How do Christians that do not believe in inerrancy interpret the Bible?

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy is very recent in Christian history

First, let's put biblical inerrancy into perspective.

Two  centuries or so ago, and for all of Christian history before that, not a single Christian church, denomination, or preacher held that the Bible is inerrant. The very idea of biblical inerrancy had never even occurred to anyone.

It was only after the Age of Enlightenment (from the 1650s to the 1780s) that any need was seen by Christians for any such doctrine. This need was perceived only when the rapid development of science in the wake of the Age of Enlightenment began to call into question in many people's minds the scientific accuracy of many stories and statements in the Bible, such as the creation of the world in six days and the Flood of Noah.

So for roughly 1,800 years of its history, all of Christianity looked to the Bible as the Word of God without the need for any doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

Biblical inerrancy is not the same as biblical literalism

Further, biblical inerrancy is not the same thing as biblical literalism. Even the well-known 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy "allows for figurative, poetic and phenomenological language, so long as it was the author's intent to present a passage as literal or symbolic" (quote from linked Wikipedia article; italics in the original).

In other words, biblical inerrancy does not require a wholly literal interpretation of the Bible.

Biblical inerrancy is not necessary for faith in the Bible

Given that all Christian churches functioned reasonably well through many centuries of Christian history without the relatively recent doctrine of biblical inerrancy, the idea that now, two thousand years into Christianity, faith in God and the Bible will suddenly crumble without an adherence to biblical inerrancy seems rather shaky and unfounded.

Adherence to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is by no means universal among Christian churches. However, I'll leave it to other answerers to say which denominations do and do not adhere to biblical inerrancy.

Biblical inerrancy misses the spiritual point of the Bible

I can, however, speak for my own denomination, the Swedenborgian Church, on the subject.

From a Swedenborgian perspective, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy simply isn't very useful.

In practice, it is used mostly to assert that the Bible is without scientific and historical error. At other times it is used to assert that particular doctrines are correct because they are claimed to be based on the statements of the Bible.

However, from a Swedenborgian perspective, the Bible was never intended to be a textbook of science and history. Why would God be concerned to teach us about science and history? How would that accomplish God's purpose in speaking to humans on earth?

God's purpose is not to give us correct scientific and historical information. Rather, it is to save our souls and bring us to heaven. So what God wants to convey to humans in the Bible is not material world information, which does not affect our salvation, but spiritual understanding, which does affect our salvation.

The Bible is about spiritual change, not about correct doctrine

Further, the point of the Bible is not to instill correct doctrine. Yes, correct doctrine is important. But the purpose of doctrine in Christianity is to lead to faith in the Lord, repentance, reformation, and new spiritual life.

In other words, God's underlying purpose in the Bible is not to get us to think straight, but to get us to live a Christlike life. Faith and doctrine are merely the doorway to making us into "new creations in Christ" (see 2 Corinthians 5:17).

Biblical inerrancy is a useless doctrine for this purpose because it concerns only the head, not the heart. In the Bible, God is seeking to reach our heart, and to "replace our heart of stone with a heart of flesh" (see Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26).

The original writers of the Bible, whether or not they believed or realized they were writing under divine inspiration, all understood that the main point of their writing was to reach people with a message from God and get people to leave behind their evil and sinful lives and live good and loving lives instead. Jesus himself summed up the entirety of Scripture in these words:

  "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all
  your soul, and with all your mind." This is the greatest and first
  commandment. And a second is like it: "You shall love your neighbor as
  yourself." On these two commandments hang all the law and the
  prophets. (Matthew 22:37-40)

That is the whole purpose of Scripture according to Jesus himself: to prompt us to love the Lord our God above all else, and to love our neighbor as ourselves.

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy touches only the head.

What God wants to reach is our heart. And all of Scripture is designed by God to touch our hearts and prompt us to turn to God and live from God's love instead of from our own selfish and materialistic desires.

A more spiritual basis for Bible interpretation

Speaking for my own denomination and theology, we avoid any "slippery slope" (to the best of our finite and fallible human ability) by looking to the Bible not as a textbook of science and history, or even as a textbook of theology, but as a message from God whose purpose is to turn us toward God, faith, goodness, love, and spiritual life.

Our mode of Bible interpretation, then, does not require or rely on inerrancy. Instead, it focuses on the spiritual messages contained in and delivered by the text.


What is the LDS Church's position on spiritual gifts

The Articles of Faith are a set of simple statements of belief, taken from a letter written by Joseph Smith to explain various aspects of Mormonism to a non-Mormon audience.  The church later accepted it as a canonical statement of doctrinal points.

The seventh Article of Faith states:

  7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

In terms of organization, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is highly hierarchical, roughly comparable to the Catholic Church.  Basic doctrines are the same everywhere and do not vary from one congregation to another, so this belief is consistent throughout the church.

Prophecy: The applicable doctrine is bound up with the concept of stewardship, the idea that leaders have a responsibility to watch over that which has been entrusted to their care.  Any member of the church has the right to receive personal revelation regarding that which is under their stewardship, but not beyond those limits.  So a member with no particular responsibilities could receive revelation for his or her own life, a father or mother for their families, a Bishop for his congregation, and so on, with the Prophet authorized to receive revelation for the entire church; it would be considered invalid if a Bishop were to claim to have received revelation for the entire church, as this is beyond the scope of his stewardship.
Tongues and interpretation: Latter-Day Saints take a fairly literal view on these gifts.  In Acts 2, the Apostles are able to preach their message to a very diverse crowd and have them all understand it in their own language by the power of the Holy Ghost, and in 1 Corinthians 14, Paul admonishes the Saints against random, meaningless babble that does nothing to edify anyone.  The LDS interpretation is that the Gift of Tongues exists for the purpose of facilitating communication, and it's considered fairly common; many cases exist where a missionary serving in a foreign land, who hasn't gotten too far yet in picking up the language, reports a sudden surge in their ability to express his or her message at a crucial time, which leaves again once the need is gone.  (ie. this is not a bestowal of a new, unearned skill, just as the Apostles didn't suddenly learn all those languages, but a bit of help when it could do some real good.)
Blessings: This is an extremely broad term that can mean any number of loosely related things.  However, in the concept of spiritual gifts, if someone asks a Priesthood holder for "a blessing," this has a well-understood meaning.  A Priesthood blessing is a sacred ordinance in which a holder of the Priesthood lays his hands upon the recipient's head and attempts to be in tune with the promptings of the Holy Ghost as much as possible, so they can pronounce upon them whatever God wishes for them.  The most common use of Priesthood blessings is to heal the sick, with results ranging from simply giving comfort and reassurance, to subtle improvements, to classical "miraculous recovery."  These blessings can also be given to someone who is not sick, where they're generally referred to as "a blessing of comfort" and asked for by someone who is undergoing (or about to undergo) a stressful time or ordeal.


Do Mary and the other saints know what we are praying for before we ask them?

St. Thomas Aquinas say yes.

  Although the saints, after this life, know what happens here below, we must not believe that they grieve through knowing the woes of those whom they loved in this world: for they are so filled with heavenly joy, that sorrow finds no place in them. Wherefore if after death they know the woes of their friends, their grief is forestalled by their removal from this world before their woes occur. Perhaps, however, the non-glorified souls would grieve somewhat, if they were aware of the distress of their dear ones: and since the soul of Josias was not glorified as soon as it went out from his body, it is in this respect that Augustine uses this argument to show that the souls of the dead have no knowledge of the deeds of the living.

  The souls of the saints have their will fully conformed to the Divine will even as regards the things willed. and consequently, although they retain the love of charity towards their neighbor, they do not succor him otherwise than they see to be in conformity with the disposition of Divine justice. Nevertheless, it is to be believed that they help their neighbor very much by interceding for him to God.

  Although it does not follow that those who see the Word see all things in the Word, they see those things that pertain to the perfection of their happiness, as stated above.

  God alone of Himself knows the thoughts of the heart: yet others know them, in so far as these are revealed to them, either by their vision of the Word or by any other means. - Question 72. Prayers with regard to the saints in heaven


Where is the story that James (the 'brother') shared one-half of his inheritance with Jesus?

This story is preserved in Menologion of the Holy Tradition,

  When Joseph, after returning from Egypt, began to divide his land among his children born of his first wife,1 he also wished to give a portion to the Lord Jesus Who was born supernaturally and without corruption of the all-pure Virgin Mary, and Who was then but a little child. But three of Joseph's sons did not wish Christ to have a share, as He was born of another mother; only the fourth son, St. James, accepted Him as co-owner of his own portion, and hence was afterwards called the "Brother of God."

  St. Dimitri of Rostov, Menologion, trans. Isaac E. Lambertsen, The Lives of the Holy Apostles, Holy Apostles Convent: Buena Vista, CO, 1988, p. 223-4.

1 "Salome, daughter of Haggai, the son of Barachiah, a brother of Saint Zacharias, the father of the holy Prophet John the Forerunner of the Lord." St. Dimitri of Rostov, Menologion, 223.


What happened to "the last seminary" website

Fortunately, this was a temporary problem which is now solved

The site you are looking for has used two domain names over the last 15 years or so: lastseminary.com and apollos.ws. At present, either of these names, with or without a prepended www, should resolve to www.lastseminary.com where the content is.

It appears there was an error redirecting from one url to another. The primary site has been apollos.ws for the last several years, and a lot of the content should be available on archive.org if you ever have trouble finding it on lastseminary in the future. Most of my original answer is no longer valid. If you are interested in the technical details, it should still be in the edit history.

A description on the site (as originally found at archive.org):

  What is Apollos.ws

  Apollos.ws is a resource for Christian academics. We organize audio,
  video, books, and articles related to Philosophy of Religion,
  Apologetics, and Biblical Studies. This site is an ideal research tool
  for graduate and post-graduate students.

The site is quite limited in describing and 'selling' itself. As an example, the easiest way I know to find their 'about us' page is to search for it. If you include the quotes in the search, you will get only one result. In my opinion it is a very useful reference site.


How do indulgences remit temporal punishment?
Sin has consequences!

"Sin has two consequences, or punishments (CCC 1472). The first is eternal punishment, in which the soul loses heaven and is confined to an eternity in hell. This punishment is remitted through the forgiveness of sins. The second is temporal punishment, in which a person must expiate, or make reparation for his sins. This temporal punishment remains even after sin is forgiven."
"How does one expiate his sins? The Catholic Church has traditionally identified three major ways–prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. Any good work or sacrifice expiates sin, as well as patiently bearing our sufferings and offering them up in satisfaction for our sins (CCC 1459-1460)."
"What happens if one has not fully expiated his sins before dying? Such a person, before going to heaven, would have to expiate his sins in purgatory (CCC 1030), where love for God is perfected through our sufferings there. Traditionally, the sufferings of purgatory have been compared to a "consuming fire" (1 Cor. 3:11-15). Because certain sins can be forgiven "in the age to come" (Matt. 12:32), Catholics have always prayed for the dead–for the relief of their souls, or their speedy deliverance, if they are in purgatory, for "it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins" (2 Macc. 12:46)." - Temporal Punishment and Sin.

Indulgences are a remission of temporal punishments due to sin which have been sacramentally confessed and then absolved, thus making our purification in purgatory shorter. Indulgences do not affect consequences of sin, like gaining HIV from fornication!
Here are some general guidelines for gaining indulgences from the Apostolic Penitentiary of the Vatican.

General Remarks On Indulgences

This is how an indulgence is defined in the Code of Canon Law (can. 992) and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 1471): "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints".

In general, the gaining of indulgences requires certain prescribed conditions (below, nn. 3, 4), and the performance of certain prescribed works (nn. 8, 9, 10 indicate those specific to the Holy Year).

To gain indulgences, whether plenary or partial, it is necessary that the faithful be in the state of grace at least at the time the indulgenced work is completed.

A plenary indulgence can be gained only once a day. In order to obtain it, the faithful must, in addition to being in the state of grace:

have the interior disposition of complete detachment from sin, even venial sin;

have sacramentally confessed their sins;

receive the Holy Eucharist (it is certainly better to receive it while participating in Holy Mass, but for the indulgence only Holy Communion is required);

pray for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff.

It is appropriate, but not necessary, that the sacramental Confession and especially Holy Communion and the prayer for the Pope's intentions take place on the same day that the indulgenced work is performed; but it is sufficient that these sacred rites and prayers be carried out within several days (about 20) before or after the indulgenced act. Prayer for the Pope's intentions is left to the choice of the faithful, but an "Our Father" and a "Hail Mary" are suggested. One sacramental Confession suffices for several plenary indulgences, but a separate Holy Communion and a separate prayer for the Holy Father's intentions are required for each plenary indulgence.

For the sake of those legitimately impeded, confessors can commute both the work prescribed and the conditions required (except, obviously, detachment from even venial sin).

Indulgences can always be applied either to oneself or to the souls of the deceased, but they cannot be applied to other persons living on earth.


In addition to Wikipedia, I find the Catholic Encyclopedia useful for historical queries. It has an article on the Sarum Use.

The Use of Sarum was initiated there (Salisbury) in the eleventh century and spread throughout southern England. It was suppressed by the English Reformation and especially during the reign of Elizabeth I.

  Catholic Encyclopedia notes: During the few years of the reign of Mary Tudor an attempt was made in England to resuscitate the Sarum Use, which lingered on for sometime afterwards among the Seminary priests of persecution times; but it is now wholly obsolete, except, as the reader will have remarked, in so far as the Dominican, Carmelite and kindred Uses, cling, like that of Sarum, to certain liturgical practices derived from early Roman discipline, but which the Church has allowed to fall into desuetude.

That is, once Catholicism was outlawed, the Use of Sarum with its associated ceremonial became all but impossible to celebrate outside seminaries, and even they were suppressed. When catholics became tolerated again (with the Catholic Relief Act of 1778), and restored in 1829, it was the Tridentine Rite to which English Catholics turned as that was most readily accessed from the continent.

Neither of your options is really true: it was never suppressed by Rome, but it wasn't really a realistic option to recover.

As Matthew has noted in his answer, Anglicanorum coetibus has allowed Anglicans to join the Church [Yours Truly included], bringing their patrimony with them. It is a little ironic that elements of the Sarum Use are being re-introduced to the English Church with Anglicans influenced by the Oxford Movement, which made a conscious effort to draw on "English" pre-Reformation practices within the context allowed by law.


What is the origin of the doctrine of perspicuity?

This concept originated with Martin Luther. In his 1525 treatise On the Bondage of the Will—a response to Desiderius Erasmus' On Free Will—Luther makes the case that God has made the message of Scripture plain for all to understand, and has given us the Holy Spirit to guide our understanding. According to Luther, if anyone does not understand, it is a failure on their part and not a lack of the Scripture's clarity.

  All the things, therefore, contained in the Scriptures; are made manifest, although some places, from the words not being understood, are yet obscure. But to know that all things in the Scriptures are set in the clearest light, and then, because a few words are obscure, to report that the things are obscure, is absurd and impious. And, if the words are obscure in one place, yet they are clear in another. But, however, the same thing, which has been most openly declared to the whole world, is both spoken of in the Scriptures in plain words, and also still lies hidden in obscure words. Now, therefore, it matters not if the thing be in the light, whether any certain representations of it be in obscurity or not, if, in the mean while, many other representations of the same thing be in the light. For who would say that the public fountain is not in the light, because those who are in some dark narrow lane do not see it, when all those who are in the Open market place can see it plainly?

Luther explains that God has provided everything we need in order to understand.

  WHAT you adduce, therefore, about the darkness of the Corycian cavern, amounts to nothing; matters are not so in the Scriptures. For those things which are of the greatest majesty, and the most abstruse mysteries, are no longer in the dark corner, but before the very doors, nay, brought forth and manifested openly. For Christ has opened our understanding to understand the Scriptures, Luke xxiv. 45. And the Gospel is preached to every creature. (Mark xvi. 15, Col. i. 23.) “Their sound is gone out into all the earth.” (Psalm xix. 4.) And “All things that are written, are written for our instruction.” (Rom. xv. 4.) And again, “All Scripture is inspired from above, and is profitable for instruction.” (2 Tim. iii. 16.)

This is a building block for Luther's claim about God's sovereignty. Luther states that our sinfulness utterly prevents us from seeking God on our own.

  The will of God, nevertheless, which rules over our mutable will, is immutable and infallible; as Boëtius sings, “Immovable Thyself, Thou movement giv’st to all.” And our own will, especially our corrupt will, cannot of itself do good;

And that God works things out according to his own will.

  THIS, therefore, is also essentially necessary and wholesome for Christians to know: That God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will.

One of the ways God accomplishes this is by making the message of the Scriptures as clear as possible, and by providing us with everything we need in order to understand that message.


Would the bible draw parallels between the spies returning from Canaan and modern biblical criticism?

I am answering the question you asked in bold, not the one in the title. However, I recommend against equating modern biblical criticism with wicked contempt or intellectual honesty.

@DJClayworth: This question is totally about Christianity.

There is an deliberate parallel between the ancient Israelites' obstinance and today's encounter with Jesus. The parallel is this: a person who has seen God and does not believe accuses God of not being who he claims. In other words, the boundary between intellectual honesty and wicked contempt is when God reveals himself to you.

In the context of Numbers, God had revealed himself to the Israelites several times; at Mount Sinai for example (Exodus 19). These signs are referred to in the verse you quoted. In spite of the them, the Israelites denied God out of their fear of the Nephilim (the "big strong men"). Their fear produced an accusation that God was not able as He claimed to bring them into the land promised.

Fast forward to the NT. We find similar examples of unbelief. In a parallel to Exodus 19, the disciples encounter God on a mountain:

  After six days Jesus took Peter, James, and his brother John and led
  them up on a high mountain by themselves. He was transformed in
  front of them, and His face shone like the sun. Even His clothes
  became as white as the light. (HCSB Matthew 17:1-2)

Yet in the following story they don't have the faith to heal a demon-possessed boy:

  Then Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him, and
  from that moment the boy was healed. Then the disciples approached
  Jesus privately and said, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?” “Because of
  your little faith,” He told them. (HCSB Matthew 17:18-20)

Fast forward to a few years ago. When I was considering who Jesus is, I first looked into intellectual matters: How can I reconcile science and faith? Are the Gospel accounts trustworthy? Eventually I had those answers, but the intense question remained: Is Jesus who he says he is? It was no longer an intellectual matter; to answer affirmatively required God to reveal himself in the way he did to Simon Peter:

  Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living
  God!” And Jesus responded, “Simon son of Jonah, you are blessed
  because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in
  heaven. (HCSB Matthew 16:16-17)

I had this kind of experience, after which I could not deny Jesus being who he claims while keeping an honest conscience. After that point I would have been in contempt of God.


Does the Codex Amiatinus exist online anywhere in *text* format?

I have found a text copy on The Internet Archive, but the text appears to be an OCR rendering from scanned images—its quality is very uneven, to say the least.


What is the earliest known instance of a petition directed to Mary?

Sub Tuum Praesidium

The earliest known, extant petition prayer to Mary the Θεοτόκος (Theotokos), or Dei Genetrix (the Greek and Latin, respectively, for 'God-bearer' or 'Birthgiver-of-God') is found in an Egyptian papyrus from the 3rd century (commonly dated to around A.D. 250-280 but as late as 300—I could not find a dating later than the 4th century) and contains the prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary under the title of Theotokos, 'Under Thy Patronage,' which can be seen below:

Rylands Papyrus 470

It is called in Latin Sub Tuum Presidium, and in Greek (in which it was originally written, or thought to have been written) it is called Ὑπὸ τὴν σὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν (hypo ten sen eusplangnian)—both of which mean 'Under Thy Patronage'.

The Greek version:

  Ὑπὸ τὴν σὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν καταφεύγομεν Θεοτόκε Τὰς ἡμῶν ἱκεσίας μὴ παρίδῃς ἐν περιστάσει, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ κινδύνων λύτρωσαι ἡμᾶς μόνη Ἁγνή, μόνη εὐλογημένη

  Beneath your compassion, We take refuge, O Mother of God: despise not our petitions in time of trouble: but rescue us from dangers, only pure, only blessed one.

(You can listen to this version being sung here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SJUVjoyJUU)

The Latin version:

  Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, Sancta Dei Genetrix. Nostras
  deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus [nostris*], sed a periculis cunctis
  libera nos semper, Virgo gloriosa et benedicta. Amen.

  We fly to thy patronage, O holy Mother of God; despise not our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us always from all dangers, O glorious and blessed Virgin. Amen.

* Latin for 'our'—retained since some versions contain this.

(You can listen to this version being sung here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSmykQ9DLOg)

As you can see it asks the Blessed Virgin Mary to not despise our petitions, which means she is the object of their petitioning. The petition is a general one, i.e. to listen to any petition to her, whatever they are (compare this to the prayer Memorare, which bear resemblance to this ancient prayer).

Keep in mind the earliest manuscript evidence for the New Testament is a papyrus dating to A.D. 117-138 (named P52), and that this papryus predates the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431), which made the reality of Mary's being the Theotokos a dogma of the faith, by almost two centuries.


Can humans fall in love with each other in heaven?

So, there are passages that are particularly relevant here:

Matthew 22:29 - 32

  29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’[b]? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

From this we know that there is no marriage but that doesn't say there isn't love.
1 Corinthians 13:12

  12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Historically there has been an interpretation of this verse that says our current understanding of love is highly limited - our sinful nature is such that we are capable only of a simulcrum of love, one which gets jealous when it reaches more than one, and one which is held back by our fleshly nature.  In contrast, in heaven, where there is perfection, we are able to love more deeply more fully than here.

Indeed, C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce explores this theme, suggesting an almost open kind of love that is neither pornographic nor chaste.  Mere Christianity picks this up, saying:

  The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and backbiting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.

He develops this further, saying that sex is a second thing, not a first one. InFirst and Second Things, he shows that sex is spiritual, but that made an end unto itself, it loses its meaning. As Peter Kreeft writes:

  It could certainly be spiritual intercourse—and, remember, that includes sexual intercourse because sex is spiritual. This spiritual intercourse would mean something more specific than universal charity. It would be special communion with the sexually complementary; something a man can have only with a woman and a woman only with a man. We are made complete by such union: "It is not good that the man should be alone." And God does not simply rip up His design for human fulfillment. The relationship need not be confined to one in Heaven. Monogamy is for earth. On earth, our bodies are private. In Heaven, we share each other's secrets without shame, and voluntarily. In the Communion of Saints, promiscuity of spirit is a virtue.

In short, the idea of heaven in this understanding is that sex will be way more open, the complete perscription to the diagnosis in Genesis that it is not good for the man to be alone.

If this is true, we'll be getting way more, and way better sex up there than down here. Whether or not this is physical, whether or not this is even true, the real point is that anyone who is simply convinced there can't be sex in heaven does have a bit of theology against which to contend.


What is the Biblical basis against inter-faith marriages?

2 Corinthians 6:14-15 is often understood to prohibit the marriage of Christians with non-Christians:

  Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?


Does the Book of Mormon (& LDS doctrine) pass the test found in 1 John 4:2 as the true spirit of God?

David, I admire your research into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, LDS, or the Mormons. :)
In the Book of Mormon we read;

Moroni 10:32 - Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness , and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace is sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.
Moroni 10:33 - And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.

I find it interesting that you use the word "test" in your question. As a young member of the LDS Church, we do maintain the belief in that Jesus Christ has "come in the flesh"(1John,4:2) and that he came for the remission of our sins.
As I said, I am a young member of the LDS church and I am still studying myself the Book of Mormon and other teachings of my church. I am confident that there are others on this site with more studying under their belt that may be able to answer your questions more fully. I hope I could shed a little light into what you are in search of.
Thanks!


How trained are the elders in the Jehovah's Witness denomination?

I have been one of Jehovah's Witnesses my entire life, 35 years, and was recently appointed as an elder.

What are the requirements for a person to become an elder? - They have to fulfill the requirements mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:2-7 and Titus 1:5-9.

What type of training do elders have? - When they are first appointed as elders they usually have had the same training as all other members of the congregation; years of personal bible study and regular meeting attendance. After they are appointed they get ongoing training every few years at different seminars.

And have elders ever been formally trained in Christian history, biblical studies, or theology? - Christian history - yes. Biblical studies - I guess so (not sure what you mean). theology - no, unless they got that training when they were part of another religion.

A related question: are Jehovah's Witnesses allowed to read a mainstream, scholarly bible? - We are allowed to read any bible we choose. During our meetings it is preferred that we use the New World Translation so we can be on the same page (pun intended).


What's the Biblical basis for "all Christians will be together in heaven some day"?

What's the Biblical basis for “all Christians will be together in heaven some day”?

One verse that comes to mind is one that is often used with rapture theory, but does talk about both those who have died in Christ and those who are alive being joined together at his return and remain with him.

  1 Thessalonians 4:17  Then we which are alive and remain shall be
  caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the
  air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.


Which Ante-Nicene Church Fathers believed that Jesus is the "eternal Son" of the Father?

The following Ante-Nicene church fathers believed in Jesus as the eternal Son:

2nd century

Irenaeus (AD. 120-200) said:

  "But the Son, eternally co-existing with the Father, from of old, yea,
  from the beginning, always reveals the Father to Angels, Archangels,
  Powers, Virtues..." (Against Heresies, Book II, ch. 30, section 9)

Athenagoras ( A.D. 177) said:

  “We acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassable
  [i.e., not subject to suffering], incomprehensible, illimitable … by
  whom the universe has been created through his Logos … We acknowledge
  also a Son of God. Nor let anyone think it ridiculous that God should
  have a Son … the Son of God is the Logos of the Father. If … it occurs
  to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that
  he is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought
  into existence, for from the beginning God, who is the eternal mind,
  had theLogos in himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos.
  (Plea for the Christians ch. 10)

Clement of Alexnadria ( AD. 150-215) said:

  When [John] says, "from the beginning," the elder explained to this
  effect, that the beginning of generation is not separated from the
  beginning of the Creator. For when he says, "That which is from the
  beginning," he touches on the generation without beginning of the Son,
  who is co-existent with the Father. There was, then, a Word importing
  an unbeginning eternity, as also the Word itself, that is, the Son
  of God, who being by equality of substance one with the Father, is
  eternal and uncreated.(Fragments of Clement of Alexandria: Comments
  on the First Epistle of John from The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. II)

3rd century

Gregory Thaumaturgus (A.D. 213-270) said:

  There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is His subsistent
  Wisdom and Power and Eternal Image:perfect Begetter of the perfect
  Begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, Only of
  the Only,God of God, Image and Likeness of Deity, Efficient Word,
  Wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and Power
  formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, Invisible of
  Invisible, and Incorruptible of Incorruptible,and Immortal of Immortal
  and Eternal of Eternal. And there is One Holy Spirit, having His
  subsistence from God, and being made manifest by the Son, to wit to
  men: Image of the Son, Perfect Image of the Perfect; Life, the Cause
  of the living; Holy Fount; Sanctity, the Supplier, or Leader, of
  Sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father, who is above all
  and in all, and God the Son, who is through all. There is a perfect
  Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor
  estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude
  in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period
  it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And
  thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to
  the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity
  abides ever.

Novatian (A.D. 200- 258) said:

  To the Son alone they are known, who has known the secrets of the
  Father. He then, since He was begotten of the Father, is always in
  the Father. And I thus say always, that I may show Him not to be
  unborn, but born. But He who is before all time must be said to have
  been always in the Father; for no time can be assigned to Him who is
  before all time (On the Trinity, 31.3).

Dionysius of Rome (A.D. ? - 268) said:

  "A blasphemy then is it, not ordinary, but even the highest, to say that the Lord is in any sort a handiwork. For if He came to be Son,
  once He was not; but He was always, if (that is) He be in the Father,
  as He says Himself, and if the Christ be Word and Wisdom and Power
  (which, as ye know, divine Scripture says), and these attributes be
  powers of God. If then the Son came into being, once these attributes
  were not; consequently there was a time, when God was without them;
  which is most absurd. And why say more on these points to you, men
  full of the Spirit and well aware of the absurdities which come to
  view from saying that the Son is a work? Not attending, as I consider,
  to this circumstance, the authors of this opinion have entirely missed
  the truth, in explaining, contrary to the sense of divine and
  prophetic Scripture in the passage, the words, ‘The Lord created me a
  beginning of His ways unto His works.’ For the sense of ‘He created,’
  as ye know, is not one, for we must understand ‘He created’ in this
  place, as ‘He set over the works made by Him,’ that is, ‘made by the
  Son Himself.’ And ‘He created’ here must not be taken for ‘made,’ for
  creating differs from making. ‘Is not He thy Father that hath bought
  thee? hath He not made thee and created thee?’ says Moses in his great
  song in Deuteronomy. And one may say to them, O reckless men, is He a
  work, who is ‘the First-born of every creature, who is born from the
  womb before the morning star,’ who said, as Wisdom, ‘Before all the
  hills He begets me?’ And in many passages of the divine oracles is the
  Son said to have been generated, but nowhere to have come into being;
  which manifestly convicts those of misconception about the Lord’s
  generation, who presume to call His divine and ineffable generation a
  making.Neither then may we divide into three Godheads the wonderful
  and divine Monad; nor disparage with the name of ‘work’ the dignity
  and exceeding majesty of the Lord; but we must believe in God the
  Father Almighty, and in Christ Jesus His Son, and in the Holy Ghost,
  and hold that to the God of the universe the Word is united. For ‘I,’
  says He, ‘and the Father are one;’ and, ‘I in the Father and the
  Father in Me.’ For thus both the Divine Triad, and the holy preaching
  of the Monarchy, will be preserved.” (Against Sabellians).


Did Job hold the priesthood according to LDS teaching?

Job lived during a time when a father was the priest for his family. Job 1:5 says,

  When a period of feasting had run its course, Job would make
  arrangements for them to be purified. Early in the morning he would
  sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, “Perhaps my
  children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” This was Job’s
  regular custom.

At the end of the book, in Job 42, it says:

  7 After the Lord had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the
  Temanite, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have
  not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has. 8 So now take
  seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a
  burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will pray for you, and I
  will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly.
  You have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has.” 9 So
  Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite did
  what the Lord told them; and the Lord accepted Job’s prayer.

  10 After Job had prayed for his friends, the Lord restored his
  fortunes and gave him twice as much as he had before.

In this instance, Job is called upopn by God to act as a priest to accept sacrifices on behalf of his "friends". However, no mention is made of creating an enduring, hereditary priesthood as was the case with Aaron and Levi.

So I would say that Job was a priest.


Does the Orthodox church ever condone violence on an individual level?

This post made me wonder. Is it true the Orthodox church thinks violence is always sinful no matter the circumstances?

The violence in very most cases includes the anger, and hatred to the target of violence, lets say enemy. So that are the reasons why the violence in bad. I said very most because we know the case of the violence without a sin: And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables. John 2:13-15.

  If someone tried to break in and assault them, does the Orthodox church say I should not intervene?

But I have brought the reason why the violence is allowed, that is defence of weak, or your family, or even in some cases yourself (if your family will be destructed buy the reason), because that the all are inclusive in Christ's saying : Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13. That is the difference (as far as I know) to most of the protestants doctrines.

  I enjoy practicing martial arts because I aspire to be able to defend myself and others compassionately (without causing serious or permanent harm) and am very interested to know if the Orthodox church would consider this a waste of time or worse as the Protestants with which I am familiar certainly do not.

The time waste is also always bad, but the reasons by which we choose wheither the deal is the time waste or not, differs to protestant reasons. If we consider exactly martial arts, I believe they just can be treated as a neutral deal, non-good, non-bad, but when you choose in which case apply the art in your life it becomes bad or good, and good not because it is good in itself, but it becomes good because, not to apply it for that case is worse. For example to defend weak man, etc. And as an example of that how to be a man who take himself in martial arts we have the famouse fighter Fedor Emeljanenko, and he is the orthodox man.


How did Jesus get heard by 5000 families at once?

Throughout the roman world, there are amphitheaters which could hold 20,000 people or more. I have personally been to ones in Ephesus (where Paul addressed a large crowd) Pergamum, and Pompeii.

Note that both the Sermon in the Mount and the Sermon on the Hill were delivered at landforms that formed natural amphitheaters. If Jesus was standing at the base, rather than at the top, the acoustics would have worked in his favor.

As a speaker who has learned to project, I can tell you that it isn't difficult to do- it is just that amplification helps make it louder. Amplification lets people spread out more and helps when people in the crowd are talking, but large crowds could hear Greek plays without it.

The point here is simple- a speaker has better range than you might imagine. The speaker would need to be loud, for sure, but people throughout the ages have addressed large crowds.

Finally, there is always the monty Python answer and it applies to any sort of dairy producer, really.


Why is masturbation not allowed while intercourse without the purpose of offspring is allowed in RCC?

It is because of what you actually are doing.  When performing the marital act (as the good Catholic books call it) within marriage, you're not doing anything to prevent conception, you're just using the normal human cycles to pick a time to make love when the odds of conceiving a child are near zero.

Masturbation, even between partners, prevents conception like other forms of birth control.

This is covered in 50 Questions for the natural law. Where Dr. Charles Rice says mutual masturbation "treats the other person as an object." And he applies the title of mutual masturbation to all forms of contraceptive sex.

Natural Family Planning requires communication between the spouses about what they're actually doing.  So, even when it's outside the fertile period, you're still communicating about whether or not your act is likely to produce a child.  So it's still focused on the procreative aspect of marital relations.

Beyond that, it's better this way, according to Pope Paul in Humanæ Vitæ:

  The right and lawful ordering of birth demands, first of all, that spouses fully recognize and value the true blessings of family life and that they acquire complete mastery over themselves and their emotions.  For if with the aid of reason and of free will they are to control their natural drives, there can be no doubt at all of the need for self-denial. Only then will the expression of love, essential to married life, conform to right order.  This is especially clear in the practice of periodic continence. Self-discipline of this kind is a shining witness to the chastity of husband and wife and, far from being a hindrance to their love of one another, transforms it by giving it a more truly human character. And if this self-discipline does demand that they persevere in their purpose and efforts, it has at the same time the salutary effect of enabling husband and wife to develop to their personalities and to be enriched with spiritual blessings. For it brings to family life abundant fruits of tranquility and peace. It helps in solving difficulties of other kinds. It fosters in husband and wife thoughtfulness and loving consideration for one another. It helps them to repel inordinate self-love, which is the opposite of charity. It arouses in them a consciousness of their responsibilities. And finally, it confers upon parents a deeper and more effective influence in the education of their children. As their children grow up, they develop a right sense of values and achieve a serene and harmonious use of their mental and physical powers.

So much of what the Church teaches is regarded as merely a "ban on X" but what She's really trying to get at is an "Affirmation of Y which requires an exclusion of X".


Are there any Biblical passages that say that devil is able to make you doubt your faith?

From the Temptation of Jesus Christ (Matthew 4:1-11), we can see 3 ways of temptation by Satan in order to introduce doubts in our faith.

Ignoring the word of God: Satan told Jesus to turn the stones into bread. Satan always reminds us of our daily needs and make us worry over it instead of putting our faith in the Word of God. This introduces doubt in us over the importance of God's word in our daily life. As Jesus resisted the temptation by using the Word of God, we should also resist the temptation by meditating "Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God".
Doubting the power of God: Satan told Jesus to jump down from the temple to see whether God will help or not. When we have trials and temptations, we question the power of God by pondering "Can God really deliver me from this trouble?".  Satan will try to make us doubt the power of God but we must resist it by saying "Do not put the Lord your God to the test".
Worldly pleasures: Satan tried to offer the whole world to Jesus on one condition, worshiping Satan. Satan is ready to give us worldly pleasures if we worship him knowingly or unknowingly by pursuing worldly pleasures. Worldly things can drift us away from our faith.  When we are attracted by worldly pleasures, we should reply, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”

If you have doubt over the authenticity of the Bible itself, you will have to make a little extra research on the history of "How we get our Bible". Many good articles here and elsewhere will be convincing enough on the authenticity of the Bible.


According to the Catholic Church, will we have physical bodies in heaven?

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily
  condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world.
  Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can
  raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this
  reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to
  regard his body as good and to hold it in honour since God has
  created it and will raise it up on the last day

(emphasis mine)

Cathecism of the Catholic Church Paragraph 322 states that our bodies will be raised on the last day, so after that we will have bodies in heaven.


Is God the Son's blood divine and infinite or human and finite (Protestant interpretation)

Jesus's blood is strictly part of his human nature

According to Chalcedonian Christians in the incarnation Jesus took on a complete human nature which was united to the divine nature of God. Jesus's body is part of his human nature and was created in the incarnation. The divine nature of God is spirit, uncreated, non-physical. The Chalcedonian definition says that the two natures of Christ are united without separation, but also without mixture or confusion. Jesus has two distinct natures, not one hybrid nature, which means that his blood is strictly human, not divine.

The infinite nature of sin

I think the infinite nature of sin could be better referred to as the total, complete, and unquantifiable nature of sin. Under the Jewish law there was a sense in which individual sins were to be atoned for by individual sacrifices, that certain sins needed certain sacrifices. But none of these sacrifices could actually deal with the sinful nature we possess (Hebrews 10).

Our sinful nature is all-encompassing - none of us are only partially sinful, we just are sinful. We don't need partial saving, we need complete saving. We aren't partially dead, we are dead, and Jesus doesn't make us partially alive, he makes us alive. So when we consider the atonement Jesus brings us, it's not like we count up our sins and subtract them from Jesus's sacrifice. Jesus brings us complete redemption, regeneration, and reconciliation.

If there is an "infinite anger" (a phrase I haven't heard before) then it would be in the same sense: as we are totally unquantifiably sinful, so God is totally unquantifiably angry at our sin. But God is not only angry at us. Though we may not be able to understand how, at the same time as God is unquantifiably angry with us, such that he can even call us his enemies, he loves us enough to die for us to save us (Romans 5:6-10).

The infinite nature of the atonement

While there is a debate within Protestantism over the scope of the atonement as it applies to humanity (the debate over so-called "limited" atonement), all would agree that Jesus's sacrificial atoning death was of infinite capacity, sufficient to cover every sin of every human who has ever existed.

While the blood of Jesus is important, because Jesus paid the blood debt we all owed (or the blood punishment for those who are okay with that terminology), we shouldn't think of the atonement being accomplished solely or even primarily by his blood. The 5 litres of his blood don't need to be distributed among humanity as if we need one red blood cell each. While we Western Christians like to think individually, and while it is necessary that we do each have a personal faith and receive salvation ourselves, the atonement was for the church as a group.

On the cross Jesus received the condemnation which the whole world deserved. He destroyed the power of sin and death, and he initiated the end of the time of Adam. In his resurrection he is like a new Adam (Romans 5, 1 Cor 15), bringing new life to a new humanity. His death is the end of the old and his resurrection the beginning of the new, although we are waiting for judgement day when the beginning will be completed. We receive this not through an individual gift or transfer but because we are united to Christ, we are "in Christ" as the NT frequently says. I think we can say that we are in effect one step removed from the blood of Jesus: Jesus sheds his blood in the judgement of the old humanity and destroys sin and death, and then receives vindication, new eternal life, and initiates the new humanity in his resurrection. We die and are raised in him (Romans 6), so that the death of one man can cover us all because we are united to him.


According to Charismatic Christians, do those who never hear the gospel of Christ go to hell?

I'll provide answers from a couple charismatic theologians, Wayne Grudem and J. Rodman Williams.  Williams is the author of the first charismatic systematic theology, Renewal Theology, and I'll quote from it and some of his other writings.
Original Sin
First, both writers affirm the doctrine of original sin.  Williams describes it as follows:

"Original sin" refers to the fact that the human race is sinful in nature. [...] [T]he important feature is that man does not come into the world as an innocent or neutral creature but is affected by sin in all aspects of his being (Psalm 58:3; cf. Psalm 51:5). Indeed, by virtue of this fact, man is vitiated in every area of his nature—body, soul, spirit—so that he is utterly incapable himself of restoration and salvation. His only hope is in Jesus Christ.1

Referring to the people who are "without excuse" from Romans 1, Williams writes:

These are people of all times and places, who on their own account and to their own guilt and judgment, turn away from the living God.2

The clear implication here and in the rest of Williams' writing is that the unreached face judgment.
Grudem agrees, and writes more regarding the general revelation mentioned in Romans 1:

[E]ven without the Bible, all persons who have ever lived have had evidence in creation that God exists, that he is the Creator and they are creatures, and have also had some evidence of his character.  As a result, they themselves have known something about God from this evidence (even though this is never said to be a knowledge that is able to bring them to salvation).3

Salvation of Infants
However, both Williams and Grudem specifically refer to the case of infants as a potential exception to this rule.  First, Williams writes:

I suggest you look at Matthew 18:2-4 and 19:13-14. Note especially the words "Let the
children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven
belongs to such as these." Since Jesus graciously received them during His ministry,
surely He will do so in heaven. This does not mean that little children, or infants, are
innocent, but they have no ability to make a decision for or against Christ, which is the
requirement for salvation.4

Grudem goes into more detail.  He says that even infants have sinful natures, citing Psalm 51:5, but he notes the example of John the Baptist in Luke 1:15, saying:

Yet it is certainly possible for God to bring regeneration (that is, new spiritual life) to an infant even before he or she is born.  This was true of John the Baptist [...] We might say that John the Baptist was "born again" before he was born! [...] It is clear, therefore, that God is able to save infants in an unusual way, apart from their hearing and understanding the gospel, by bringing regeneration to them very early, sometimes even before birth.5

He cautions against taking this too far, but finds this as evidence that infants who die may be saved:

We must, however, affirm very clearly that this is not the usual way for God to save people.  Salvation usually occurs when someone hears and understands the gospel and then places trust in Christ.  But in unusual cases like John the Baptist, God brought salvation before this understanding.  And this leads us to conclude that it certainly is possible that God would also do this where he knows the infant will die before hearing the gospel.5

Summary
In summary, these two charismatic theologians believe in original sin, and thus that judgment is due to all men because all men have sinful natures and act sinfully.  However, they suggest that provision may be made for children who die in infancy.  One could speculate, based on this reasoning, that similar provision might extend to the mentally disabled, but neither author addresses that situation.  But extending this logic to mean salvation for the unreached peoples of the world is certainly outside the teaching of these two theologians.

References:

Williams, Theology Q and A, page 31 (See also Renewal Theology, 1: chapter 11, "The Effects of Sin.")
Williams, Renewal Theology, I-272.
Grudem, Systematic Theology, ch. 7, p122.
Williams, Theology Q and A, page 32
Grudem, Systematic Theology, ch. 24, p500.


What is the difference between 'Biblical' and 'Systematic' theology?

Biblical and systematic theology are two different ways of studying the Bible.  The main difference is what the theologies study.

Biblical theology is focused on studying a portion of the Bible and how that relates to the rest of the Bible.  An example may be specifically studying a portion of Isaiah.  The person studying may look back at what led up to one of Isaiah's prophecies and how that prophecy is fulfilled in Christ.

Systematic theology focuses on different topics and studies what the Bible says about that topic.  An example here may be studying the attributes of God.  A person studying the attributes would start by finding all the scripture which mentions the attributes of God.  After having all the scriptural references, they could then build a doctrine based on that scripture.

These methods of theological study are complimentary.  While biblical theology may give you insight into a specific portion of scripture, it may not be the best way of building a doctrine since it may not give you all that scripture says on a specific topic.  On the other hand, systematic theology can give you a very detailed view on a topic, but that view can be enhanced by providing even more context to the specific scripture which discusses a view.


In a Eucharistic miracle, do the communicants still partake of the sacrament?

The short answer is “no;” the products of a Eucharistic miracle such as the one in Lanciano, no longer have the substantial and sacramental presence of Christ.

A little background on how the Eucharist “works” in the Catholic and Orthodox churches

For the benefit of readers, here is a very short primer on the belief shared by Catholics and the Orthodox (and the Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Polish National Catholic Church, etc.) on the Eucharist.

These churches all believe that when a priest or bishop consecrates the bread and wine, these species are converted into Jesus Christ. In Western terminology (not commonly used in the East), we say that the very substance of the bread and wine is converted into the substance of Jesus. In other words, after the consecration (or epiclesis, in the Eastern rites), the sacred species cease to be bread and wine, and from that moment on are Jesus Christ. In Western terminology, this conversion is called transubstantiation. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 1376.)

The Eucharistic species, however, retain all of the properties and appearances (or “accidents”) of the bread and wine; hence, they are indistinguishable from bread or wine chemically and physically. (See Council of Trent, Session XIII, Decree on the Eucharist, Can. 2; see also Summa theologiae [S.Th.], III, q. 75, a.5.)

It is important to note that the substantial presence of Christ ceases as soon as they cease to have the appearance of bread or wine. For example, once the bread is dissolved into a paste, or the wine is diluted, the Real Presence ceases. (See CCC 1377, as well as S.Th. III Pars, q. 77, a. 4, responsum, and my answer to the question During communion, when does the wafer stop being Jesus' body?)

Regarding the Eucharistic miracles

In the case of miracles such as those at Lanciano (i.e., in which either the bread becomes actual human flesh or the wine becomes human blood), it is clear that the appearance of bread or wine has ceased, albeit in an extraordinary way. The object in question now has the properties of human flesh or human blood, not bread or wine.

It follows that these objects no longer have the sacramental presence of Christ—however extraordinary they are.


Why the disciple took Jesus' mother unto his own home?

SO, according to Tradition, Joseph had long since passed when Jesus even began his ministry, making him ineligible. The next question is "Why didn't Jesus entrust his mother to one of his step-brothers then?"

There is no substantial evidence that he had step-brothers. As the Aramaic word for "brother" is better understood "kinsman", it is quite possible that Christ had no step-brother, only kinsmen (meaning that he may have only had cousins)
The Apostle John WAS A COUSIN of Christ. The point is made here, but if you really want a better explanation you should contact Dr. Glasov at Seton Hall University. He has a cool chart and some nifty textual criticism.
As both a cousin and the beloved disciple, John was in the unique situation of being both the most faithful to Christ and a close blood relative. As such, he was probably the best choice to be given this honor.


What's the difference between resurrection and revival?

There are two types of Resurrections in the Bible.

1. Temporary Resurrection

Those who are brought back from the dead without a new body given to them. They will still die again when their time comes. This resurrection is mostly for the purpose of God's glory or to simply extend the life of the dead person on Earth as a result of prayer. This, even now is still happening in many parts of the world. Jesus resurrected Lazarus only to glorify God and himself through it.

  When Jesus heard that, He said, “This sickness is not unto death, but
  for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through
  it.”  (John 11:4, NKJV)

2. Eternal Resurrection

Those who will be brought back from the dead for eternity. This will happen at "The Last Day". There are again two types based on the destiny of the resurrected person.

  And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some
  to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt. (Daniel
  12:2, NKJV)

Resurrection of the just: Those who will be resurrected to inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. They will live with God for eternity. Their names are written in the Book of Life and they will live in the New Earth. Jesus Christ was the first one to be resurrected in this manner. This is also called "The First Resurrection".

  But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits
  of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man
  also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even
  so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order:
  Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His
  coming. (1 Corinthians 15:20-23, NKJV)

  And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to
  them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their
  witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the
  beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads
  or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a
  thousand years. But the rest of the dead did not live again until the
  thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
  Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection.
  (Revelation 20:4-6, NKJV)

Resurrection of the damned: Those who will be resurrected only to be judged and thrown into the Lake of Fire to be tormented for eternity.

  Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the
  second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was
  cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:14-15, NKJV)


Is there a sect who adopt "salvation by works and exaltation by both: faith and works"?

You say (and I quote) “salvation means being blameless, doesn't deserve punishment.”  Before going any further, and in order to properly answer your question, it is necessary to briefly clarify the Christian view of sin, punishment, salvation (justification), and exaltation.  Christians understand salvation as deliverance or redemption from sin and the consequences of sin - death and separation from God.  This is accomplished:

“by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand – with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him” (1 Peter 3:21-22).

This is entirely by God’s grace – it can never be earned:

“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23).

Even the faith that Christians have is a gift from God:

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no-one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (Ephesians 2:8-10).

Any good works we do are as a result of what God has prepared for us to do, but good works do nothing to “earn” salvation.  That is the view of mainstream Protestant Christianity.
The point is that each and every person is to blame for their sins and each and every person deserves punishment.  But what God does is to impute His righteousness to those who come to saving faith in Christ Jesus.  The blame that we deserve has instead been put onto Christ Jesus and he has borne the punishment we deserve.  Only by having faith in what God, in Jesus, has done, can we be declared righteous before a holy and just God.

“This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (Romans 3:22).

Likewise, justification is a free and undeserved gift from God.  Without exception, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus...   [God] justifies those who have faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:21-26).  Salvation comes only from having faith in what Christ Jesus has already accomplished.
You say (and I quote): “Exaltation means raising to a higher status and getting advantages like raising to the status of an angel.” That may be the view of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), but nowhere is there any biblical expectation that believers in Jesus Christ will be exalted to the status of an angel.  Yes, exaltation is the action of elevating someone in rank or power, and after the resurrection of Jesus he was:

“exalted to the right hand of God” (Acts 2:33) and “God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Saviour that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel” (Acts 5:31).

The problem is that some denominations think Jesus was created by God as a mighty spirit creature, who then came to earth to be born and dwell with us, and that this Jesus is an angel.  This is where any view of being exalted to the position of an angel (or to become a god) is unbiblical and has no part in traditional Christianity.  Jesus is no created angel.  Hebrews chapter one makes this very clear.  All God’s angels worship him and he alone is the Son of God – not as in many sons, but the one, the only, Son of God – unique.
The only denomination I can think of that believes humans can progress to godhood and be exalted to a rank even higher than the angels are Latter Day Saints (Mormons).  Although they have many ordinances that must be observed, they would deny that their salvation is a result of faith and works. Source:  What roles do faith and works play in the LDS/Mormon understanding of salvation?
Edit: I have located source material from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints about exaltation:

Gods have an ascendency over the angels, who are ministering servants. In the resurrection, some are raised to be angels, others are raised to become Gods. (Joseph Smith, ‘Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith’ page 312)
Doctrine & Covenants 132: 20-23: “Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.”

The link below is from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, part of which says this on the subject of exaltation:

If we prove faithful to the Lord, we will live in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom of heaven. We will become exalted, to live with our Heavenly Father in eternal families. Exaltation is the greatest gift that Heavenly Father can give His children (see D&C 14:7). Source: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng


In Scripture - Was Prophecy That was Spoken in Good Faith, ever Corrected?

The example that comes to mind is in Acts chapter 21. The context is, Paul is traveling to Jerusalem, where he knows he will be imprisoned.

  We sought out the disciples there and stayed with them seven days.
  Through the Spirit they urged Paul not to go on to Jerusalem. When it
  was time to leave, we left and continued on our way. All of them,
  including wives and children, accompanied us out of the city, and
  there on the beach we knelt to pray. After saying goodbye to each
  other, we went aboard the ship, and they returned home.

  We continued our voyage from Tyre and landed at Ptolemais, where we
  greeted the brothers and sisters and stayed with them for a day.
  Leaving the next day, we reached Caesarea and stayed at the house of
  Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven. He had four unmarried
  daughters who prophesied.

  After we had been there a number of days, a prophet named Agabus came
  down from Judea. Coming over to us, he took Paul’s belt, tied his own
  hands and feet with it and said, “The Holy Spirit says, ‘In this way
  the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and
  will hand him over to the Gentiles.’”

  When we heard this, we and the people there pleaded with Paul not to
  go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul answered, “Why are you weeping and
  breaking my heart? I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in
  Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” When he would not be
  dissuaded, we gave up and said, “The Lord’s will be done.”

  Acts 21:4-14 (NIV) (emphasis mine)

While the information being prophesied by Agabus in this case was not false (verse 4 may be talking about only a temporary halt), the disciples certainly interpreted and reacted to the prophesy wrongly in their response to it. Paul had to correct them all, including Philip.


Is Gertrude the Great's mariology considered erroneous in modern Catholicism?

Fergusson doesn't appear to understand Catholic mariology. Mary is not a "feminine expression of deity"; she is not a feminine aspect of God; she is not God, as Protestants often blasphemously allege Catholics believe.
Although St. Gertrude the Great was not canonized, that doesn't mean this holy Benedictine is not a saint. Her feast was celebrated in the universal Church on 16 November in the 1960 calendar (previously it was on Nov. 15, but that is now for St. Albert the Great), and her name is in the Roman Martyrology (cf. pt. 1, ch. 10 of Life and Revelations of Saint Gertrude the Great).
Perhaps you're referring to ibid. pt. 3, ch. 19:

How the praises offered to the Saints may be referred to God.
AS ST. GERTRUDE was accustomed to refer all that was sweet and agreeable to her Beloved when she heard or read the praise of the Blessed Virgin or of the Saints, and was more than usually moved thereby, she raised her heart to God, so that she thought more of Him than of the Saint whose memory was honored; and as she heard a sermon on the Feast of the Annunciation, in which the Blessed Virgin was spoken of exclusively, and no mention was made of the Incarnation of the Son of God, she was so grieved, that as she passed the altar of the Blessed Virgin, returning from the sermon, she did not salute her with her usual devotion, but rather offered her salutation to Jesus, the blessed Fruit of her womb. But afterward she feared she had displeased this august queen, until Our Lord consoled her by these loving words: “Fear not, Gertrude, My beloved; for although you have referred the honor and praise which you usually render to My dear Mother exclusively to Me, it will not be the less agreeable to her.”

This summarizes very well the Catholic doctrine of the relationship between latria (worship due to God alone) and hyperdulia (the highest form of veneration of the saints, due to the Queen of Saints alone). Dulia (δοῦλος = servant) is meant to direct us to God, so of course the Blessed Virgin would not be displeased that St. Gertrude "offered her salutation to Jesus". Christ told us who our mother is (Jn. 19:27: "Behold thy mother") and commands us honor our father and mother (4th commandment). If a child says "I love you" to her father, and not simultaneously to her mother, does that mean she doesn't love her mother?


What is meant by keeping people blind and deaf so as not to get healed?

TL;DR: Milk before meat. Deep doctrine is dangerous to an unprepared soul.

  "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not
  able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able." (see 1 Corinthians 3:1-3)

Christ taught in parables [as did Isaiah] so that the  spiritually immature and spiritually mature could both benefit from the message. He kept the deeper doctrines hidden in the parable from those who were spiritually "blind" and "deaf" to them until they matured spiritually enough that they could bear the deeper doctrines, and be healed by them.

Understanding Isaiah

You are right that this is one of those scriptures that is meant to challenge our understanding. Prophets like Isaiah veiled their teachings in language that preserved their teachings for those who would understand with their heart. Isaiah’s words are similar to the parables of Jesus in their manner of teaching. Spiritually speaking, Isaiah’s writings are meat, not milk (see 1 Corinthians 3:1–3; Hebrews 5:13–14; Isaiah 28:9). It requires spiritual maturity to understand them.

Prophecy of the Rejection of Spiritual Things

Isaiah 6 is a prophecy of the Jews rejecting Christ's teachings. The words the prophet Isaiah was commissioned to deliver were in part to bring the people to a full accountability for their choices, so that they would be left without excuse. The words are better understood:

  "And he said: Go and tell this people—Hear ye indeed, but [they]
  understood not; and see ye indeed, but [they] perceived not."

The people claimed to hear and see, but they did not understand the spirit of the message.

–– UPDATE – in response to OP edit:

  "Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and
  shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their
  ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed."
  (Isaiah 6:10)

Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on Isaiah 6:

  The command to “make the heart of this people fat, … their ears
  heavy, and shut their eyes” is used to describe the process of making
  the people accountable. The command, of course, refers to “their
  spiritual sight, spiritual hearing, and spiritual feeling.” (Keil and
  Delitzsch, Commentary, 7:1:200).

  “There is a self-hardening in evil. … Sin from its very nature bears
  its own punishment. … An evil act in itself is the result of
  self-determination proceeding from a man’s own will.” (Keil and
  Delitzsch, Commentary, 7:1:201).

An individual cannot resist or reject the truth without eventually becoming spiritually hardened.

Isaiah’s indictment of the kingdom of Judah was cited again in the New Testament to show that the people of that time were no different. The inability of many to understand the parables is a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy:

  "And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be? And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand." (see Luke 8:9–10; also see Matthew 13:10–17).

The significance of many of the miracles was also misunderstood:

  "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they
  should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and
  be converted, and I should heal them." (see John 12:37–41).

The testimony of the Messiah and His Sonship was understood, at least in part, by the disciples, but it was rejected by others:

  "21 ¶In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O
  Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from
  the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so,
  Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

  22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth
  who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son,
  and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

  23 ¶And he turned him unto his disciples, and said privately, Blessed
  are the eyes which see the things that ye see:

  24 For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see
  those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those
  things which ye hear, and have not heard them." (see Luke 10:21–24).

In direct response to your comment:

"... it is mentioned that people should be deaf and blind until the cities crash down and the human population is decimated."

  "Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be
  wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be
  utterly desolate," (Isaiah 6:11).

The prophet Isaiah asked the Lord how long some men would be hardened against truth (v. 11); the answer—until mortal man no longer exists.

––

Understanding Parables

These scriptures refer to spiritual understanding. Many of the people of Jesus’ time were spiritually immature and unprepared to receive the doctrines He taught (they have eyes, but they can't "see" the deeper meaning). Through parables He was able to teach the more spiritually mature and at the same time veil His teachings from those who were not prepared to understand or follow them. In that manner He kept many from being condemned for having a knowledge of principles they were unable to live.

  "That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear,
  and not understand [hear the message, but not understand the deeper spiritual context]; lest at any time they should be converted, and
  their sins should be forgiven them [so that they can can join the church later, without being held accountable for sinning while having a greater understanding of spiritual things]." (Mark 4:12; KJV)

Matthew's account gives us more clarity on his words:

  11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to
  know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not
  given...

  13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see
  not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand...

  15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of
  hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should
  see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand
  with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

  16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they
  hear. (Matthew 13:11,13,15-16)

In answer to your question, the people cannot be healed until their spiritual eyes are opened, and they can hear with their spiritual ears. Only then can they understand with their heart. Therefore it is prudent to keep them blind and deaf to the deeper "meatier" doctrines until they are spiritually mature enough to "stomach" them, Otherwise it could be detrimental to their spiritual development, much like giving meat instead of milk to a suckling babe would be detrimental to the physical health of the baby.

The Savior’s parables therefore included an implied invitation to seek further understanding of the truths they contained, and those who did so were rewarded with greater enlightenment.

A simple illustration showing why some people may fail to understand the truths taught in parables:

  “Two men may hear the same words; one of them listens in indolence and
  indifference, the other with active mind intent on learning all that
  the words can possibly convey; and, having heard, the diligent man
  goes straightway to do the things commended to him, while the careless
  one neglects and forgets. The one is wise, the other foolish; the one
  has heard to his eternal profit, the other to his everlasting
  condemnation” (Jesus the Christ, 3rd ed. [1916], 297).

The Establishment of Zion (Isaiah 1–12), (13-37).
Old Testament Student Manual Kings-Malachi, (1982), 137–50.Understanding Isaiah, (E-3)
Old Testament Student Manual Kings-Malachi, (1982), 131–35.Chapter 5: Matthew 13–15, Matthew 13:13. “They Seeing See Not”
New Testament Student Manual, 2014.


Why don't creationists teach a literal firmament anymore?

People don't seem to believe in the firmament as a literal barrier of
  water up in the sky that collapsed at Noah's flood.

The answer to this is amazingly simple.

Many Young-Earth Creationists believe that there was a layer of water of some form (ice, water, other possibilities) in the upper atmosphere, or in space, surrounding the earth AND Young-Earth Creationists believe that there is a Firmament.

However, almost none believe that the Firmament is a solid layer of water because YEC-ers have a hyper-literal understanding of the Genesis account.  And...

It's impossible to get the idea that the firmament is a solid layer of water from the Genesis account.

That's the answer.  Here's the explanation:

From Genesis 1 (KJV)

  6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,
  and let it divide the waters from the waters.

  7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under
  the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it
  was so.

  8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning
  were the second day.

Jumping down to verse 20:

  20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving
  creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the
  open firmament of heaven.

The Firmament is the place between the waters - it divides the waters above from below.  It's not a solid layer of water, it's the space between the waters.  It's where the birds fly.  It'd be a bit hard for birds to fly in a solid layer.

So, again, the reason Young Earth Creationists don't teach that the firmament is a solid layer of water is that YEC-ers are very literal in the interpretation of Genesis (by definition) and there's absolutely no way to get the idea that the firmament is a solid layer of water from the text.

The idea, however, that the layer of water (in whatever form it took) was part of the source of water for the flood (along with the fountains of the deep) is pretty common among Young-Earth creationists, however, and is taught widely.

Details on the nature of the waters vary. Some say clouds or water vapors.  Others think a layer of ice in the upper atmosphere or in space. There's not much agreement on what form it took, but it is widely believed to have existed in some form.