free; whereas we have proved above, that a thing may be done voluntarily, though not subject to free choice.

So ultimately, the premise of your question that men ought to be inculpable because of their depravity is circular, because their depravity is the result of Adam’s choice, which was truly free. And their own wills, through him depraved, are carried out in wickedness in their own bodies voluntarily. Their choice to sin is inseparable from Adam’s, which was free.
Why?
Again, Paul clearly explains the reason thusly: the default is condemnation, because God is just. And the reason that he spares some is plainly evident: to demonstrate his mercy. If we had the light of the Spirit, which by the Law uncovers our feebleness beside a holy God, we ought not think “Why is it that God condemns some, though they cannot in their own power repent?”, but to the contrary, “Why is it that God has redeemed some, though they are deserving of the same condemnation as the whole lot?”
Calvin concludes his discussion of the “difficulty” of the injustice of God,

In order to remove this difficulty, Paul divides his subject into two parts; in the, former of which he speaks of the elect, and in the latter of the reprobate; and in the one he would have us to contemplate the mercy of God, and in the other to acknowledge his righteous judgment. His first reply is, that the thought that there is injustice with God deserves to be abhorred, and then he shows that with regard to the two parties, there can be none.
But before we proceed further, we may observe that this very objection clearly proves, that inasmuch as God elects some and passes by others, the cause is not to be found in anything else but in his own purpose; for if the difference had been based on works, Paul would have to no purpose mentioned this question respecting the unrighteousness of God, no suspicion could have been entertained concerning it if God dealt with every one according to his merit. It may also, in the second place, be noticed, that though he saw that this doctrine could not be touched without exciting instant clamours and dreadful blasphemies, he yet freely and openly brought it forward; nay, he does not conceal how much occasion for murmuring and clamour is given to us, when we hear that before men are born their lot is assigned to each by the secret will of God; and yet, notwithstanding all this, he proceeds, and without any subterfuges, declares what he had learned from the Holy Spirit. It hence follows, that their fancies are by no means to be endured, who aim to appear wiser than the Holy Spirit, in removing and pacifying offences. That they may not criminate God, they ought honestly to confess that the salvation or the perdition of men depends on his free election. Were they to restrain their minds from unholy curiosity, and to bridle their tongues from immoderate liberty, their modesty and sobriety would be deserving of approbation; but to put a restraint on the Holy Spirit and on Paul, what audacity it is! Let then such magnanimity ever prevail in the Church of God, as that godly teachers may not be ashamed to make an honest profession of the true doctrine, however hated it may be, and also to refute whatever calumnies the ungodly may bring forward.


What is the significance of the donkey Jesus rode on Palm Sunday?

Yair Zakovitch, as cited by Bruce Feiler in Abraham, page 89, has considered the significance of the donkey. He explains:

  Look, the Gospels are a very good piece of Jewish literature, and they understand that one cannot have a messianic leader who is not Davidic.  If you want to convince the Jews that Jesus is the one, he has to be linked with David.  He has to fulfill the prophecies.  A messiah king has to be born in Bethlehem, he has to come to Jerusalem.  Sure enough, when Jesus enters Jerusalem he enters on a donkey, because that's what we read in Zechariah 9.


Trying to find information on a crucifix found whilst metal detecting

just an update on the cross I found.
The British Museum have reviewed it and come back with their findings. It is taking an age to further process due to Covid. The artefact has been declared as treasure. They however appear a little lost in defining it's exact age, given the age mix of the design attributes/styles.
They are not aware of anything else which is similar. Some attributes are "romanesque", some are akin to 13th Century design, some potentially 16th Century design. They do believe that it was once gilded with trace elements of mercury and gold having been found on it. The silver content is 93-95%. The loop has a lower lead level than the rest which suggests that although it was added later, it was not much later. They have declared the age to be anywhere from 1200-1700, even though their are Romanesque attributes.
As it is more than 10% precious metal and at least 300 years old, they have classed it as an item of treasure, under the Treasure Act of 1996. The cross is with the coroner waiting to have its day in court when they will decide if it will be compulsory purchased by the Museum or returned to the finder and Land Owner. I will update the page with the findings of the proceedings when they finally take place.
Kev J.


If the Bible has been changed over the years, can we still trust it?

It's important to understand something about the origins of the Bible. The authors of the various books within it did not sit down to write "The Bible". They intended to write stuff that would be helpful to other people for various reasons: in the case of the Gospels, so people would know the true story of Jesus' life and teachings, and for the letters to instruct the recipients in Christianity. These documents were not collected to form the Biblical Canon until much later, around 400AD.

It is certainly true that there exist manuscripts of New Testament documents (primarily the Gospels and Acts) which show variations. Some either have or have not certain passages: some use slightly different wording. However it is important to note that the vast majority of these 'differences' come from before the period where the documents were collected into 'The Bible'. These differences make a lot of sense. If you have a document that describes the life of Jesus, and you also know of a story that you are certain is true about Jesus, you might well add it in. Of course if people disagreed with you about the validity of the story they would not copy your document.

Once the Biblical canon has been more-or-less defined the variations become much less - again unsurprising, since making changes to the Word of God is a much more serious matter than to a 'true story'. Such differences as exist are likely copying errors.

So TL;DR : No, the Bible has actually changed very little since it became The Bible. Before that there were different manuscripts with some differences, but in reality not a lot of variation.


The original Hebrew term is yam suph, and the correct English translation is Sea of Reeds, as explained by this article:

The translation "Red Sea" is simply a traditional translation introduced into English by the King James Version through the second century BC Greek Septuagint and the later Latin Vulgate.

It is possible that this "Sea of Reeds" was actually the Red Sea, although this is very unlikely, considering the extraordinary logistics that would have been necessary, as the same article explains (with my own emphasis):

Some like to point out the great width of the sea as a further proof of the miraculous nature of the escape, since the Red Sea averages about 150 miles wide.
However, even among those who believe in a more literal perspective of the account of the crossing recognize that this is much too far for a large company to traverse in a single night. The miracle emphasized in the biblical account is the parting of the waters, not the speed at which they crossed or the amount of land covered. It is also a problem that the main body of the Red Sea lies much too far to the south to be reached by a large company of people in such a short span of time. So most would want to contend for the northwestern arm of the Red Sea, the Gulf of Suez, which is only about 17 miles wide at its narrowest point. This would mean a more northerly route for the exodus with a later turn to the south into the Sinai. But this still raises questions of logistics for the large company of people portrayed in the biblical account.

In short:

[T]he simple fact is, we do not know exactly what body of water is referenced by yam suph in Scripture.

I encourage you to read the linked article for a more thorough explanation of the text and geography, and some prominent theories on which bodies of water are considered candidates, as well as the rest of the route the Exodus may have taken.


What was the first translation to transliterate the tetragrammaton?

It would appear that the Septuagint may be the first translation of the ancient Hebrew scriptures to have retained YHWH. Although retaining the Hebrew form of this word is not a transliteration, please bear with me as I explain what happened.

In the time of Ptolomaic rule over Judea (320 to 198 B.C.) many Greek people came in to Judea, their culture influencing the people. This hellenization resulted in a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. It began to be written around 285 B.C. and was finished during the 100s B.C. The Septuagint became the scriptures for Greek speaking Jews of the first century A.D. and the apostle Paul used it when quoting from the Hebrew scriptures, though he never kept the Hebrew YHWH, but wrote Greek for ‘Lord’. This is significant when Paul quoted Hebrew text referring to Yahweh but applied it to Jesus Christ. This was a transliteration. Was it the earliest, the first?

From this link below the claim is made that,

  “In the earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint the Tetragrammaton was
  given in Hebrew letters, which in Greek circles were supposed to be
  Greek and were read πιπι (Field, "Origenis Hexaplorum Quæ Supersunt,"
  i. 90, Oxford, 1875; Herzog-Hauck, l.c. viii. 530; Blau, l.c. p.
  131).”
  http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14346-tetragrammaton

I have no knowledge of whether those earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint were actually Greek and were read πιπι, or not. However, if they were, then that would be a transliteration.

According to the link below, there are ancient Greek manuscripts, such as the Septuagint, proto-masoretic, kaige, translation by Aquila of Sinope, Symmachus the Ebionite, Theodotion and the Hexapla [written by Origen in the first half of the third century A.D.] that contain the Hebrew YHWH or that have it in paleo-Hebrew script. Those would not be transliterations.

However, it is important to note that that particular manuscript fragment in the entry below is a REVISION of the Septuagint, so that the Septuagint original will pre-date it.
It adds that there is a book on this written by Emanuel Tov in 1990: Discoveries in the Judean Desert: VIII. The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr). Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-198263272
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Minor_Prophets_Scroll_from_Nahal_Hever

Now, your question asks about earliest transliterations of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, yet I have written about retaining the Hebrew, not transliterations of it (apart from the possibility of a transliteration into Greek in the link http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14346-tetragrammaton

This is where my final link is of significance.

  The Septuagint represents the first major effort at translating a
  significant religious text from one language into another. It is
  interesting to note that many of the New Testament quotes from the
  Hebrew Bible are taken from the Septuagint. As faithful as the
  Septuagint translators strived to be in accurately rendering the
  Hebrew text into Greek, some translational differences arose. In
  comparing the New Testament quotations of the Hebrew Bible, it is
  clear that the Septuagint was often used. This is the result of the
  fact that by the late 1st century B.C., and especially the 1st century
  A.D. – the Septuagint had “replaced” the Hebrew Bible as the
  Scriptures most people used. Since most people spoke and read Greek as
  their primary language, and the Greek authorities strongly encouraged
  the use of Greek, the Septuagint became much more common than the
  Hebrew Old Testament. The fact that the Apostles and New Testament
  authors felt comfortable, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, in
  using the Septuagint should give us assurance that a translation of
  the original languages of the Bible is still the authoritative Word of
  God.

http://www.gotquestion.org/YHWH.html

Please note how the apostle Paul transliterated his quotations from the Hebrew scriptures where the Tetragrammaton occurred, into the Greek word for ‘Lord’.

Obviously, if another answer gives evidence of the Tetragrammaton being transliterated in manuscripts predating Paul’s writings (all completed before A.D. 70), then my answer will need to be corrected.


How to conduct missionary work through literature

I admittedly did not attend seminary; but ...

The general advice I've heard in homilies (and in at least a few videos by prominent Catholics online) was reminded to me a few weeks back at a Bible study when I mentioned to the group about the pitfalls of arguing God, religion, morality, etc. on Facebook. The advice, in brief, is that our main purpose in communicating with people is communion with them!

Hence, while it may be beneficial at times, under the whims and wisdom of the Holy Spirit, to lob a book at someone's head and walk away, this is not normal evangelization! The normal path entails knowing a person, being in communion with them, and building with them a common relationship with God.

So, unless instructed by the Holy Spirit, more important than lobbing a book at someone is having a beer with them and enjoying manly silence together. As you come to be in communion with that person, and by simply being in communion with that person, you can share your relationship with God with them. If you find a good book for them, it's ideally not a handoff; it's an awkward, metaphoric man-hug.

That is, it's worthwhile to say "I love you man" during the exchange and have a brief awkward conversation afterwards that ultimately ends in "That was awkward. Let's never do that again."

For reference: Dr. Scott Hahn talks about evangelization a good deal on Catholic radio. The general gist of his talks, and explicitly in some cases, talks about the personal, communal, and sometimes cultural connection we need to make with people when evangelizing. A few notables:

The Importance of Personal Sanctity in Evangelization
Avoiding arrogance while evangelizing.
How did Saint Paul Evangelize?


Before I started to research this Bible verse, I held to the explanation given in the New International Version Study Bible:

NIV Study Bible Note: Her sexual attraction for the man, and his headship over her, will become intimate aspects of her life in which she experiences trouble and anguish rather than unalloyed joy and blessing.

Then I found this comment in the New Living Translation Study Bible:

NLT Study Bible Note: Judgment falls on the woman’s unique role of childbearing and on her relationship with her husband.  “And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you (or, and though you will have desire for your husband, he will rule over you): The marriage relationship now included an element of antagonism rather than just security and fulfilment.

Intrigued, I pressed on and found a fuller explanation from the English Standard Version Study Bible:

ESV Study Bible Note: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”  These words from the Lord indicate that there will be an ongoing struggle between the woman and the man for leadership in the marriage relationship. The leadership role of the husband and the complementary relationship between husband and wife that were ordained by God before the fall have now been deeply damaged and distorted by sin.  This especially takes the form of inordinate desire (on the part of the wife) and domineering rule (on the part of the husband).
The Hebrew term here translated “desire” (teshuqah) is rarely found n the OT. But it appears again in Genesis 4:7, in a statement that closely parallels Genesis 3:16 – that is, where the Lord says to Cain, just before Cain’s murder of his brother, that sin’s “desire is for you” (i.e., to master Cain), and that Cain must “rule over it” (which he immediately fails to do, by murdering his brother).
Similarly, the ongoing result of Adam and Eve’s original sin of rebellion against God will have disastrous consequences for their relationship: (1) Eve will have the sinful “desire” to oppose Adam and to assert leadership over him, reversing God’s plan for Adam’s leadership in marriage.  But (2) Adam will also abandon his God-given, pre-fall role of leading, guarding, and caring for his wife, replacing this with his own sinful, distorted desire to “rule” over Eve.  Thus one of the most tragic results of Adam and Eve’s rebellion against God is an ongoing, damaging conflict between husband and wife in marriage, driven by the sinful behaviour of both in rebellion against their respective God-given roles and responsibilities in marriage.

And there I was, thinking that sexual desire was down to hormones.  Seems there is more to these few Hebrew words than meets the eye.
P.S. The reason four people have voted to close your question may be because you have not specified which Christian denomination you want answers from. When you have a moment, please take the Christianity Stack tour to learn more about us:  https://christianity.stackexchange.com/tour  This is how we are different to other sites: How we are different than other sites
Hope that helps!


2 Corinthians 2:15-16 - what does this passage mean?

  2 Corinthians 2:15-16  For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ,
  in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the
  savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto
  life. And who is sufficient for these things?

Paul uses the human faculty of sensation perception through chemicals in the air we know of as odor. He is saying that there is something distinct about Christians that is specifically discernable to God, the unsaved, and to other Christians.

When God perceives us, he is pleased to consider the life of Christ in us as a sweet reminder of all that is Jesus.

When the unsaved perceive us they also are able to detect something of Christ.

  John 3:19  And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the
  world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds
  were evil.

  John 15:19  If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but
  because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the
  world, therefore the world hateth you.

It may be that the unsaved perceive at some level their own eventual doom and see in Christians that which is odious.

It is also possible for a Christian to perceive another Christian like the encounter of a pleasant smell.

Philippians 4:18  But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God.


Are there any Catholic sects which disagree with the sinlessness of Mary?

No.

Mary's freedom from sin since the point of conception, which Catholics celebrate as The Immaculate Conception, was affirmed in a Papal Constitution by Pope Pius IX.

  In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX
  pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first
  instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted
  by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the
  human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."

And Papal Constitutions are binding to all Catholics to whom they are directed:

  Papal Constitutions are ordinations issued by the Roman pontiffs and
  binding those for whom they are issued, whether they be for all the
  faithful or for special classes or individuals.

That said, you can expect that many self-identified Catholics and "Catholic" groups don't believe the doctrine. But, by virtue of the Papal Constitution, they're not "formally recognized by" or "in full communion with" the Catholic Church.

And the importance of the doctrine may be illustrated by the fact that the feast thereof is one of the Holy Days of Obligation in the US.


Which Christian groups prohibit playing cards, and what is their basis for doing so?

Wikipedia offers some reasons why cards, specifically of the "French Design" (that is, a "standard" 52-card deck) might be prohibited, especially by sects which take a fairly strict anti-pagan, or anti-astrological stands:

  Popular legend holds that the composition of a deck of cards has religious, mystical, or astrological significance.[citation needed]

  Thus each suit of 13 cards represents the 13 lunar months of the Earth year. Since the sidereal lunar month may be approximated to 28 days, each deck is equal to 364 days of the year.

  Similarly, the whole deck of 52 cards represents the 52 weeks of the year. Therefore, the whole deck is also equal to 364 days of the year (the positivist calendar) with the four suits corresponding to the four seasons.

  The ace is symbolically “alpha and omega” or “the beginning and end.”

Apparently official Mormon doctrine does (or did?) prohibit playing card games with a standard 52-card deck (Rook is permitted):

  Growing up, conventional playing cards were banned in my home. We only used Rook. One only had to open up “Mormon Doctrine” to see why my parents banned the cards. It reads, “Members of the Church should not belong to bridge or other type of card clubs, and they should neither play cards nor have them in their homes. By cards is meant, of course, the spotted face cards used by gamblers. To the extent that church members play cards they are out of harmony with their inspired leaders. Innocent non-gambling games played with other types of cards, except for the waste of time in many instances, are not objectionable.”

This history of playing cards makes references to several places where card games were prohibited in or near churches--I see no reference to church members being prohibited from playing in other locations.

Summary

It's a common rule among certain, generally more conservative Christian groups, that card games should not be played, and the rule varies a lot in how strictly it is interpreted.  It is also a rule which, like many such rules, has almost certainly been observed more strictly in the past than in the present.

Some groups may go so far as to prohibit all playing cards.

More common is prohibiting the standard 52-card deck. Either because of its association with gambling, or the occult/astrology, apparently.

More common these days is a simple prohibition of gambling games--possibly even when money isn't used.

Anecdote

My parents both grew up in the Nazarene church, my dad the son of a Nazarene pastor.  They were forbidden to drink, dance, and attend movie theaters.  I'm pretty sure I remember my mother telling me she also wasn't allowed to play card games as a child.  The reason, as I understood it, is that cards are used for gambling, so they carry the "appearance of evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22).

I believe my mother played Dutch Blitz as a child, which uses a different deck design.

NOTE: I'm pretty sure the card prohibition is not a Nazarene doctrine; perhaps just her specific church. Google shows multiple references to Nazarene-church-sponsored events where participants are encouraged to bring card games!