Why and how do Creationists agree with microevolution but disagree with the idea of macroevolution

Micro-evolution is variation within a kind and macro-evolution is said to result from a lot of micro-evolution, but it is really a change of "kind".

Variations within a kind indicate that all the genetic information is already available within the species, but through isolation of features, certain characteristics become more prominent.  With the breeding of dogs, this is what takes place--not the creation of new genetic material, but the isolation and selection of the information that is already there.

In Genesis 1, the phrase "according to their own kind" comes up quite a bit.  The word kind, I've heard somewhere, could encompass all members of the dog family, including wolves, coyotes, etc.

Macro-evolution requires new information, a change in the chromosome count (at some point), and is by definition different from variations within a kind.  So, macro-evolution is definitely not a bunch of variations within a kind.  Macro-evolution demands that it break outside of its own kind.  No matter how many variations within a kind occur, with the same chromosome count and isolation or selection of information that exists, no new information is ever created and the chromosome counts never change.

Everything we have ever observed falls into variations within a kind, with no chromosome count change and no new information.  Fruit flies may have extra wings, but the information for wings was already there.  It was just replicated in the wrong spot.  The scientific method of observation and replication confirms that things do reproduce after their own kinds.

Macro-evolution has never been observed.  What we do observe is different kinds in the fossil record.  The assumption that one kind evolved into another is just that--an assumption.  The only evidence is similarity, which is circumstantial evidence at best.  Finding the bones of a species only tells us that the species existed.  It does not tell us it evolved from another.

Again, all observable, repeatable, scientific experimentation confirms that species reproduce after their own kinds.  To blindly accept that species reproduce after other kinds just because other kinds exist is certainly not science.

The creation model says that all kinds were created and reproduce after themselves.  If we ask whether or not the evidence fits this model, it seems pretty clear that it does.  We see "kinds" reproducing after their own kind all the time.  Some variations within a kind go extinct, like the dodo bird and others, but they all reproduce after their own kinds.

The evolution model rests on something that has never been observed despite much experimentation, so it rests on something that is presumed to occur despite science's inability to replicate it.  When all experimentation fails to support a theory, it usually results in the discarding of that theory.  In the case of evolution, however, the philosophical implications appear to be too significant for that to take place.


YES
Basically what you're asking has been asked throughout history.

Job 8:3 NIV
Does God pervert justice? Does the Almighty pervert what is right?

The Saints defend God
Throughout the ages of biblical times, the saints have declared with trumpets the Justice of God.

Job 34:12 NIV
It is unthinkable that God would do wrong, that the Almighty would
pervert justice.
Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A
faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.
2 Thessalonians 1:6
God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you
Isaiah 30:18
Yet the LORD longs to be gracious to you; therefore he will rise up to
show you compassion. For the LORD is a God of justice. Blessed are all
who wait for him!
Isaiah 5:16
But the LORD Almighty will be exalted by his justice, and the holy God
will be proved holy by his righteous acts.

Why isn't God doing anything about the evil?
You may then ask, why is there evil in this world? Why are there murders and why are there evil people?
God declares that He will judge every deed.

Ecclesiastes 3:17
I said to myself, “God will bring into judgment both the righteous and
the wicked, for there will be a time for every activity, a time to
judge every deed.”
Revelation 20:13
The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up
the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to
what they had done.

How can God forgive us, if He is Just?
God has declared all people wicked, so how can He forgive anybody?

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

Well.. isn't that what this entire story is about.

Romans 3:25-26 (NIV)
25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the
shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to
demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left
the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate
his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one
who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.


Is there any truth to the story that Martin Luther claimed he "bought" hell from a priest?

I cannot verify that this specific incident is historical, but it is built on solid fact and is "true" in the sense of legend. The religious and social setting is certainly accurate and it may well have happened. More on this below.

Theology of Indulgences

"Buying pieces of heaven" most likely refers to the Roman Catholic Church's tradition of selling Indulgences. This tradition was based on the belief that a faithful Christian whose sins were forgiven still suffers the consequence of sin and:

  must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state
  called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the
  "temporal punishment" of sin (Catechism of the Catholic Church).

From Wikipedia

  It may reduce the "temporal punishment for sin" after death, in the
  state or process of purification called purgatory.

Wikipedia's article is based on Edward N. Peters in A Modern Guide to Indulgences: Rediscovering This Often-Misinterpreted Teaching and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

"Buying a Piece of Heaven"

Thus, when parishioners paid one hundred coins for an Indulgence, they believed they were "buying a piece of heaven." The parishioners were illiterate peasants who barely had enough for the necessities of life. Martin Luther felt they were manipulated by the church to pay for their own salvation and the salvation of their loved ones; he was outraged. Luther was an educated priest who could read the Bible. He believed salvation was free and that the Church was ripping off the peasants to line its own pockets.

It is not for me to judge the RCC's motivations and theology regarding Indulgences. However, judging from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the concept of "buying a piece of heaven" is a crude interpretation of the Church's theology, so crude as to be called a misunderstanding. All the same, it was possibly the only way the illiterate peasant farmers could understand the complex theology of Indulgences, familiar as they might have been with buying a piece of land. From there, it would have been but a tiny step to say that Luther "bought hell"; it's merely bringing in Luther's "free salvation" theology in the language of Indulgences.

The Nature of a Folk Legend

As stated, I cannot verify that this story is historically true, though "buying hell" would have spoken to the people's fear of hell and their obligation to buy Indulgences for salvation. Janez Usenik, a writer on Quora, calls this story "an anecdote circulating in some places" and:

  fictional propaganda story that meant to demonstrate how protestants
  were wiser and better than the catholics

Usenik provides no documentation but I remember my father telling the story when I was growing up in the 1960's; he may have read it somewhere since we were Mennonite and not Lutheran. That is the nature of legends; they are stories that are told and retold down through the generations, sometimes written down, but can never be actually documented and pinned to a specific time and place.

In The Guardian's article Thank Martin Luther for exposing the church’s great salvation sell-off, Giles Fraser may also be referring to this story, though he does not say it in so many words. He mentions a "letter of protest."

  Martin Luther was an unknown monk in an ecclesiastical backwater
  before he wrote Albert a letter of protest. People in the pews were
  being ripped off. And worse still, the church was twisting authentic
  Christian theology for financial gain. Salvation wasn’t for the church
  to buy and sell. First, it was free. And second, it was entirely the
  gift of God. The letter was sent on 31 October 1517, and, as legend
  has it, nailed to the door of All Saints, Wittenberg.

It is unclear whether "the letter of protest" was a cover letter to accompany the 95 Theses, or whether Fraser called the 95 Theses themselves a letter of protest. The 95 Theses are well-documented and historical, according to the Waterloo Lutheran Seminary where I studied in the early 2000's.

95 Theses

From Wikipedia:

  The Ninety-five Theses or Disputation on the Power of Indulgences
  is a list of propositions for an academic disputation written in 1517
  by Martin Luther, professor of moral theology at the University of
  Wittenberg, Germany. They advance Luther's positions against what he
  saw as the abuse of the practice of clergy selling plenary
  indulgences, which were certificates believed to reduce the temporal
  punishment in purgatory for sins committed by the purchasers or their
  loved ones. (Emphasis added.)

This ties together the idea of buying Indulgences for money, and that a certificate represents (is) the Indulgence. In other words, the story in the Question says the priest gave Martin Luther a certificate when he paid for Hell. My point: It was normal for the priest to give the purchaser of an Indulgence a certificate upon purchase. We might call it a proof of purchase.

For more background on the religious situation of the time, go to this page and scroll down to "The 95 Theses: Martin Luther Challenges the Church."


Is falling to the floor during blessings or prayers supported in Roman Catholic doctrine?

Falling down could be a sign of possession, especially if it is a sort of fall that injures oneself.

In the New Testament, προσπίτνω is often translated as "to fall down," whether it be demons falling down before Christ (e.g., Mk 3:11) or a penitent sinner falling down in resignation to Christ (e.g., Mk 5:33). It could mean "to kneel," although "γόνυ ἐπουράνιος" (to bend the knee; cf. Phil. 2:10) means more properly "kneeling" or "genuflecting" (that latter word literally means "knee-bending").

St. Jerome translates προσπίτνω as procido, which carries the sense of prostration (lying face-down in adoration). This is used, for example, in the ordination rite for priests:

cf. also the nine ways of prayer of St. Dominic


Does the Anglican Church teach that faithful are immediately reunited with loved ones?

In the 'before the funeral' section of 'Ministry at the Time of Death'
on the Church of England's website, there is the following paragraph within a prayer which is advised to be prayed with relatives at home, prior to attending the funeral :

May we then go forward eagerly to meet our redeemer
and, after our life on earth,
be reunited with all our brothers and sisters
in that place where every tear is wiped away
and all things are made new;
through Jesus Christ our Saviour.

It is noticeable that the re-uniting is not based on natural, familial relationships but is based on a re-uniting with 'brothers and sisters' in the faith.
This appears to me to be in accord with scripture, both with those texts which deal with regeneration - the new birth of repentance and faith - and with those texts which warn of the ultimate state of the unrepentant and unbelieving after decease.
After cataloguing the faith of many of old who have endured in faithfulness and are now with the Lord, the writer to the Hebrews exhorts :

Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us ...

Hebrews 12:1 KJV 1769
... encouraging those still in the body that they are already 'compassed about' by those of whom he had spoken in the previous chapter.
They are almost in the arms of those who await in heaven, it would seem.
This is clearly shown in the Third Homily on the Fear of Death of the Church of England Homilies :

The faythfull Christian man which considereth all these miseries, perils, and incommodities (whereunto he is subiect so long as he heere liueth vpon earth) and on the other part considereth that blessed and comfortable state of the heauenly life to come, and the sweet condition of them that depart in the Lord, how they are deliuered from the continuall encumbrances of their mortall and sinnefull body, from all the malice, crafts, and deceits of this world, from all the assaults of their Ghostly enemy the Diuell, to liue in peace, rest, and endlesse quietnesse, to liue in the fellowship of innumerable Angels, and with the congregation of perfect iust men, as Patriarches, Prophets, Martyrs, and Confessours, and finally vnto the presence of Almighty GOD, and our Sauiour Iesus Christ.

As Jesus clearly teaches, also, recorded by Luke :

And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

Luke 16:22 KJV 1769
This, also, is attested in the Third Homily on the Fear of Death :

Of Abraham's bosome, Christs wordes bee so plaine, that a Christian man needeth no more proofe of it. Now then, if this were the state of the holy Fathers and righteous men, before the comming of our Sauiour, and before hee was glorified: how much more then ought all we to haue a stedfast faith, and a sure hope of this blessed state & condition, after our death? seeing that our Sauiour now hath performed the whole worke of our redemption, and is gloriously ascended into heauen, to prepare our dwelling places with him, and said vnto his Father, Father, I will that where I am, my seruants shall bee with mee (John 17.24).

However, Jesus tells us most firmly :

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

John 3: 5-7 KJV 1769
and therefore the prayer of the Church of England is quite correct, biblically, to focus on relationships within Christ, rather than the natural family.
This is made clear in the Church of England Homilies, yet again, this time in the Homily on Repentance - (the Third Part) :

Whereas if we will repent, and bee earnestly sorry for our sinne, and with a full purpose and amendment of life flee vnto the mercy of our GOD, and taking sure hold thereupon through fayth in our Sauiour Iesus Christ doe bring foorth fruits worthy of repentance: hee will not onely powre his manifold blessings vpon vs heere in this world, but also at the last, after the painefull trauels of this life, reward vs with the inheritance of his children, which is the kingdome of heauen, purchased vnto vs with the death of his sonne Iesu Christ our Lord, to whom with the Father and the holy Ghost, be all praise, glory, and honour, world without end. Amen.

And the Apostle John faithfully warns ...

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Revelation 21:8 KJV 1769.
Or, in the words of the Homily on Declining from God - the Second Part

let vs make no tarrying to turne vnto the Lord: let vs not put off from day to day, for suddainly shall his wrath come, and in time of vengeance hee will destroy the wicked. Let vs therefore turne betimes, and when wee turne let vs pray to GOD, as Ose teacheth, saying, Forgiue all our sinnes, receiue vs gratiously (Hosea 14.2)

==========================================================================
Article 40 of the 42 Articles (the precursor list to the 39 Articles), quoted by Rev Beckmann states:

40 The soulles of them that departe this life doe neither die with the bodies, nor slepe idlie.
Thei which saie that the soulles of suche as departe hens doe sleepe, being without al sence, fealing, or perceiving, until the daie of judgement, or affirme that the soulles die with the bodies, and at the laste daie shal be raised up with the same, doe utterlie dissent from the right beliefe declared to us in holie Scripture.


The most definitive answer comes from Matthew 6:9

This, then, is how you should pray:
“‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,

But in prayer words are for you, not for him. Matthew 6:8 says:

Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

Jesus and God the Father are aspects of the same - at the end of the day it matters little which you pray to. If Jesus' name comes more easily to you then don't feel you must 'correct' yourself.


There is a sense in which an attribute which is an action is not fully realized until it is enacted. Love isn't real without an object of affection. Forgiveness is ethereal until somebody has crossed you. Being a redeemer requires something to save.

I would not go so far as to say there was an incompleteness in God that he needed to fill ... that he had a NEED of recognition, but in there is a sense in which his had to have creatures to reveal himself to in order for all the fullness of his being to be legitimized. His Glory is glorified as it is beheld, even if it is beyond the grasp of the beholder.

I believe God is a full-on egoist in that his is fully self centered. Whatever he does he does for himself, and he expects/demands the same of others. Egoist can also have another connotation of being conceited and limited to caring about ones-self. I am not reffering to this. Being omnipotent it's impossible for God to have a delusional or exaggerated sense of self worth. If you leave out the definition of of megalomania that includes being delusional, I think it is safe to say that God is a megalomaniac in so-far as he is obsessed with his own power and importance.

  Isaiah 48:11 (ESV)
  For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it,
  for how should my name1 be profaned?
  My glory I will not give to another.

He desires and will have all glory for himself. Satan tried to reach out and take this from Him, and was cast out of heaven. Man was deceived and wanted to be like God in a way that was not his place to be.

For a man, or any other being, to be an egoist is sin. All created things were made by, for and in Christ.

  Colossians 1:15-20 (ESV)
  15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

For any of those created things to focus on themselves rather than on the one-preeminent-being is sin. Being ego-centric is rightly considered to be a bad attribute when applied to a human, but not when speaking of God.

Being ego-centric is OK when you are The I Am. It is right for us to praise Him and serves a purpose of putting his Glory on display.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism states that "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever." If that question had been about the chief end of God I would say it would read "God's chief end is to glorify Himself, and to enjoy himself for ever."


What is the biblical basis for women, particularly mothers, working outside of the home?

Proverbs 31 is considered (by many) to be the model of what a godly woman should be.  In this chapter, we see that this woman is actually quite industrious:

10An excellent wife who can find?  She is far more precious than
jewels. 11The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no
lack of gain. 12She does him good, and not harm, all the days of her
life.
13She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands.
14She is like the ships of the merchant; she brings her food from afar.
15She rises while it is yet night and provides food for her household
and portions for her maidens. 16She considers a field and buys it;
with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard. 17She dresses
herself with strength and makes her arms strong. 18She perceives
that her merchandise is profitable.  Her lamp does not go out at
night. 19She puts her hands to the distaff, and her hands hold the
spindle.
20She opens her hand to the poor and reaches out her hands
to the needy. 21She is not afraid of snow for her household, for all
her household are clothed in scarlet. 22She makes bed coverings for
herself; her clothing is fine linen and purple. 23Her husband is
known in the gates when he sits among the elders of the land. 24She
makes linen garments and sells them; she delivers sashes to the
merchant.
25Strength and dignity are her clothing, and she laughs at
the time to come. 26She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching
of kindness is on her tongue. 27She looks well to the ways of her
household and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her:
29"Many women have done excellently, but you surpass them all."
30Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears
the LORD is to be praised. 31Give her of the fruit of her hands,
and let her works praise her in the gates.
Proverbs 31:10-31 ESV

So, no, in no way does the Bible say it is sinful for a woman to work outside the home.
That being said, men and women are still different, and masculinity is different from femininity.
Most Christian families that I know of where the woman does not work outside the home have made that choice because of their own priorities.  They have decided that freeing up the wife or mother to focus more effort on caring for the family and being active in the lives of their children is more important than the extra money and career success that the woman could otherwise achieve in the workplace.
It goes both ways, though.  I believe that both the man who has a career and the woman should value the family more than career advancement and prestige.  For the man, that may mean not getting that next promotion that requires more hours, so that he can spend more time caring for his wife and children.


Mormon understanding of what kind of bodies people have in heaven

LDS scriptures can be found here.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which I am) believe the following:

1) Yes, we believe that "resurrection" means the reuniting of the spirit with flesh.  "The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form; both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame, even as we now are at this time; and we shall be brought to stand before God..." (Alma 11:43).

2) We believe that all people who were allowed to obtain mortal bodies on this earth will be resurrected.  "We believe man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam's transgression" (Article of Faith 12).  See also D&C 88:94-101.  It is worth noting we define a difference between "salvation" (the salvation of the physical body due to Adam's fall, i.e., resurrection) and "exaltation" (the glorification of the individual).  Therefore, in LDS theology, everyone is "saved" but only those who truely have faith in Jesus Christ, obey His commandments, and endure to the end, will be "exalted" to the Celestial Kingdom (a discussion of the Kingdoms is a bit beyond the scope of this answer).

3) Yes and no.  Three perspectives exist in the LDS world as to "heaven" and "hell".  (a) The time between death and resurrection/judgement.  This is time spend in what we colloquially call "the spirit world".  There is a "Spirit Paradise" and a "Spirit Prison".  (Alma 40:11-14)  These can be considered, respectively, heaven and hell.  (b) After judgement, people are sent to (basically) one of four places: The Celestial Kingdom (highest glory), the Terrestrial Kingdom, the Telestial Kingdom, and Outer Darkness (also called "Perdition", a place with no glory).  The line between Outer Darkness and the three other kingdoms can be defined as heaven and hell.  This is specifically supported by the teachings of the Second Death or loss of our Second Estate (Rev 2:11; 20:6,14; Alma 12:16,32; D&C 76:30-49) which separates those in outer darkness from everyone else.  Then there is (c), which is an unfortunate form of elitism in the Church, where people draw the line beneath the Celestial Kingdom.  That's heaven, everywhere else is hell.  It has one scriptual justification, the Celestial Kingdom is where our Heavenly Father dwells, and no where else (D&C 76:62,77).  So, Spirit World, everyone is a Spirit.  After judgement, no spirits.

4) We do not have an answer for this question because there is no scriptual discussion as to how spiritual children are "born."  We know that those who have lived worthy of the Celestial Kingdom will have the privilege of procreation, but we know nothing (and I mean this, NOTHING) about how that happens.


Can a person be faulted for disbelief if they request evidence via direct revelation?

Very good question. Let's unpack this.
1 Corinthians 1:22-31
King James Version
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Jesus said,
Matthew 16:4
A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
The truth is that God has to give faith to any person in order for that person to believe. This is because " none seek after Him..." (Romans 3:11) and Romans 10:17. A person believes because God chose them from before the foundation of the earth ( Ephesians 1:3), not because of anything about the person, but because if God's sovereign election. There is absolutely no-one who has been chosen by God who will not believe. He identifies them and predestinated their belief.
Direct revelation would cause anyone to believe -- by sight, not faith -- but God has a plan He is working out and that plan involves different groups or classes of people coming into His Kingdom at different times for specific reasons and purposes. He is calling out those He has chosen and is giving them the faith to believe now. Israel He has hardened in part until the full compliment of the Gentiles comes in (with a small remnant of Jews). After Christ takes the church out, God will resume His dealings with Israel. The rest will come later, for Christ said...
John 12:32-43
King James Version
32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
We have the testimony of the creation itself as indirect revelation.
We have the written Word, which reveals Christ and God's will.If you have been chosen, that's all you need!
So to conclude, God doesn't give direct revelation except in special circumstances. He wants people to believe what He says, which is evidenced by what He has already done. a person who "requires" a sign in our day and time has obviously not been chosen. He or she will believe later, by sight instead of faith.
Praise God for His love, His mercy, His grace and His wisdom.
Colossians 1:20
I Thessalonians 15:20-28 reveal the order of all who are dying in Adam will be made alive in Christ.  God will be All in all.
Hope this helps.


What happens if someone spills the wine during the Eucharist?

An accidental spill of the Precious Blood can be cleaned up by soaking it up by placing a "purificator" which is a linen specially reserved to come into contact with the consecrated wine (one can use multiple of this linens depending the quantity of liquid) and then soaking them back in water do dissolve or dilute the Precious Blood. Then it can be poured into the ground where no people or animals would regularly step on. Like a flower bed or similar appropriate area.  In Catholic churches there is a sink (called sacrarium) in the sacristy that the drain does not connect to the regular sewage line but rather directly to the ground and is specially design to wash the sacred vessels that would contain minimal traces of the Precious Blood or Body of our Lord.


How do the 3 Protestant traditions deal with the two types of sin mentioned in 1 John 5:16-17?

Here is a quote from Dr. Bruce Milne, formerly lecturer in Biblical and Historical Theology at Spurgeon’s College, London.  The Foreword to his book is by J.I. Packer.  I believe this is still the current Reformed Protestant view:

Recent interpretation sees the sin as essentially Christological.  Jesus distinguished between sin against the Spirit and sin ‘against the Son of Man’ (Matthew 12:32 [1]) before his death, resurrection and outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost.  Prior to the first Easter the ‘Son of Man’ was an enigmatic, hidden revelation of God.  Failure to recognize Jesus during his earthly mission (e.g. his own family, Mark 3:21[2]), was less serious than deliberately attributing his entire mission, its good works in particular, to Satan – of which the Pharisees were guilty. With Pentecost, the distinction vanishes.  Jesus is demonstrated as Son of God with power in resurrection and the gospel of the cross is preached in the power of the Spirit.  Rejection of this message and of the Christ it enshrines is rejection of the Spirit who bears testimony to its truth (Hebrews 10:29).  This sin is unpardonable if continued in, for it places one beyond the only hope of redemption.  John calls it a ‘sin that leads to death’ (1 John 5:16).  Source: Dr. Bruce Milne: ‘Know the Truth’ 1982 (Chapter 10, page 109)

[1] Matthew 12:31-32: And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.  Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

[2] Mark 3:21: When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said “He is out of his mind.”  (This was when the teachers of the law accused Jesus of being possessed by Beelzebub – see verses 22-29.)

I found an exposition on 1 John 5:16-18 by Charles Spurgeon, a Reformed Protestant minister, at the end of a sermon he delivered in June 1911.  He explains how it is not possible for a believer who is born of God to commit the sin that leads unto death:

All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. He who has committed the sin which is unto death has no desire for forgiveness, he will never repent, he will never seek faith in Christ, but he will continue hardened and unbelieving. He will henceforth never be the subject of holy influences, for he has crossed over into that dark region of despair where hope and mercy never come.

Perhaps some of you think that you have committed that unpardonable sin and are at this moment grieving over it. If so, it is clear that you cannot have committed that sin, or else you could not grieve over it. If you have any fear concerning it, you have not committed that sin which is unto death, for even fear is a sign of life.

Whoever repents of sin and trusts in Jesus Christ is freely and fully forgiven, therefore it is clear that he has not committed a sin which will not be forgiven. There is much in this passage to make us prayerful and watchful, but there is nothing here to make a single troubled heart feel anything like despair. He that is born again, born from above, can never commit this unpardonable sin. He is kept from it—“that wicked one” cannot even touch him, for he is preserved by sovereign grace against this dreadful damage to his soul...

So, “all unrighteousness is sin,” and you are warned to keep clear of it. “There is a sin unto death,” but you are not told what that sin is on purpose that you may, by the grace of God, keep clear of sin altogether.  (Page 9) http://www.spurgeongems.org/sermon/chs3252.pdf

From the above it is clear that a Christian who has repented of sin and is born from above can not commit the “sin unto death”.   In another sermon (October 1865) Charles Spurgeon had these words of comfort to believers who were afraid that they had committed the unpardonable sin, the sin that leads to death:

“Yes,” says one, “but I believe I have committed the unpardonable sin.” My dear brother, I believe you have not, but I want you to call one thing to remembrance, and that is that the unpardonable sin is a sin which is unto death. Now a sin which is unto death means a sin which brings death on the conscience. The man who commits it never has any conscience afterwards—he is dead there. Now, you have some feeling; you have enough life to wish to be saved from sin; you have enough life to long to be washed in the precious blood of Jesus. You have not committed the unpardonable sin, therefore have hope. “All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men.” “But,” you reply, “Oh, I cannot repent! My heart is so hard.” Call to remembrance that Jesus Christ is exalted to give repentance and remission of sins, and you may come to Him to get repentance, and need not bring it to Him. Come without any repentance, and ask Him to give it to you, and He will give it. Rest assured there is no fear whatever that if the soul seeks softness and tenderness, it has that softness and tenderness in a measure even now, and will have it to the fullest extent before long. “Oh, but,” you say, “I have a general unfitness and incapacity for being saved.” Then, dear friend, I want you to call this to remembrance, that Jesus Christ has a general fitness and a general capacity for saving sinners. I do not know what you need, but I do know Christ has it. I do not know the full extent of your disease, but I do know Christ is the Physician who can cure it. I do not know how hard, and stubborn, and stolid, and ignorant, and blind, and dead your nature may be, but I do know that “Christ is able to save unto the uttermost those who come unto God by Him.

I have laboured to speak comfortable words and words in season, and I have tried to speak them in homely language, too.  But, O Comforter, what can we do without You?  YOU must cheer our sadness.  To comfort souls is God’s own work!  Let us conclude, then, with the words of the Saviour’s promise, “If I go away, I will send you another Comforter, who shall abide with you forever.”  And let our prayer be that He would abide with us to His own glory and to our comfort forevermore. Amen.”  (Page 8) https://www.spurgeongems.org/sermon/chs654.pdf

Since the sin that leads to death is the sin of rejection of Christ (which means the rejection of the Holy Spirit) then it follows that all who are born again and who are indwelt with the Holy Spirit have not committed the sin that leads to spiritual death and ultimately, eternal death.
EDIT:You may find this answer given by Nathaniel (is protesting) informative: How do Protestants understand the "unforgivable" sin?


It depends
The two big things to keep in mind are these:

God judges our hearts
There is no set definition of BDSM

Romans 14:23 ESV But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
1 Corinthians 10:23 ESV “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up.

The Lord judges the hearts of people. Someone can have crazy, tantric sex with their wife and glorify the Lord and another can share the gospel with a heart that's entirely devoid of the Spirit. The question isn't "Isn't BDSM a sin?" the question is "What does BDSM do to my heart?"
Having said that, there's not a set definition on what BDSM is. It typically involves bondage and role-playing, but those are also subjective things. The dark aspects of tyranny, slavery, hatred, anger, etc... are thing Christians should avoid under any circumstance. But can a married couple perform BDSM while avoiding these things? If your definition of BDSM is just doing it with a whip, then sure.
So it's a matter of the heart. If you doubt in your heart whether you should be engaged in such an act then you probably shouldn't (Romans 14:23). At the same time, you can't look into another person's heart and objectively say it's sinful.
Here's an excellent article on this


Who is "you" in Genesis 3:15 according to the Calvinist?

It was Satan

  ”I acknowledge, indeed, that from this place alone nothing more can be collected than that men were deceived by the serpent. But the testimonies of Scripture are sufficiently numerous, in which it is plainly asserted that the serpent was only the mouth of the devil; for not the serpent but the devil is   declared to be the father of lies,' the fabricator of imposture, and   the author of death. The question, however, is not yet solved, why   Moses has kept back the name of Satan. I willingly subscribe to the   opinion of those who maintain that the Holy Spirit then purposely used   obscure figures, because it was fitting that full and clear light   should be reserved for the kingdom of Christ. In the meantime, the   prophets prove that they were well acquainted with the meaning of Moses, when, in different places, they cast the blame of our ruin upon  the devil. (Calvin, John. The Complete Biblical Commentary Collection of John Calvin. Kindle location 2840)”.

This view is consistent among Calvinists.


No, you don't have to put you hands together.  People usually put their hands together either as a sign of reverence or to help focus and get into a correct spiritual posture fir prayer or both.

You can pray in just about any manner you see fit, though.  I'll often pray while driving (with my eyes open).  I often see people praying with their hands raised.  You can even lay flat on the floor with your hands spread out.

I think its import that you take a position that makes you comfortable, shows reverence to the Lord, and postures your heart to communicate with God.


I tend to agree with your diagnosis: they are mostly bogus. Besides the problems you listed, they also don't tend to be particularly faithful to the Biblical definitions of the "gifts" in question. That being said they enjoy rather wide circulation in various parts of Christianity, with more charismatic traditions tending to hit them up a lot more frequently.

To play devil's advocate for a minute, I can think of two points in their defense:

All gifts/talents are from God whether the recipient is a believer and acknowledges that or not. Even those in most adamant rebellion against God were still made in his image and have certain characteristics as a result. Likewise, during our present age on earth some of God's graces are rained down upon the just (not that any humans are more just than others, this is a references to those who have been justified by faith) and the unjust (those who haven't been).
Christians often need to be reminded that they do have attributes that they are supposed to use to build up the body and minister to the world. Whether such "tests" are the best way to do that -- I would argue strongly that the answer is no -- is debatable but whether through the best most Biblical means possible or through messy cultural trends, there is some gem of value in reminding the faithful that they have been given gifts on loan from God and need to employ them in His service.

From a reformed protestant perspective, I would argue that the needed function is much more faithfully accomplished by diligent teaching of the Word, walking believers through what it teaches on these subjects challenging them to apply it to their life. Sitting them down with some contrived checklist that resembles a personality test isn't a method we find prescribed in Scripture.

To comment briefly on the gifts themselves, we do find some very specific roles described that God might have called some to and others not that have very specific qualifications, but the tests in question usually have more to do with the other gifts. The lists we have in Scripture of these gifts are pretty mix and match, and I think a case could be made that nobody has quite the same mixture of gifts nor is it a requirement to pigeon-hole a gift into a certain label in order to make use of it for the God's Kingdom. In other words those who serve as teaching elders should be qualified for the task exactly as prescribed, but those called to use their gifts of "giving" or "encouraging" or whatever should do so in whatever and as many varied ways as they can!


What does it mean that someone managed to live beyond 120 years?

While marc-gravell mentions that the 120 years until the flood interpretation is "hotly contested" I would say that is definitely the best interpretation. Even the link provided by Marc really talks more about the timeline for building the ark rather than contesting the "120 years to the flood" interpretation. The author of that article concludes that this is the best interpretation of Genesis 6:3.

If we take 120 years to as some average lifespan then the Bible completely misses this mark. Immediately following the flood the lifespans are still measured in the hundreds of years and by the end of the patriarchal period the lifespans drop well below a 120 year average. The main issue with interpreting this number as the years until the flood only occurs with the length of time it took Noah to build the ark. When we realize that the text doesn't require that Noah started building at the same year as the statement in 6:3 then the interpretation works rather well.

The problem stems from the poor translation of the NLT text. In attempting to make the text more "readable" they have inferred meaning that isn't required by the original text. Most (all?) scholarly translations do not force this meaning into the text of Genesis 6:3.


Did Waldensians believe in unconditional election?

Spurgeon's quote is legitimate, but it comes from a translation of the 1655 Confession of the Waldenses, chapter XI, as reproduced in Philip Schaff's Creeds of Christendom:

  XI. That God saves from this corruption and condemnation those whom he has chosen [from the foundation of the world, not for any foreseen disposition, faith, or holiness in them, but] of his mercy in Jesus Christ his Son; passing by all the rest, according to the irreprehensible reason of his freedom and justice.

This confession was probably written by Jean Leger in the midst of the Piedmont persecution.  It is partially an abridgment of the 1559 French Confession, and was brought to England by Samuel Morland.  Schaff's English text is based on 19th century translations by William Hazlitt and E. Henderson, but he notes a peculiarity related to the text in brackets above:

  The words in brackets are given by Hazlitt and Henderson (perhaps from Morland), but are not found in the French of Leger and Hahn.

So the part of the confession that most clearly indicates a doctrine of unconditional election is apparently not found in the original French version.  This is perhaps more surprising because the 1559 French Confession does include similar language:

  We believe that from this corruption and general condemnation in which all men are plunged, God, according to his eternal and immutable counsel, calleth those whom he hath chosen by his goodness and mercy alone in our Lord Jesus Christ, without consideration of their works [...]. For the ones are no better than the others, until God discerns them according to his immutable purpose which he has determined in Jesus Christ before the creation of the world.

There are earlier Waldensian Confessions floating around on the internet, such as from 1120 and 1544, but Schaff dismisses them as "partly of doubtful origin, and [having] merely historical interest."  In any case, they do not have the language in question either.

So it seems unlikely that we would be able to trace the doctrine of unconditional election back to the Waldensians who preceded the Reformation.  The task is especially difficult due to a lack of sources, as Gonzalo L. Pita summarizes:

  The documentary scarcity and unconnectedness from which we must
  draw the description of Waldensian beliefs is often aggravated by the fact
  that the questions, descriptions, and refutations that their opponents
  presented were frequently made within a set of theological postulates that
  were either taken for granted or just obliterated for the sake of conciseness. ("Waldensian and Catholic Theologies of History", 87)


What is the earliest mention of how often the Eucharist was celebrated?

The earliest indication may be in the Didache, typically dated at the end of the first century.  It describes the celebration of the Lord's Supper in terms of the cup and breaking bread, and then says:

  But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. (§14)

If this is a reference to the Eucharist, then we have evidence for weekly celebration less than 100 years after Christ's death.

In the middle of the 2nd century, Justin Martyr more clearly writes that the Lord's Supper is observed every week on Sunday:

  And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. (First Apology, §67; see also §65)


According to Christianity, is only the Christian faith a gift from God?

Most of Christianity –including Catholicism and Protestantism¹– makes a distinction between saving faith vs. generic faith. One can have faith in your toaster's ability to evenly heat your toast or faith in the laws of physics but these kinds of faith don't make you right with God. As you pointed out even other religions have things they call "faith", and even godless religions such as humanism or atheism have their own kinds of faith.

What Christianity says is that saving faith in Christ that is our only path to being reconciled with God cannot come through our own impetus but must come through God's Spirit acting in us.

As such all other "faith" is empty — no other "faith" saves us. Neither faith in any specific religious system or generic faith not placed in anything specific will be instrumental in saving men from their sins. Hence nearly all Christians would say that these other "faiths" are not gifts from God.

How exactly they are described varies some between traditions: some blame the Devil, others say it's just man's sinful nature conjuring up counterfeits. But the result is largely the same — saving faith in Christ is a gift from God, not any other kind of faith.

Where different Christian traditions differ on this issue is on how much of the responsibility for this faith lies on man and how much on God. As an example contrasting Catholicism and Reformed Protestantism, the former would say that God gives the gift of faith rather broadly making it available to men but men have to pick up the ball and run with it while the latter would say that saving faith can only ever be exercised by a heart that has been regenerated by God and that living out that faith is the inevitable consequence of having been granted such a faith.

It probably also bears mentioning that faith in the Christian sense is not some nebulous abstract. It is concrete in that we know exactly what we hope for (eternal communion in the presence of God), by what means we expect to realize that hope (Christ's sacrifice for sins reconciling us to God and adopting us as his own children), and have been given concrete evidence that what is promised will be delivered (the history of redemption through the OT, the resurrection of Christ in the NT, the Holy Spirit with us now).

Virtually all other kinds of so called "faith" are much more abstract — either nebulous or blind. You mention Islam for one. I live in the Middle East and am quite familiar with Islam's version of faith and it is not so different from a humanists hope in humanity. To a Muslim faith is a tenuous hope against hope that if they do enough of the right things Allah might  "mercifully" overlook their faults when the time comes. There is no assurance that he will, much less a guarantee that he has (as in Christianity) only a vague hope that he might forgive them. To a deist or agnostic who has "faith", its just so nebulous that it hardly means anything: faith to my friends in this category is a tenuous prayer into the void hoping everything will all work out in the end, but they haven't a clue how or why it would. Christianity, on the other hand, is very definite about how things will work out, who they will work out for, and why it will be that way. Faith for a Christian is foreknowledge of a certain outcome based on reliable proof in the past.

¹ Orthodoxy is a little harder to pin down on this issue because it downplays the role of faith in salvation at all. Some liberal mainline Protestant denominations would also soft peddle this issue as they are not firm on Salvation being found in Christ alone.


Defending your honor against a superior who accuses you falsely

I know of no commandment in Scripture to not defend yourself when falsely accused.  The Apostle Paul used the privilege of his Roman citizenship to his benefit after he had been beaten, and by doing so incurred the apologies of the authorities.

  But when it was day, the magistrates sent the police, saying, "Let
  those men go." And the jailer reported these words to Paul, saying,
  "The magistrates have sent to let you go. Therefore come out now and
  go in peace." But Paul said to them, "They have beaten us publicly,
  uncondemned, men who are Roman citizens, and have thrown us into
  prison; and do they now throw us out secretly? No! Let them come
  themselves and take us out." The police reported these words to the
  magistrates, and they were afraid when they heard that they were
  Roman citizens. So they came and apologized to them. And they took
  them out and asked them to leave the city.  Acts 16:35-39 ESV

In Acts 7, Stephen also gave a great defense of his own behavior prior to his being stoned.

Jesus is really the only One who needed to give no defense to be like a sheep before its shearers (Isaiah 53).

It should be distinguished that there is a difference from being falsely accused and being falsely accused for the name of Jesus.  The former can happen to anyone, while the second one is persecution.  So, just merely being falsely accused does not rise to the level of being blessed unless it is specifically because of our identity as Christians.

Peter points out another important distinction in his letter.  If we are punished for doing something wrong, the fact that we are Christians doesn't mean we are being persecuted.  Rather, we are just being punished as anyone would.

  For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you
  endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is
  a gracious thing in the sight of God.  1 Peter 2:19 ESV

So, there doesn't seem to be any explicit blessing for those who do not defend themselves under a false accusation.  The blessing is in being falsely accused because of one's identity as a Christian, and it only applies for false accusations--not justified ones.


Why doesn't the Catholic Church kill heretics anymore?

To the question, "When did the Church stop executing people" I answer that is a false premise. Probably akin to "when did you stop beating your wife?"

To the question, "Can a reasonable differentiation be made between the actions of the state acting in the name of religion and the policies of the religion proper?" I suggest that you look into emperor Otto and how (despite his apparent contrition, immediately drove the Pope into exile as soon as his excommunication was lifted). Or, perhaps more on topic, you could look at the consistent efforts of the Papacy to stem the violence brought by the Spanish Crown during the Spanish Inquisition. Several examples:

Near the outset of the Inquisition, in a letter of April 14, 1482, Pope Sixtus IV instructed the Spanish to ensure due process, allow legal counsel and appeal to Rome.[53] King Ferdinand defiantly rejected Papal control, the Inquisition becoming thereafter a tool of the monarchy, rather than the church.
The Pope tried to allow for appeals, but the crown only allowed that by royal approval
Torquemada actually systematized what could only be considered mob rule.
And finally an appropriate quote, "In 1498 the pope was still trying to...gain acceptance for his own attitude towards the New Christians, which was generally more moderate than that of the Inquisition and the local rulers."

To the question, "When did the policy of Church enacted executions end?" This requires proof that the Church had a policy of executing criminals, as an entity independent of the state. The evidence to this is very lacking.

To the question, "When did the policy of Church-sanctioned executions end?" The answer is that it never has: given appropriate circumstances (rare in first-world countries), the Church does make allowance for the death penalty.

To the question, "When did the policy of Church-sanctioned execution of religious or political dissidents end?" Again, the answer is that it didn't. Believe it or not, the Church is not in the business of dictating punishments for crimes. I don't know of any document which has ever said that the state does not have the right to execute criminals.

I would imagine that a significant number of churchmen, and indeed a vast majority of the populous, prior to the mid-twentieth century would have allowed for executing someone who has committed treason. I would also imagine that preaching dissidence in Medieval Europe would have been viewed as treason. (This is not a real stretch, I can think of one case where speaking out against the state was punishable by torture and death in sixteenth century Holland.)

To the question, "When did the Church stop having the policy of rendering correct judgements on matters heretical?" Again, the answer is never.

To the question, "Should the Church, knowing the intentions of the state, render a correct verdict?" And I think that answer is very loaded and beyond the scope of your question.

On an interesting side note: it should be stated that the purpose of the inquisition, was not to kill heretics, but to save souls. Thomas Madden states the position:

  [t]he Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions... The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.

The article goes on to reinforce this idea by pointing out:

  Madden argues that while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.

This is remarkably far from the implicit accusations in the question. I'd dare say, this was the opposite.


How could animals have gotten all around the world after the flood?

Usual preface that seems necessary to head off debate on such questions and answers - this isn't endorsing or denying the YEC view, just answering how various YEC groups would answer the question.  Whether the YEC'ers are right or wrong is completely off-topic, as has the long-standing policy been.

While we can't answer this definitively, several possibilities have been proposed by those that hold the literal Young Earth Creationist view, which includes a literal global flood,

ChristianAnswers.Net, for example, while firmly stating that we don't know for sure, offers the possibility that land bridges once joined the various continents.  This isn't too far off from the old-earth view that people crossed to the Americas from Asia via a land bridge that formed during the ice ages.

Answers in Genesis, also prefacing their article with a "this is what we think, but we don't know for sure" disclaimer, discusses the fact that we know very little of what the earth was like immediately following the flood.  Continents may still have been shifting, there may have still been major upheavals and changes not recorded, and the re-colonization of the world may have been possible because things were still connected - again, land bridges.

Some others, including this blogger think that Pangaea was real, and was broken up in the days of Peleg.  It's not a widely accepted interpretation of the text, but this blogger isn't the first that I've seen use it:

  There is an obscure passage in Genesis that is generally overlooked,
  but holds what I believe to be great insight into our early world
  after the flood.  Genesis 10:25 states “Two sons were born to Eber:
  One was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided”.   I
  believe this passage describes a time when God supernaturally
  separated the continents one from another. The Bible says that Peleg
  (which means divide) was born 100 years after the flood and lived for
  239 years.  The time frame for the continental split would therefore
  have been 100 years after the flood until 339 years after the flood.
  The division is said to have taken place during his lifetime, but
  doesn’t say how long it took.

Cretation.com goes as far as to say that the bigger problem is for the evolutionist, citing the fact that so many similar species exist on each continent.  They argue that if the evolution theory were true, you'd expect far greater differences between life on different continents.  They argue that the fact that so many similar and even same species exist on the various continents is evidence that they did not evolve in isolation, but sprang from the same Biblical kinds in recent history.

Another creation.com article offers an alternative suggestion, or perhaps supplemental explanation to land bridges:  Natural rafts.

  Another explanation which is gaining increasing support is the rafting
  hypothesis.

  Interestingly, the potential for dispersal of plants and animals
  across large stretches of water by natural rafts has been accepted by
  evolutionists for many years. Professor Paul Moody of the University
  of Vermont argued, “In times of flood, large masses of earth and
  entwining vegetation, including trees, may be torn loose from the
  banks of rivers and swept out to sea. Sometimes such masses are
  encountered floating in the ocean out of sight of land, still lush
  and green, with palms, twenty to thirty feet [7 to 10 m] tall. It is
  entirely probable that land animals may be transported long distances
  in this manner. Mayr records that many tropical ocean currents have a
  speed of at least two knots; this would amount to fifty miles [80 km]
  a day, 1000 miles [1600 km] in three weeks.”1


How much realization of one's own sinfulness is needed for a person to be saved?

All the realization of sin in the world can't save someone, they may go and meditate, take up some philanthropic work to make them feel better, kill themselves or find some other way to get away from that realization of the sinfulness of their heart; to try and numb that realization.

Think of Judas betraying Christ and Peter denying Christ. Judas said "I have betrayed the innocent" (Matthew 27.4) and then you know what he did to himself even though he realized his sin in this circumstance. We know that he was lost (The Lord said before his Crucifixion that he would loose non except Judas - John 17:12) Peter was not lost though! The Lord called him back. Realization of sinfulness doesn't lead us in and of itself to Christ in whom we can be  saved, it is God that does that:

  John 6.44 - No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him (call): and I will raise him up at the last day.

I therefore don't think the question is of all that value to think upon in this sense. Maybe a more instructive question would be not "how much" but "whether" realization of sin is a necessary part of the Lord's call and drawing of a person to salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ.


Who uses the term "God-talk", and what do they mean?

I think you answered your own question in saying it was simply a "friendlier alternative to theology."

There could be many answers here, but I'm willing to bet those authors use the term God-Talk to come across more down-to-earth and less egg-headed. This is probably because their readership might feel intimidated by a book with the word theology in it.


How did the church calculate Sunday as the day of the resurrection?

There are a couple of facets to the answer.
First of all, the Gospels themselves attest that the Resurrection occurred (or, at any rate, was discovered) on the “first day of the week”:

Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb (Mt 28:1).
When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him (Mk 16:1).
But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. (Lk 24:1).

The Sabbath is our Saturday, and it was considered the last, or seventh, day of the week. (See Gen. 2:2.) Therefore, the “first day of the week,” when the Resurrection is reported to have taken place, is the next day, our Sunday.
Secondly, the Jews, then as now, reckoned their days from sundown to sundown, rather than from midnight to midnight (as the O.P. points out). (For this, see Lev. 23:32, as well as “The Time of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection”.)
Finally, when computing time, the Israelites generally would count any part of a day as a full day, even if that part was very small. (Among many examples of this way of reckoning, the Jewish way of saying “a week later” was to say “in eight days,” as, for example with regard to circumcision “on the eighth day.” See Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:3; Lk. 1:59 and 2:21.)
Hence, Jesus was crucified on the Parasceve (the Day of Preparation, or Friday) before sundown (see, e.g. John 19:14); he lay in the tomb through the entire Sabbath; and he rose early Sunday morning, as we saw above. That, in the Jewish reckoning, works out to three days.
In other words, where the O.P. lost count is that “day one” would actually be the few hours between Jesus’ death and burial and the beginning of the Sabbath on Friday evening.


What is an overview of beliefs on "Jesus is the Word (Logos) of God"?

Historically there are two options:

There is only one Logos, both Christ and Scripture are one in nature. But this lead to a problematic question, How Christians explain their belief that Christ is worshiped and Scripture is not while both are identical in nature as God's singular Word?

Matt Gutting in a chat room discussion refer to Catechism of Catholic Church,

  102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:1

  You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.2

  103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.3

  Catechism of Catholic Church, 102-3.

Gnostic's plethora of Logoi (one personal and another impersonal). Which also lead us to a problematic question, How do Christians differentiate themselves from Gnosticism?

Tertullian discussed how Gnostics distinguish among plethora of Logoi between the personal Logos incarnate and the impersonal Scripture to be of different natures. Valentinian Gnostic such as Theodotus of Byzantium,

  Therefore when the Saviour came, he awakened the soul and kindled the spark. For the words of the Lord are power. Therefore he said, “Let your light shine before men.” And after the Resurrection, by breathing the Spirit on the apostles, he was blowing off and re moving dust like ashes, but kindling and giving life to the spark.

  Theodotus of Byzantium quoted by St. Cyril of Jerusalem.

1 Cf. Hebrew 1:1-3.

2 St. Augustine, En. in Ps. 103,4,1:PL 37,1378; cf. Ps 104; Jn 1:1.

3 Cf. Dei Verbum 21.


To understand the link between fasting and the parables Jesus gave in answer in Mark 2:18-22 (ESV), we need to note that the Mosaic Law prescribed only one fast on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:29, 31).  However, the legalistic Pharisees and the disciples of John the Baptist were following the traditions of men.

Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. And people came and said to him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?”  And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.  No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made.  And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins—and the wine is destroyed, and so are the skins. But new wine is for fresh wineskins.” (Mark 2:18-22 ESV)

The ESV Study Bible makes these comments:

Jesus refers to himself as the bridegroom, who in the O.T. was the Lord (cf. Isa. 62:5; Hos. 2:19-20).  While Jesus is present with his disciples, they are to rejoice; when he is taken away from them, then they will fast.
Just as new, ushrunk cloth cannot coexist with an old garment, the kingdom of God cannot be regarded merely as a patch over the regulations of the Mosaic law and extra-biblical traditions.  New wine vs. old wineskins illustrates the same truth – that Jesus brings a new era with new ways.

The reason it is inappropriate to put new wine into old wineskins is that the wine will burst the skins, destroying both the wine and the skins.
These two parables illustrate the fact that you can’t mix old religious rituals with new faith in Jesus. Jesus’ disciples were not fasting along with the Pharisees and John’s disciples because they were now under the new covenant of grace and faith in Christ.


Why does "holiness" mean "set apart" (if it does)?

There are aspects of moral and ceremonial cleanness associated with the word Kaw-doshe (Holy) and aspects of being set apart, as in something that is holy unto the Lord:

Leviticus 27:30 - Every tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the
land or of the fruit of the trees, is the LORD's; it is holy to the
LORD.

These aspects, when applied to people regarding anything within creation, require a reaction.  We must think right, speak right, do right, etc.
When applied to Almighty God the predominant meaning is one of "otherness/separateness".

In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory! - Isaiah 6:1-3

Yahweh is absolutely "other" (separate, Holy) than anything He has created and, since there is only God and that which God has made, He is singularly "other".
Holiness for God is an intrinsic attribute...He IS Holy and is unlike anything else.  God's "otherness" incorporates His purity, perfection, unity, etc., in that He is unlike anything else in every and each of His attributes.
Holiness for the people of God is an upward call and an outward call.  As Israel was called to be a peculiar people, so we are to be unlike the world around us...seeking worldly wealth, selfish ambition, instant gratification, retribution, etc:

After this I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great authority, and the earth was made bright with his glory. And he called out with a mighty voice, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has become a dwelling place for demons, a haunt for every unclean spirit, a haunt for every unclean bird, a haunt for every unclean and detestable beast. For all nations have drunk the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality, and the kings of the earth have committed immorality with her, and the merchants of the earth have grown rich from the power of her luxurious living.” Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues; for her sins are heaped high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. - Revelation 18:1-5

We are to be holy unto the Lord because He IS Holy.  Separate from the rest of creation.  Peculiar. In the world but not of the world.  Strangers and pilgrims looking for that dwelling place  whose author and builder is God.

By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. - Hebrews 11:8-10

We are called to a life energized by faith not by sight.  We are called to live within the Kingdom of Heaven not the kingdoms of earth.  For this one must swear fealty to the King which Heaven has established; Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God.  Abraham saw His day and was glad.  By that faith Abraham was born again and so must we be.

Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. - John 3:3-6

Apart from faith in the Lord Jesus Christ there is no hope of holiness because holiness is an approach, a setting apart, unto  God and no one comes to the Father except through Him.


According to the Roman Catholic Church, is halal meat being offered up to idols?

The Roman Catholic Church does not teach that food certified by either the appropriate Jewish authorities as meeting requirements for Kosher certification, or by Islamic authorities as meeting requirements for Halal certification are foods offered to idols. The Catholic position is that the God of the Jews and the God of Muslims is the same God as the Christian God,, and therefore not an idol.

In explaining different understandings between most Jews and most Muslims, from the understanding that most Christians have of God, Catholics teach that Jews and Muslims,  and frankly many non-Catholic Christians,  too, have (at best) an incomplete knowledge of the nature of God.


What effect did the Reformation have inside the Catholic Church?

I found this Wikipedia article on the Counter-Reformation.  Which is apparently a useful phrase to Google for, if you want more information.

Summary of the link:  The biggest responses of the Catholic church to the Reformation were:

The Council of Trent, which was "a commission of cardinals tasked with institutional reform, addressing contentious issues such as corrupt bishops and priests, indulgences, and other financial abuses".
The institution of new Orders of the religious; notably, this includes the Jesuits.


What is the Biblical basis for the belief that Jesus is Michael?

The Seventh Day Adventist view

The SDA view is well articulated here: Amazing Facts: Who Is Michael The Archangel?

The primary arguments involved are:

There are appearances of the preincarnate Christ with titles of “Angel of the LORD”, “Angel of His Presence” and “Angel of the Covenant”.
The meaning of angel has a wide range of interpretations (it literally means “messenger”).
The use of echad in Daniel 10:13 can mean “one” or “first”, so one interpretation is “Michael, the first of the chief princes” (rather than “one of”).

One note that is important regarding the SDA view is that they do not deny the deity of Christ, but teach that the title “Michael the Archangel” is another title for God the Son in the same vein as “Angel of the LORD” or “Captain of the LORD’s Host.”

From the conclusion:

  In conclusion, we see this majestic and mysterious being, sometimes
  called Michael, sometimes the angel of the Lord, sometimes the
  commander of the Lord’s army, veiling His divinity and appearing in
  the form of a humble angel. Yet this same enigmatic being has the
  power, authority and attributes that belong only to God. He evicts the
  devil from heaven; He resurrects the dead; He intercedes for the
  saints; He judges and then stands, launching the great time of
  trouble. He redeems the saints and receives their worship. He offers
  us a new name.

The Jehovah’s Witness view

The JW view is articulated here: Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?

The principle arguments are:

The custom of having more than one name is common in the Bible.
Arch in archangel means “principal” or “chief.”
The word “archangel” is never used in plural form (therefore it describes a unique being).
Jesus spoke of his preincarnate existence.

From the conclusion:

  So Michael the archangel is Jesus in his prehuman existence. After his
  resurrection and return to heaven, Jesus resumed his service as
  Michael, the chief angel, “to the glory of God the Father.”

The two views are actually quite similar regarding the use of “Michael the Archangel” as yet another title for Christ.

The two groups differ, however, regarding the deity of Christ. Jehovah’s Witnesses explicitly deny his deity, arguing He was the first of God’s creations and placed in authority over it. He is a created being, albeit the most powerful being short of God himself.

Note: This latter view has always been considered the aberrant view in Christianity. While the SDA view would fall within the camp of orthodoxy, the JW view does not.


What is the "present crisis" in 1 Corinthians 7?

There are plenty of predictions by Jesus and more in the the Epistles that prepared believers not only for the widespread persecuatuon that befell as well as the destruction of Jerusalem.  This seems to be a strigjtforward meaning of the crisis that many commnetators note. For example Hodge takes this view:

  The awful desolation which was soon to fall upon Jerusalem and on the whole Jewish race, and which could not but involve more or less the Christians also, and the inevitable struggles and persecutions which, according to our Lord’s predictions, his followers were to encounter, were surely enough to create a deep impression on the apostle’s mind, and to make him solicitous to prepare his brethren for the coming storm. It is not necessary, therefore, to assume, as is so often done, that the apostle anticipated the second advent of Christ during that generation, and that he refers to the calamities which were to precede that event. (Charles Hodge Commentary on First Corinthians, P128)


What is the biblical support for the Nicene creed's statement of the Son being "eternally begotten"?

Lee Irons addresses this question in his paper, "The Eternal Generation of the Son."  In response to the question of exegetical basis for the doctrine, he writes:

  Traditionally, the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son was supported by an appeal to the five Johannine texts in which Christ is identified as monogenes (Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; I Jn 4:9). As early as Jerome's Vulgate, this word was understood in the sense of "only begotten" (unigenitus), and the tradition was continued by the Authorized Version.

Irons admits that modern scholars often reject this understanding of monogenes, but he contends that the traditional understanding is preferable. Following a textual variant, he renders John 1:18 as follows:

  No one has ever seen God, but the only begotten God, who is in the Father's bosom, has made him known

Now we must ask, in what sense is Jesus begotten?  Our experience with "begottenness" is always temporal – a baby does not exist, and then it is begotten and comes into existence.  The fathers at Nicaea, responding to Arianism, wanted to defend the eternity of the Son, so they said "eternally begotten" in their creed.  Though perhaps Schaff's translation of the phrase is more accurate:

  begotten of the Father before all worlds

Such language is reminiscent of several biblical passages, like John 17:5:

  And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

And Colossians 1:15–17:

  Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature [...] 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Irons concludes:

  The framers of the [Nicene] creed interpreted the Johannine monogenes in the traditional sense [...] The fathers of Nicea seem to have believed that the biblical teaching regarding the generation of the Son (as indicated by the term monogenes) was powerful evidence that he is homoousios with the Father!


What does it mean to say the Bible is the "Word of God" and how is it justified?

Karl Barth believed that Jesus is the Word of God, but that the written Bible is NOT the Word of God. He believed that the Bible becomes the Word of God when preached by the church. See https://postbarthian.com/2018/08/20/karl-barths-doctrine-of-the-word-of-god-in-threefold-form/

  Barth then argues the Bible becomes the Word of God when it is
  proclaimed by the living human voice of the Church, and only in that
  event may the Bible be rightly called the Word of God. Barth explained
  "the Bible, then, becomes God’s Word in this event, and in the
  statement that the Bible is God’s Word the little word 'is' refers to
  its being in this becoming. It does not become God’s Word because we
  accord it faith but in the fact that it becomes revelation to us."

On the other hand, Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and even Catholic traditions going back to Augustine subscribe to various theories of inerrancy and canon formation. This article has some intersting points to make about where the ideas of inerrancy come from:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/did-fundamentalists-invent-inerrancy/

Many people rely on their view as handed down to them by their church statement of faith, denominational position, or an ecumenical creed. One such creed is the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:

http://www.romans45.org/creeds/chicago.htm

Here is the summary statement of the much longer document:

I. SUMMARY STATEMENT

God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.
Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in
all matters upon which it touches: It is to be believed, as God's
instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all
that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.
The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about
God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about
its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's
saving grace in individual lives.
The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited of disregarded, or made
relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such
lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

Some people rely on certain Bible passages to justify their beliefs about what the Bible is. Thessalonians equates the Scriptures with God's universal, authoritative, and powerful truth:

  13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the
  word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human
  word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work
  in you who believe. (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

Peter's words are used to establish that Paul's letters are part of Scripture:

  16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of
  these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to
  understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the
  other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16)

Similar bootstrapping techniques are used to tie in the other New Testament letters and books. As for the supernatural power and efficacy of the Word of God:

  12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any
  double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit,
  joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
  (Hebrews 4:12)

On the other end of the spectrum, you have people whose justification for the Bible being the Word of God is because it is self-authenticating. The Holy Spirit applies the words of the Bible to a person's life and they are transformed. Their personal experience gives witness to their belief. I began as person who accepted it as told to me by people I trusted (creedal) and ended up as a person who experienced the power of the Bible to change my life. For example, my Bible Study leader in college asked us all to memorize Galatians 2:20-21:

  20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ
  lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the
  Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set
  aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through
  the law, Christ died for nothing!”

A month later, my fear of death went away. In like fashion, I attended a retreat to study Philippians, and Joy entered my heart and overcame a decade of depression. A passage in Isaiah and a Psalm stopped the nightmares I used to have all the time. The Sermon on the Mount helped me to not feel poor and incapable of helping others. I could go on and on. Ultimately, it is the believer's personal experience of deliverance and growth that proves that the Bible is the Word of God.


What reasons do those who reject the JEPD view of Scripture provide?

I don't think that it is a matter of "limiting" God.  I guess I've never heard anyone say that the theory is invalid because it "limits God".

The primary reason for rejecting the view is, for many, simply a matter of the traditional method of understanding Scripture, and it's origins.

Put simply (perhaps too simply), it is more likely that the people who actually lived in ancient times and lived through the events of those times had a better understanding of those times and the events of those times than someone who lived hundreds of years later.

Based on that reasoning, it's simply more plausible to accept the traditional view of the authorship of the Pentateuch than it is to believe a theory derived hundreds of years after the fact.

Whether the tradition started at the time of Moses, with those who were actually in the wilderness with him, or if the authorship was attributed to him later, the argument still remains that Mosaic authorship had been accepted by those who were much closer in time to the actual events than the later critics.

Another reason for rejecting the theory include the fact that it is only one of many theories.   (I know it's not the best source, but Wikipedia has some good information on these)

This may be a bad basis for faith, but on some level it is simply easier to reject all of the competing recent theories and hold fast to tradition.  (The Gordian Knot approach.)

When it comes down to it, for me anyway, whether Moses wrote the books or not isn't of the utmost importance. What is important is whether or not I trust that the Scriptures are actually "God-breathed".  Since Jesus Himself quoted from the books of Moses, He clearly accepted them as Scriptural.  That's good enough for me, so I don't worry about such issues.

Taking the next step, I personally reject the theory simply for the reasons above, but I wouldn't get into an argument over it.  I reject the idea, but accept that I could be wrong, and that God could have easily given us exactly the Bible He meant to give us in any way He chose. If I'm wrong about the authorship it doesn't really matter so I don't worry about it, so it's really a non-issue to me but if pressed I'd say I believe the Mosaic authorship.

I suspect that many who reject the theory do so for the same reasons.


Why is the story of Joachim and Anne considered true in tradition but mentioned only in apocryphal works?
The Apocrypha are not considered inspired revelation from God. But that does not mean that certain works may contain some truths within them. The Scriptures can not err, but the Apocrypha may hold some errs. This is where tradition comes in: it’s tradition!

Jesus, Disciples Never Quoted from Apocrypha: Jesus Christ and his inspired New Testament penmen quoted from, or alluded to, the writings and events of the Old Testament profusely. In fact, there are one thousand quotations or allusions from thirty-five of the thirty-nine Old Testament books are found in the New Testament record.
And yet, significantly, not once are any of these apocryphal books quoted or even explicitly referred to by the Lord or by any New Testament writer.
Noted scholar Emile Schurer argued that this is really remarkable since most of the New Testament habitually quoted from the LXX (1894, 99).

Despite the fact that New Testament writers quote largely from the Septuagint rather than from the Hebrew Old Testament, there is not a single clear-cut case of a citation from any of the fourteen apocryphal books .... The most that can be said is that the New Testament writers show acquaintance with these fourteen books and perhaps allude to them indirectly, but in no case do they quote them as inspired Scripture or cite them as authority (Unger 1951, 101).

Apocryphal Books Do Not Claim Inspiration: It must be observed that the apocryphal books, unlike the canonical books of the Old Testament, make no direct claims of being inspired of God.
Not once is there a, “thus says the Lord,” or language like, “the word of the Lord came unto me, saying ...” In fact, some of the documents actually confess non-inspiration! In the prologue of Ecclesiasticus, the writer states:

“Ye are intreated therefore to read with favour and attention, and to pardon us, if in any parts of what we have laboured to interpret, we may seem to fail in some of the phrases.”

It seems that the Golden Legend fixed this tradition in the minds of those who accept the story.
The Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say about St. Joachim and St. Anne:

All our information concerning the names and lives of Sts. Joachim and Anne, the parents of Mary, is derived from apocryphal literature, the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew and the Protoevangelium of James. Though the earliest form of the latter, on which directly or indirectly the other two seem to be based, goes back to about A.D. 150, we can hardly accept as beyond doubt its various statements on its sole authority. In the Orient the Protoevangelium had great authority and portions of it were read on the feasts of Mary by the Greeks, Syrians, Copts, and Arabians. In the Occident, however, it was rejected by the Fathers of the Church until its contents were incorporated by Jacobus de Voragine in his "Golden Legend" in the thirteenth century. From that time on the story of St. Anne spread over the West and was amply developed, until St. Anne became one of the most popular saints also of the Latin Church.
The Protoevangelium gives the following account: In Nazareth there lived a rich and pious couple, Joachim and Hannah. They were childless. When on a feast day Joachim presented himself to offer sacrifice in the temple, he was repulsed by a certain Ruben, under the pretext that men without offspring were unworthy to be admitted. Whereupon Joachim, bowed down with grief, did not return home, but went into the mountains to make his plaint to God in solitude. Also Hannah, having learned the reason of the prolonged absence of her husband, cried to the Lord to take away from her the curse of sterility, promising to dedicate her child to the service of God. Their prayers were heard; an angel came to Hannah and said: "Hannah, the Lord has looked upon thy tears; thou shalt conceive and give birth and the fruit of thy womb shall be blessed by all the world". The angel made the same promise to Joachim, who returned to his wife. Hannah gave birth to a daughter whom she called Miriam (Mary). Since this story is apparently a reproduction of the biblical account of the conception of Samuel, whose mother was also called Hannah, even the name of the mother of Mary seems to be doubtful.
The Greek Menaea (25 July) call the parents of St. Anne Mathan and Maria, and relate that Salome and Elizabeth, the mother of St. John the Baptist, were daughters of two sisters of St. Anne. According to Ephiphanius it was maintained even in the fourth century by some enthusiasts that St. Anne conceived without the action of man. This error was revived in the West in the fifteenth century. (Anna concepit per osculum Joachimi.) In 1677 the Holy See condemned the error of Imperiali who taught that St. Anne in the conception and birth of Mary remained virgin (Benedict XIV, De Festis, II, 9). In the Orient the cult of St. Anne can be traced to the fourth century. Justinian I (d. 565) had a church dedicated to her. The canon of the Greek Office of St. Anne was composed by St. Theophanes (d. 817), but older parts of the Office are ascribed to Anatolius of Byzantium (d. 458). Her feast is celebrated in the East on the 25th day of July, which may be the day of the dedication of her first church at Constantinople or the anniversary of the arrival of her supposed relics in Constantinople (710). It is found in the oldest liturgical document of the Greek Church, the Calendar of Constantinople (first half of the eighth century). The Greeks keep a collective feast of St. Joachim and St. Anne on the 9th of September. In the Latin Church St. Anne was not venerated, except, perhaps, in the south of France, before the thirteenth century. Her picture, painted in the eighth century, which was found lately in the church of Santa Maria Antiqua in Rome, owes its origin to Byzantine influence. Her feast, under the influence of the "Golden Legend", is first found (26 July) in the thirteenth century, e.g. at Douai (in 1291), where a foot of St. Anne was venerated (feast of translation, 16 September). It was introduced in England by Urban VI, 21 November, 1378, from which time it spread all over the Western Church. It was extended to the universal Latin Church in 1584.