Like many things Jesus said, the Jews would have found more than just the drinking of the blood offensive.  They would have also been offended by the concept of eating Christ's flesh, which is akin to cannibalism in the Bible.

The key verse here is this (Leviticus 17:10-14)

  “‘I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing
  among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people.
  For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you
  to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that
  makes atonement for one’s life.  Therefore I say to the Israelites,
  “None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you
  eat blood.”

  “‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing among you who hunts any
  animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it
  with earth,  because the life of every creature is its blood. That is
  why I have said to the Israelites, “You must not eat the blood of any
  creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who
  eats it must be cut off.”

So in the OT, the blood was spilled upon the altar, not ingested, as it is the blood that makes atonement for our sins.  In fact, the reason for the blood itself was as an atonement for our sins, and as such, it was prescribed that it would be spilled before the altar.  To drink the blood would be depriving it of it's purpose: to be spent on the altar.

Enter Christ.  In John 6:53, he says:

  So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the
  flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

So here is is saying that, in order to have life in us, we have to eat of the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood.

So that leaves us with the question:  What is the difference between the animal sacrifice, and Jesus' sacrifice?  When we answer this question, we find that the animal sacrifice was simply symbolic and temporary.  The animal sacrifice itself did not bring life to the one sacrificing, so much as it atoned for their sins, and more importantly, pointed ultimately to Christ.  When Christ came, he actually imparted life to those who believe him.

As one commentator said, all true life comes from Christ, not from the animal sacrifices.  We have no life outside of Christ.  This is why drinking of Christ's blood is acceptable, but drinking of an animal's blood was not.

Or to look at it another way, if Paul is right, and our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, then doesn't it make sense that Christ's sacrifice should happen within our own hearts, and hence the ingestion of Christ's blood and body?  The ceremonial system did not impart the Holy Spirit to those who practiced it.  It was a shadow of what was to come.  Paul puts it like this in 1 Corinthians 6:19:

  Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit
  within you, whom you have from God?

So, in Judaism, the altar was in the temple, and the sacrifice was spread before the altar in the physical temple, whereas when Christ came and ended the sacrificial system, his blood must be spread in the temple of our hearts.

Hebrews sheds a bit of light on this too.  In Hebrews 8-10, the writer speaks of the difference between the blood of bulls and calves and the blood of Christ.
Hebrews 10:1:

  For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead
  of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same
  sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those
  who draw near.

That is, the old covenant sacrifices can never impart life.

In Hebrews 10:22 he says:

  Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places
  by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us
  through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a
  great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart
  in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from
  an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. (emphasis
  mine)

In the old covenant, it was the altar sprinkled with the blood of the lamb, but in the new covenant, it is the altar of our hearts sprinkled with the blood of the Jesus.

As for your original question, Jesus and his disciples were actually sharing a Passover Seder together, not a typical sacrificial meal.  The passover, if you'll recall correctly, was the meal that the Israelites would share to commemorate the time that God killed all the newborn children in Egypt, but passed over those whose door sides and top were covered in the blood of the lamb.  The disciples were preparing for such a time, only this time it would be the blood of the Lamb of God that would be covering their hearts, causing death to pass by them.

As for the bread and wine, it was typical to eat bread and drink wine for Passover.  Today, most Jews will drink four cups of wine as described here.  They wouldn't drink the last cup of wine, because that one represents the coming of the messiah.  To this day, the Jews don't drink this cup.  It's likely that it was this fifth cup that Jesus was sharing with the disciples when he said, in Matthew 26:26-29:

  Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke
  it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my
  body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to
  them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of thec
  covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
  I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until
  that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

So to answer the original question, yes, Communion was instituted in the OT, though the interpretation of it's true spiritual meaning wasn't fully revealed until Christ.  Communion, however, is most closely related to Passover as described in Exodus 12, and not to the consecration of priests, as the text in Exodus 29 describes.


Did John Calvin believe that the grandchildren of a believer are entitled to infant baptism?

John Knox, the leader of the Reformation in Scotland,  wrote to Calvin in 1559,  asking for his view on whether it be lawful to admit to the Sacrament of Baptism the children of idolators and excommunicated persons before their parents have testified their repentance.

In reply Calvin said he had consulted colleagues in Geneva and all were agreed.

  God's promise comprehends not only the offspring of every believer in the first line of descent, but extends to thousands of generations.

This is  a reference to the promise in the Second Commandment.

He went on:

  To us then it is by no means doubtful that an offspring descended from holy and pious ancestors, belong to the body of the Church,  though their fathers and grandfathers may have been apostates.

and

  wherever the profession of Christianity has not been altogether interrupted or destroyed, children are defrauded of their privileges if they are excluded from the common symbol; because it is unjust, when God, 300 years ago or more, has thought them worthy of His adoption, that the subsequent impiety of some of their progenitors should interrupt the course of heavenly grace.

However he did insist suitable sponsors (godparents rather than guardians) were needed.

  We confess it is indispensible for them to have sponsors.

Dr Jules Bonnet, in the nineteenth century published a collection of Calvin's letters translated. This letter is letter 549.

Letters of John Calvin


Could there have been a different translation for Matthew 14:28? (Catholic perspective)

This is not a Catholic-specific question; however, the translation (which appears in the ESV) accurately represents the Greek: εἰ σὺ εἶ (“if it is you”). (See the corresponding entry in the Liddell & Scott dictionary.)

That the Catholic Church basically accepts this interpretation is confirmed by looking at the Latin Vulgate (the translation favored by most Catholics for centuries): si tu es.

Note that in the Greek, the word “you” is redundant (εἶ—the one with the circumflex accent—by itself already means “you are” or “it is you”). Thus, Peter here is emphasizing the “you”: that is, “if it is you (and not someone else)….”


Christians showing purported satanic signs

As for "how other Christians view this", the answer is "it depends on the Christian in question."

Some Christians, as you pointed out, believe these are signs of the devil, others don't. Just like some Christians see Harry Potter as Satan's way of luring kids into witchcraft, while others think it's a good read and good movies. Some Christians see Satanic symbols in the Proctor and Gamble logo, or the mark of the beast in UPC barcodes.

As for whether or not it matters, I defer to Romans 14 (KJV)

  1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful
  disputations.

  2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak,
  eateth herbs.

  3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him
  which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

  4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master
  he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to
  make him stand.

  5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day
  alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

  ....

  14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is
  nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be
  unclean, to him it is unclean.

To those that believe these are Satan's signs, it matters. To those that don't, it doesn't.


Theologians who thought Christ incarnated primarily to reveal the doctrine of the Trinity?

Hugon, O.P., summarizes

Alexandr. Halens,, Sum. Theol. [Summa fratris Alexandri], dist. 3, q. iii, mem. 13

in Tractatus Dogmatici (vol. 2) pp. 310-11, de Incarnationis motivo:

Alexander Hales proves the Incarnation, even excluding the motive of the redemption, to be still most fitting, because God the supreme good maximally diffuses himself* and blesses the entire man—namely, both his intellectual and sensory parts.Alexander Halensis id solum evincit Incarnationem, etiam secluso motivo redemptionis, esse adhuc convenientissimam ut Deus summum bonum se maxime diffundat et totam humanam, partem nempe et intellectivam et sensitivam, beatificet.

*cf. Scholastic axiom 3.10: "Bonum est diffusivum sui." ("The good is self-diffusive."), from St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I q. 27 a. 5 arg. 2 (major premise); source
Thus, Hales believed that the Incarnation contributed to maximally blessing man's intellect.
It would be interesting to see if Hales cites John 18:37 ("for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth") or John 17:3, which alludes to the Trinity ("Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."), since the Trinity is a truth necessary to believe for salvation.


Why is Jesus named the Prince of Peace instead of the King of Peace?

Before it meant the son of a king, or someone who was not yet king, the original sense of the word 'prince' was someone of the highest rank.  (It's related to the word 'principal'.)

The Hebrew word שָׂר used in the original seems to have the same idea in it.


Why did not Jesus personally baptize anyone?

Here are two Bible verses on the subject.  One suggests that perhaps Jesus did perform baptism:

After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptised (Matthew 3:22).

However, the following Bible verse says it was Jesus’ disciples who did the baptising:

The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptising more disciples than John, although in fact it was not Jesus who baptised, but his disciples (Matthew 4:1).

The Bible does not tell us if Jesus baptised anyone, or why he would not baptise anyone.  Perhaps it was to avoid a situation where a person baptised by Jesus would think they were superior to other believers based who had been baptised by a disciple.
An example of this is recorded in 1 Corinthians 1:12-15 where the apostle Paul had cause to rebuke believers who made a big thing out of who had baptised them.  Some were quarrelling over who had baptised them, saying they followed Apollos, or Cephas, or Christ.

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptised into the name of Paul?

The important point is not who does the baptising, but being baptised into the name of Christ.  Also, John the Baptist predicted that the Messiah would baptise with Holy Spirit and fire, not water:

I baptise you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and fire. (Matthew 3:11)

Neither Matthew 3:11 nor Matthew 3:14 say if Jesus himself baptised anyone, only that a time would come (after Jesus’ death and resurrection) when he would send the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, to empower his followers to spread the gospel message throughout the world.  First Corinthians 12:13 says:

We were all baptised by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.”


Does the parable of the Unforgiving Servant have implications re: "once saved, always saved"?

What the parable teaches

Jesus's parables are not comprehensive systematic theology lectures. They teach particular things through analogies but without telling the whole story. What this parable teaches us is:

That our sin is like a zillion dollar debt that we owe to God. It is so immense we can hardly put a number to it, and there is no possible payment plan we could make to repay it.
That God forgives our debt in its entirety because he is supremely compassionate.
That we are not immediately freed from the power of sin, and acquiescing to the temptation of not forgiving our brothers and sisters is so serious that it should make us seriously question whether we have been saved and are living in a way that accords with what God has done for us.

But this parable does not teach us everything about God's forgiveness. In fact, if all you knew of God's forgiveness was this parable, it could lead you to a fundamentally broken understanding of that forgiveness. Because God does not actually just waive our debt with a wave of the hand.

The foundation of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints

The only reason why our debt to God can be forgiven is because his son took on our debt himself. And to pay our zillion dollar debt it cost him the only thing infinitely valuable in the universe, himself. Whenever we come across something which seems odd theologically, one of the first questions to ask is "where is the cross?" This parable has no cross, so that shows us that it cannot be a comprehensive explanation of God's forgiveness.

To understand how Christ's death on the cross enables our forgiveness we have to understand that in the centre of Reformed Theology is the doctrine of Union with Christ. In faith we are united to Jesus Christ by the holy spirit. This union is what applies all of Christ's works to us. In being united to Christ he takes our debt on himself, and not just the debts of all our past sins, but all the debts of our future sins as well. To stretch the financial analogy, being united to Christ is like us having a single joint bank account with him; once he has paid our debt God can only look in our account and see the positive balance of Christ's faithful obedience to God and his law.

Union with Christ also solves the tension of the warning over falling away. It is our being united to Christ that effects our transformation and conformity to Christ; we do not become more like Christ through our own effort, but through God making us be like him. And we know that in this life sin still remains, there will always be temptations, and we will never stop giving into some of them. But with the indwelling Holy Spirit as the guarantee of our eternal salvation and glorification (2 Cor 5:4-5) we can be confident that we won't be lost even if we do sin by not forgiving others. But sin is still extremely serious; it not only grieves God, but eventually it will have to be purged as we go through the furnace of death before being resurrected as sinless new creations (1 Cor 3:11-15).

I think this passage from Colossians 2 shows how all these threads are tied together. Reading this and the parable together will give us a much more well rounded understanding of the forgiveness of God.

  For the entire fullness of God’s nature dwells bodily in Christ, and you have been filled by him, who is the head over every ruler and authority. You were also circumcised in him with a circumcision not done with hands, by putting off the body of flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, when you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. And when you were dead in trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, he made you alive with him and forgave us all our trespasses. He erased the certificate of debt, with its obligations, that was against us and opposed to us, and has taken it away by nailing it to the cross. (Colossians 2:9-14, CSB)


Are there any Christian denominations that assure equality with God?

Almost all Christian denominations hold that God is fundamentally different from Humans, particularly in that God is uncreated, eternal and the creator of everything that is. Humans thus cannot become God.
The only denomination I know of that teaches that Humans can become equal with God (and can in fact become gods) is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also called the Mormon Church.

In LDS doctrine, the goal of each adherent is to receive "exaltation" through the atonement of Jesus. If a person receives exaltation, they inherit all the attributes of God the Father, including godhood. Mormons believe that these people will become gods and goddesses in the afterlife, and will have "all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge".


According to pre-tribulation pre-millenialists, when would and will Christians be persecuted for their faith as a sign to the world?

Your question tho aimed to a specific grouping of individuals, has peaked my interest. The question of when as you have pointed out is everyday, for people in various places tho not in your locale... One hears of people being gunned down in churches, wiped out of villages and the such... But what I get from you is when will there be arnachy  right? Chaos as some others would term it... Get this, that would be after Rapture... Now altho I hold to no specific denomination tho I frequented them whilst growing, I know this sort of responce would be termed pre-trib... And whilst I am not a proponent for any official wording or doctrine of any specific group I do find this consistent with the scripture... I could cite them but of course you may be well versed yourself, so here it goes my reasoning:

Not all believers are and would be ready to depart in Rapture, some are like the 5 foolish virgin's whose oil has finished (yet they are still virgins tho foolish). They will be witnesses to affirm the event of the rapture and be the ones to counter the official (And I mean governmental) explanations for the bizzare events of the rapture and everything that follows... [Mass alien abduction may be the buzzword]... and the 'aliens' [angelic manifestations of The OTHER kind] are not the other worldly sci-fi entities you were brought up on... But rather spiritual entities, manifested...

Believers who were not 'ready' tho 'left-behind' will be very aware of what occurred,  and will be the ones to continue witnessing, preaching, converting those who are left here, or even born then, about the God of the Rapture... but that is on the physical side, the spiritual side of this is that the rapture will be simply the withdrawing of the Restrainer (Holy Spirit) and with him all who house him in their hearts as referenced in Thessalonians (those who accept the free gift of salvation, offered by Yeshua [Jesus Christ])...

Now when the Restrainer is removed along with the saints he inhabits, then obviously, what was being restrained will be allowed free reign and may manifest fully in our physical world... take a look at popular media to get a glimpse of what is to come (spiritual expression [zombie apocalypse]) is just one buzzword I will use to set you thinking due to the Restrainer being removed... that is when the message would be prosecuted as referenced by the scriptures u cited, when God in the Spirit form (Holy Spirit) would not daily restrain but leave man to his choices and devices, yet still faithfully accept those who would hear even in those days, and believe, confess and even be matyred in His name...

The saving grace is we still have time! Today to be specific, make that decision today, be vigilant, be (spiritually sober), be ready!..

As further encouragement; Revelation 20:5-6:- Blessed and Holy are you, if...


The Way of the Cross, also known as The Stations of the Cross, as advertised by a Church is a formal mini-pilgrimage or "pilgrimage lite" through the "stations" (important moments) of Jesus' passion and death. In modern Catholic Churches there are 14 stations:

Christ condemned to death;
the cross is laid upon him;
His first fall;
He meets His Blessed Mother;
Simon of Cyrene is made to bear the cross;
Christ's face is wiped by Veronica;
His second fall;
He meets the women of Jerusalem;
His third fall;
He is stripped of His garments;
His crucifixion;
His death on the cross;
His body is taken down from the cross; and
laid in the tomb.

Each station is generally represented in the Church by a metal or wooden engraving, a painting, or a stained glass image. The group moves from station to station in order and is lead in prayer and meditation.

Unlike some other Catholic "events", this isn't a sacrament. So, for a mini-mini-pilgrimage, this can be done privately as well, using your own words, reflections, and prayers if you like. Praying "the stations" is recommended by lots of holy folk in particular during lent, but also regularly throughout the year.

See http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/stations/menu.html
And http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15569a.htm


It depends on who you ask.  That's because it depends upon how you interpret the meaning of certain Biblical passages.

Both Trinitarians and Non-trinitarians feel very strongly that their doctrine is taught clearly in the Bible.  Trinitarians will answer, "Yes, Jesus did teach the doctrine of the trinity."  Non-trinitarians will answer, "No, Jesus never taught the doctrine of the trinity."  Both will provide biblical support for their arguments.  So, your question is not really a matter of whether or not Jesus did or did not teach it.  The question really is, whose interpretation, of those Biblical passages in question, do you find to be the most convincing.

Below are some of the most common examples that Trinitarians will point to, where they claim that Jesus teaches their doctrine.  Non-trinitarians each have slightly different interpretations of these passages depending upon their particular doctrines (non-trinitarian doctrines can range anywhere from Sabellianism to Adoptionism, so it's difficult to give a single definitive non-trinitarian interpretation of these passages).

Matthew 28:18-20 (NASB)

  And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

John 5:17-18 (NASB)

  But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.”  For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

John 8:48-59 (NASB)

  The Jews answered and said to Him, “Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?” Jesus answered, “I do not have a demon; but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me. But I do not seek My glory; there is One who seeks and judges. Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death.” The Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word, he will never taste of death.’ Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?” Jesus answered, “If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God’; and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.

John 10:25-38 (NASB)

  Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”  The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.”

John 14:9-17 (NASB)

  Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.  “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.  I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.

John 16:12-15 (NASB)

  I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.

Those, and other passages like them, would be the closest Jesus came to directly teaching the doctrine of the Trinity.  It is impossible to fully support the entire orthodox doctrine of the Trinity using only the teachings of Jesus.  Supporting the entire doctrine on a Biblical-basis requires incorporating many other passages from both the Old and New Testaments.  There is no place in the Bible where all of the aspects of the doctrine are expounded in a single passage.  The word "trinity" is certainly never used in the Bible.

As far as whether or not the passages above constitute what you refer to as "giving a lesson regarding the subject matter," I will leave that judgment call up to you.


Does the Catholic church consider Mark 16:9-20 to be biblical canon?

At the Council of Trent, the Church officially declared as dogma the canon of Holy Scripture. This included "the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John." The council did not explicitly say whether the Longer Ending of the Gospel is canonical. However, it does declare that

if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.
(emphasis added)

The Longer Ending is in fact included in the Vulgate as well as in the New Vulgate. Further, in the declaration of the canon of Holy Scripture, the Council recalled that

our Lord Jesus Christ... commanded [the Gospels] to be preached by His Apostles to every creature,

a clear reference to Mark 16:15.
It thus appears that yes, the Church does consider the Longer Ending canon.


What are the relationships between 'Bible', 'Hebrew Bible', 'Aramaic Bible', 'Tanakh' etc?

Bible
The English word "bible" is a transliteration of the Greek word βίβλος (English transliteration: biblos). This Greek word is typically translated into English as "book" or "scroll" (cp. Matt. 1:1).
Papyrus used to be exported to the Aegean through the Phonecian city of Geval, which was known as Βύβλος (English transliteration: Byblos) by the Greeks.
The philosopher Theophrastus wrote concerning papyrus (πάπυρος) in his Περί Φυτών Ιστορίας ("On the History of Plants"), Book 4.8.3,

The papyrus itself is useful for many purposes; for they make boats from it, and from the rind (τῆς βίβλου) they weave sails, mats, a kind of rainment, coverlets, ropes, and many other things. Most familiar to foreigners are the papyrus-rolls (τὰ βιβλία) made of it; but above all the plant also is of very great use in the way of food. For all the natives chew the papyrus both raw, boiled, and roasted; they swallow the juice and spit out the quid. Such is the papyrus and its uses. It grows also in Syria about the lake in which grows also sweet-flag; and Antigonus made of it the cables for his ships.
αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ πάπυρος πρὸς πλεῖστα χρήσιμος. καὶ γὰρ πλοῖα ποιοῦσιν ἐξ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκ τῆς βίβλου ἱστία τε πλέκουσι καὶ ψιάθους καὶ ἐσθῆτά τινα καὶ στρωμνὰς καὶ σχοινία τε καὶ ἕτερα πλείω. καὶ ἐμφανέστατα δὴ τοῖς ἔξω τὰ βιβλία. μάλιστα δὲ καὶ πλείστη βοήθεια πρὸς τὴν τροφὴν ἀπ' αὐτοῦ γίνεται. μασῶνται γὰρ ἅπαντες οἱ ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ τὸν πάπυρον καὶ ὠμὸν καὶ ἑφθὸν καὶ ὀπτόν. καὶ τὸν μὲν χυλὸν καταπίνουσι, τὸ δὲ μάσημα ἐκβάλλουσιν. ὁ μὲν οὖν πάπυρος τοιοῦτός τε καὶ ταύτας παρέχεται τὰς χρείας. γίνεται δὲ καὶ ἐν Συρίᾳ περὶ τὴν λίμνην ἐν ᾗ καὶ ὁ κάλαμος ὁ εὐώδης. ὅθεν καὶ Ἀντίγονος εἰς τὰς ναῦς ἐποιεῖτο τὰ σχοινία.

| English & Greek |
For more information, see:
Pliny, Historia Naturalis ("Natural History"), Book XIII, Ch. XXI-XXVI | English | Latin |
Hebrew Bible / Tanakh
The Hebrew scriptures maintained by the Jewish people are commonly referred to in Hebrew by the acronym תַּנַ"ךְ (English transliteration: Tanakh). This acronym stands for תּוֹרָה, נְבִיאִים, כְּתוּבִים (English transliteration: Torah, Nevi'im, Ktuvim), or in English, "Law, Prophets, Writings." Another Hebrew word used in reference to the Hebrew scriptures is מִקְרָא (English transliteration: mikra). The Tanakh consists of twenty-four books. It could be referred to as "the Hebrew Bible," but this phrase isn't commonly expressed in English by the Jewish people to refer to the Tanakh. Most Jews simply say mikra or Tanakh to refer to the collection of the twenty-four books of the Hebrew scriptures.

While the Christian Bible separates I and II Samuel into two books, the Jewish Bible consolidates them into one book (שְׁמוּאֵל; Shmu'el).

While the Christian Bible separates I and II Kings into two books, the Jewish Bible consolidates them into one book (מְלָכִים; Melakhim).

While the Christian Bible separates I and II Chronnicles into two books, the Jewish Bible consolidates them into one book (דִּבְרֵי הַיָּמִים; Divrei ha-Yamim).

While the Christian Bible separates Ezra and Nehemiah into two books, the Jewish Bible consolidates them into one book (עֶזְרָא/ נְחֶמְיָה; Ezra/ Nechemyah).

In addition, the Christian Bible separates the twelve minor prophets into twelve individual books, but Jewish Bible consolidates the twelve minor prophets into one book.

Recommended websites:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/

Torah
The Torah (תּוֹרָה) is simply the first five books of the Jewish Bible:

בְּרֵאשִׁית (English transliteration: Bereshit; lit. "In the beginning," "Genesis")
שְׁמוֹת (English transliteration: Shmot; lit. "Names of," "Exodus")
וַיִּקְרָא (English transliteration: Vayikra; lit. "And he called," "Leviticus")
בְּמִדְבַּר (English transliteration: Bemidbar; lit. "In the wilderness," "Numbers")
דְּבָרִים (English transliteration: Dvarim; lit. "Words," "Deuteronomy")

It is also known as חֻמָּשׁ (English transliteration: chumash), related to the word חָמֵשׁ (English transliteration: chamesh), meaning "five."
Aramaic Bible
This is commonly known as a תַּרְגּוּם (English transliteration: targum). There are actually multiple targums, or targumim. During a particular era of Jewish history, Aramaic was the predominate language of the Jewish people. Since their scriptures were originally written in Hebrew, yet the Jewish people were more literate in the Aramaic language, a few individuals took the initiative to produce Aramaic translations (and thus, interpretations) of the Hebrew scriptures in order to facilitate the understanding of the Hebrew scriptures. One such individual was Yonatan ben Uzzi'el (יוֹנָתָן בֶּן עוּזִּיאֵל), and another, Unkelos or "Onkelos" (אוּנְקְלוֹס), who was a convert to Judaism. There are a few other targumim beside these, including the Targum Neofiti. Onkelos supposedly made a targum of the Torah alone, while Yonatan ben Uzzi'el supposedly made a targum of the Nevi'im and Ktuvim. However, there's a bit of confusion on this matter.
Recommended websites:

http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/u/u0.htm
English Translation of Targum of 1 Samuel
English Translation of Targum of Ruth
English Translation of Targum of Song of Songs
English Translation of Targum of Lamentations
English Translation of Targum of Isaiah

Greek Bible
The Greek Bible, or rather, the Greek Septuagint (also known as "LXX"), but in Greek, ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα, is the Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh produced by approximately 70-72 Jewish scholars in approximately 250 B.C. at the behest of King Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt.
The account of this translation is testified by the Jewish historian Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, the Epistle of Aristeas, as well as the Babylonian Talmud.
For more information, see:

Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews," Book XII, Ch. II, §1-2  | English & Greek |
Philo, "On the Life of Moses," Book II, Ch. V-VII, §31-38 | English | Greek |
Babylonian Talmud, Seder Mo'ed, Tractate Megilla, Chapter 1, Folio 9a-9b | English | Hebrew |
Epistle of Aristeas, §35-50 | English | Greek |

It should be noted that the original Septuagint is no longer extant (just like the original manuscripts of the Bible are no longer extant). What exists today is essentially a compilation of all the Greek manuscripts of the Hebrew Tanakh that were produced during that era; this is what we call the "Septuagint." One individual responsible for this compilation was Origen who produced the Hexapla.
Recommded websites:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/sep/

Sir Lancelot Brenton produced an English translation of the Greek Septuagint in 1851, available here.

(ongoing edit in progress)


How was John the Baptist, as a child, protected from Herod's soldiers?

There is a document called the protoevangelium (prequel to the gospel) of St James, the earliest copy of which is said to be third century.

This describes it in more detail.

Chapter 22 verse 3 says

  But Elizabeth when she heard that they sought for John, took him and went up into the hill-country and looked about her where she should hide him: and there was no hiding-place. And Elizabeth groaned and said with a loud voice: 0 mountain of God, receive thou a mother with a child. For Elizabeth was not able to go up. And immediately the mountain clave asunder and took her in. And there was a light shining alway for them: for an angel of the Lord was with them, keeping watch over them.

It goes on to say Zacharias, John's father, was subsequently killed for refusing to reveal John's whereabouts.

This is not regarded as canonical.

Ein Karem is about five miles from Bethlehem though, so would not necessarily have been included in the death zone.


What liturgical calendar does the Anglican Ordinariate follow?

The Anglican Ordinariate follows the calendar of the Ordinary Form of the Mass (Novus Ordo), but does have elements of the Extraordinary Form (Tridentine) calendar incorporated into it.

For the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, Wikipedia says this:

  The proper liturgical calendar of the ordinariate was approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on 15 February 2012. In the main, it is identical with the current Roman Rite liturgical calendar of the dioceses of England and Wales, but it has retained some elements that form part of the Anglican patrimony. Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham

Although the Anglican Ordinaiates have Ember Days and Rogation Days, which are elements of the Extraordinary Form, these days have never been abrogated in liturgical reform of Blessed Paul VI and may be still used in the Ordinary Form of the Mass, if desired.


Is there any relationship between Aquinas teaching on the analogical knowledge of God and Christ teaching in parables?

Parables & Metaphors
To speak parabolically is to speak in metaphors, and metaphors pertain to poetry, "the least (infima) of all the sciences" because it "makes use of metaphors for the sake of (propter) representation" (Summa Theologica I q. 1 a. 9 arg./ad 1).
Unlike analogy, metaphors can be used to conceal knowledge (or reveal it):

Matthew 13:10-11Why speakest thou to them [the multitudes] in parables [and openly to the Apostles]? […] Because to you [the Apostles] it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given.

St. Thomas's commentary on Matthew 13:3:

And he spoke to them many things in parables. The reason is twofold[: that]

[…] by parables of this kind, sacred things would be hidden from the unbelievers, lest they blaspheme: for it was said above, “Give not that which is holy to dogs” ([Mt.] 7, 6). […]

spiritual things are hidden; for that reason, they cannot fully be made known through temporal things, hence, they have to be made known through different things; “I wish that God would speak with thee, and would open his lips to thee, that he might shew thee the secrets of wisdom” (Job 11, 5-6).

Metaphor is "improper supposition" according to John of St. Thomas. This means "that a word is predicated of something which does not fall under what the word signifies." (McInerny Logic of Analogy p. 146).
Analogy
Thesis 4 of the 24 Thomistic Theses states:

Thesis IV.
Ens, quod denominatur ab esse, non univoce de Deo ac de creaturis dicitur, nec tamen prorsus aequivoce, sed analogice, analogia tum attributionis tum proportionalitis.
Being, which derives its name from existence, is not predicated univocally of God and creatures; nor yet merely equivocally, but analogically, by the analogy both of attribution and of proportionality.
Commentary: If the actuality of existence is in God a Pure Act and is in creatures an Act mixed with Potency, Being cannot be predicated of God and creatures in an identical way [univocally]: God is self-existing, creatures have their existence from God. Still, because the effect in some manner reproduces its cause, Being does not belong to God and creatures in a totally different sense [equivocally]. Being, as predicated of God and creatures is an analogous term. Its analogy is first that of attribution, since Being appertains to creatures as far as they have it from God, to whom it appertains by essence; and is secondly that of proportionality, since the actuality of existence is intrinsic to God and creatures as existing beings. [Summa Theologiae, Iª q. 13 a. 5; Contra Gentiles, lib. 1 cap. 32 et cap. 33 et cap. 34; De potentia, q. 7 a. 7]

Cf. McInerny's Aquinas & Analogy and this constructive criticism of it; its ch. 6 is on "Metaphor and Analogy".
cf. also: "Are analogical middle terms sufficient for a valid demonstration?," a distinctive feature of Thomism, and St. Thomas on the three types of predication from his De Principiis Naturæ


Is there something in Sirach that caused it to be considered Apocrypha?

William Whitaker's Disputations on Holy Scripture is a classic Reformation-era work that goes into great depth regarding the reasons that the apocrypha were rejected.  He deals with Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) beginning on page 90.

He begins by arguing that the "common" reasons for rejecting the apocrypha also apply to this book, such as not being part of the Jewish canon, lack of early acceptance, and a lack of an original Hebrew version.  He also notes a number of deficiencies, such as the author seeking pardon for his translation:

  He asks pardon, if he should seem in some places to fail of an adequate power of expression. By all which he sufficiently proves that he is neither a prophet nor endowed with a prophetic spirit.  For the Holy Spirit asks pardon of no one, hesitates not in the choice of words, and ever reaches the mark he aims at.

But Whitaker focuses on the book's explanation of the events of 1 Samuel 28, in which Saul, following Samuel's death, goes to a medium in an attempt to speak to Samuel's spirit.  Sirach 46:20 reads:

  Even after he had fallen asleep, he prophesied
      and made known to the king his death,
  and lifted up his voice from the ground
      in prophecy, to blot out the wickedness of the people. (NRSV)

Whitaker contends that "the souls of the saints cannot be evoked by magical arts or incantations," and notes that in several places Augustine argued that Saul rather spoke with a mere "phantom and imaginary illusion produced by diabolical devices."  Thus Sirach 46:20 is in error and cannot be scripture.

Other Protestants have raised issues with other portions of the text, such as Sirach 15's discussion of free will. E. J. Young also writes:

  Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon inculcate a morality based upon
  expediency. [...] Ecclesiasticus teaches that the giving of alms
  makes atonement for sin (3:30). ("The Canon of the Old Testament" in Revelation and the Bible Contemporary Evangelical Thought)

It's not clear to me, however, if such issues with the text were raised during the Reformation.  Martin Luther did deal with Sirach 15 is his Bondage of the Will, and, though not accepting the book as canonical, nonetheless contended that it did not say what Erasmus argued. (see §46ff. of Bondage of the Will, and The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West, 584 for a summary)

So we can safely conclude that while Sirach was excluded primarily for the more general reasons the apocrypha was rejected, it was nonetheless found to have at least some theological issues in itself.


The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does not "rank" apostles, but believes that Peter, James, and John were given more authority than the other apostles. In particular, Peter, James and John made up what was known a First Presidency (source), which means that they were tasked with directing the work of the other appostles.

Note that this does not make Peter, James and John "more important" than the other apostles. They were all assigned important work. They were just the leaders.

I do not of any type of "rankings" between the other apostles though, except maybe by "seniority". When the president of the Church dies, the most senior apostle takes over his work until a new president is called.

At the time of this question, the first presidency now consists of President Nelson, President Oaks and President Eyring, who fill the vacancy left by Peter, James and John (and all the other first presidencies in between).


When we put several passages together to get a fuller picture, we can see in what sense "overlook" is being used. Consider the following two verses, which are similar in scope (from the NET translation):

Rom. 3:25

  God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible
  through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God
  in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed.

Acts 14:16

  In past generations he allowed all the nations to go their own ways

I'll also add your passage for completeness:

Acts 17:30

  Therefore, although God has overlooked such times of ignorance, he now
  commands all people everywhere to repent,

From these passages we see that overlook is being used in the sense of patience on God's part. See the words "forebearance" and "allowed." God still executed wrath on the nations; as we see in Rom. 1:18ff, God showed His wrath in times past by letting the nations do what they want ("God gave them over"), and allowing them to suffer the consequences of life without God. The nations are culpable because creation declares a Creator, and they willingly turned away from Him, and their consciences will judge them for they did (Rom. 2:14-15). Thus, the ignorant people won't get a free pass -- they do know what sin is.

So "overlook" is not being used in the sense of turning a blind eye to sin. The three passages taken together seem to indicate that God held back His fullest wrath and showed mercy and grace, anticipating the cross to come. Now with the cross demonstrating God dealing with sin, God commands all to repent. The people have creation to help detect a Creator, but now with the written Word of God and the cross, we can see Him as one who decisively deals with sin.


Does Roman Catholic Church recognize some Eastern Orthodox Saints?

One such appears to be St Vladimir the Great, who is revered as a saint by Churches in communion with both Constantinople and Rome. That said, it's not clear when he was canonised — that might have occurred before the Great Schism; and nor is it clear whether this is a local celebration or one recognised by Rome for the whole Church.

According to Wikipedia, St Seraphim of Sarov was called Saint by Pope Bl John Paul II in his book Crossing the Threshold of Hope.

Wikipedia also claims that St Sergei of Radonezh is recognised in the Roman Canon, but there appears to be little or no corroboration for this. In fact, the list of saints is so long that there exists no complete version, so it's probably not easy to confirm or deny it categorically, particularly in view of what is taught about saints...

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, at para 945–962, explains the communion of the saints, and there appears to be no reason why Christians of Churches temporarily in imperfect communion with Rome could not be held as saints. The Catechism quotes Lumen Gentium:

  We worship Christ as God's Son; we love the martyrs as the Lord's disciples and imitators, and rightly so because of their matchless devotion towards their king and master. May we also be their companions and fellow disciples!


There's no contradiction.

Keep in mind that, while God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, he had absolutely no intention of letting him go through with it.  He did it in order to show that he would provide a (quite literal) scapegoat.  He would provide a replacement for Isaac on the altar.  This was meant as something to predict what Christ would do on the cross for us.  And, he did it in a world that existed before the Mosaic law.  Again, he gave Abraham a command that didn't contradict any of his previous commands, and expected him to follow through with it, though God had other plans.

In 2 Chronicles 28:3, the practices were detestable, because by that time, God had given the Israelites the Mosaic law, and his prescription regarding how they were to worship Him.  By sacrificing children, they were going outside the Mosaic law, which was given after Abraham.

It's pretty much the same answer as this question.


What is the origin of the Orthodox belief that Sts. Joseph and Mary were betrothed but not married?

To understand the difference in position, we need to understand Jewish marriage customs at the time of Mary and Joseph, and the ambiguity it already carries by considering betrothal as legally married but not yet as 'fully' married, i.e. consummated, the same ambiguity we see between the Orthodox and Catholic positions.

A marriage is started with betrothal, in which man and woman are legally 100% married, but without the sexual act. In this phase the woman remains at her parents’ house, as the man prepares the home they will be staying in. This phase can last up to 7 years. Then the marriage is consummated, the sexual act performed. After this, the groom takes the bride into his home, and the wedding is completed.

Biblical Marriage

There were three states of a marriage in the Bible:
Stage 1: signing the "ketubbah" contract (Creating the marriage bond)

The bride would choose her husband and her father would sign a legal contract with him called a "ketubbah".
Once this is signed the couple is 100% married but do not have sex yet.
Young children were often married, (arranged marriage) but did not consummate it until of age.

Stage 2: The "chuppah": sexual consummation.

Up to 7 years later, the groom is able to raise the money as set out
in the ketubbah contract and notifies the father of the bride, who
then sets a date to consummate the marriage at the bride's home.
The bride waits with her maidens, for the arrival of the groom and
his companions.
The couple enters the chuppah room and consummates the marriage while
the companions of the bride and groom wait and celebrate outside or
in the next room.
The groom hands the bloodied "proof of virginity cloth" to the
witnesses chosen by the bride's parents, who then give it to the
bride for safekeeping.

Stage 3: The wedding feast

After consummation, the entire wedding party walks to the house of
the groom in a procession for a wedding feast. (Could be skipped, see
Isaac and Rebekkah - the main point was bringing the bride from the
fathers house to the grooms house, upon which time all privileges of marriage would be enjoyed as well).
At the conclusion of the wedding feast, the couple has completed the
ancient ritual of marriage.

Orthodox position

Since Joseph never consummated the marriage, the marriage stopped at the first step.
So it appears that the distinction the Orthodox Churches make between their betrothal and marriage, is to stress that Joseph never consummated the marriage, but only acted as Mary's protector. By holding that they were only betrothed, the doctrine of Mary as Ever-Virgin was secured. They further support this claim by pointing out that Mary and Joseph are mentioned as betrothed, but that the actual marriage is never mentioned. Another source is tradition, stating that Joseph was an elderly widower, taking in a temple maiden with vow of chastity to protect her.

Apocryphal sources

“Proto-gospel according to James” (2nd century) Instead of the Matthew words “Do not fear to take Mary  your wife”, the proto-gospel of James has the Angel say to Joseph “Be not afraid for this maiden” (XIV, 2), indicating/suggesting that there was no marriage. It also states the charge of Joseph as: "Joseph, You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the virgin of the Lord", and not as wife.

"Pseudo-Matthew” (6th century?) has the priests who are giving Mary into his care say to Joseph: “to no other can she be joined in marriage” (VIII, 4), but only refer to Joseph as her custodian.

The "Book of Mary’s Nativity” and the “Story of Joseph, the carpenter”, however, do mention Joseph as Mary's spouse.

Church Fathers

I cannot find an 'earliest' source that specifically answers the question, but Jerome wrote in his Contra Helvidius that Mary, even though the Angel told Joseph to take her as his wife, does not necessarily cease to be betrothed:

  And although we find it said to Joseph in a dream, Fear not to take Mary your wife; and again, Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife, no one ought to be disturbed by this, as though, inasmuch as she is called wife, she ceases to be betrothed, for we know it is usual in Scripture to give the title to those who are betrothed.

And also:

  But just as we do not deny what is written, we do reject what is not written.  That God was born of a virgin we believe because we read it.  That Mary consummated marriage after her childbirth we do not believe because we do not read it.  Nor do we say this in order to condemn marriage, for virginity is itself a fruit of marriage, but because there is no license to draw rash conclusions about holy men.  For if we wish to take the mere possibility into consideration, we can contend that Joseph had several wives because Abraham and Jacob had several wives and that from these wives, the ‘brethren of the Lord’ were born, a fiction which most people invent with not so much pious as presumptuous audacity.  You say that Mary did not remain a virgin; even more do I claim that Joseph was virginal through Mary, in order that from a virginal marriage a virginal son might be born.  For if the charge of fornication does not fall on this holy man, and if it is not written that he had another wife, and if he was more of a protector than a husband of Mary, whom he was thought to have as his wife, it remains to assert that he who merited to be called the father of the Lord remained virginal with her.

Here we see more of that same ambiguity: Joseph had Mary as his wife, but never consummated the marriage. He even wrote "and if he was more of a protector than a husband of Mary, whom he was thought to have as his wife". The Catholic Church appears to have gone with the one interpretation, the Orthodox with the other.

Orthodox sources

The website Orthodoxinfo quotes a book from St. John (Maxomovitch), The Orthodox Veneration of Mary, The Birthgiver of God (Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1994), pp. 31-33:

  In the Gospel it can nowhere be seen that those who are called there the brothers of Jesus were or were considered the children of His Mother. On the contrary, it was known that James and others were the sons of Joseph, the Betrothed of Mary, who was a widower with children from his first wife. (St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, Panarion, 78.)

Orthodox Deacon Fr. John Whiteford wrote the following, supporting that the Orthodox Church affirms the union between Joseph and Mary as a betrothal and not a marriage in order to first affirm the holiness of Jesus through the virginity of Mary:

  This doctrine is not taught for the sake of upholding the sanctity of the Virgin Mary, but because of the uniqueness and holiness of her Son. Consider the following verse:

  "Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut." (Ezekiel 44:2).

  This has always been interpreted by the Fathers of the Church to be a typological reference to the Virgin Mary and the Incarnation. When we consider that God took flesh from the Virgin's womb, it is not difficult to imagine that this womb would remain virgin.

  The bottom line is this has been the consistent and universal view of the Church from the time of the Apostles until today.

Catholic position

Since Joseph had taken Mary into his home, and thus proceeded to the final step, he had accepted the full marriage, but in chastity (as he took this final step without first performing the otherwise prerequisite 2nd step of consummation). Therefore, the Catholic Church sees them as married (forming the 'Holy Family', traditionally of husband and wife in marriage), but just as the Orthodox Church upholds the status of Mary as ever-virgin in order to stress the sanctity and deity of Christ.

In conclusion:

It appears that the Orthodox Church affirms the same idea as the Catholic Church, but from a slightly different angle and interpretation. If Mary was ever-virgin, the marriage was never consummated and as such never officially took place in full, even though the fact that they were betrothed would bestow on them the full responsibilities of marriage, without the privileges. As such he bears the title "Joseph, the Betrothed".
Catholics argue that while the marriage was indeed not consummated, the fact that Joseph took her into his house (Mat 1:24) shows that they entered in a formal marriage, while skipping the step of consummation. As such, he bears the title of 'Chaste Spouse'.
Both, however, hold through their respective traditions that Mary was ever-virgin, as a way to point at the divinity of Christ.


How can "burden" in Acts 15:28–29 and Matthew 11:28 be reconciled?

Well, actually in Greek Bible these words are different.

In Acts 15:28-29:

  ἔδοξεν γὰρ τω̨̃ πνεύματι τω̨̃ ἁγίω̨ καὶ ἡμι̃ν μηδὲν πλέον
  ἐπιτίθεσθαι ὑμι̃ν βάρος πλὴν τούτων τω̃ν ἐπάναγκες

i.e. word βάρος, that could mean also "weight"

and in Matthew 11:28:

  δευ̃τε πρός με πάντες οἱ κοπιω̃ντες καὶ πεφορτισμένοι κἀγὼ
  ἀναπαύσω ὑμα̃ς

where word πεφορτισμένοι could be translated as to be "overburden".

So the meaning of word "burdened" in your variant of translation is actually different.
If In Acts 15:28 it means some kind of obedience, while in Matthew 11:28 it means a state of man, when he is overburden, too loaded, when he is in troubles, sins and sorrow.


What is the biblical basis for the centrality of preaching in worship?

The prophet, as spokesperson for God, is the biblical basis for the centrality of preaching in worship. From the very beginning, and over and over since, God’s people are exhorted to listen.

Moses, probably through Aaron 1, said that God’s people should listen to God’s prophets.

  The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among
  you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him. (Deuteronomy
  18:15)

Moses reminds God’s people that they asked for these spokespersons so they would not have to ever again fear and tremble at the direct word from God’s mouth.

  For this is what you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of
  the assembly when you said, “Let us not hear the voice of the Lord our
  God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.” (Deuteronomy
  18:16)

To which God commissions the prophet to proclaim God’s divine will.

  The Lord said to me: “What they say is good. I will raise up for them
  a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put
  my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him.
  (Deuteronomy 18:17-18)

And over the next several hundred years, God’s prophets continued to make declarations of  God’s divine will.

  “Go and tell this people.” (Isaiah 6:9)

  “Speak my words to them, whether they listen or fail to
  listen.“(Ezekiel 2:7)

  “Go, prophesy to my people Israel.“ (Amos 7:15).

Jeremiah, toward a semblance of a ‘worship service’, makes a famous preaching engagement at the temple:

  Stand at the gate of the Lord’s house and there proclaim this message:
  “Hear the word of the Lord, all you people of Judah who come through
  these gates to worship the Lord.” (Jeremiah 7:2)

Hear. Listen. Shema. 2

Into which comes the forerunner, the baptist John, recognized as prophet before he was born.

  “And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of
  Elijah.” (Luke 1:17)

The common people identified Jesus among John and the prophets.

  They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still
  others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” (Matthew 16:14)

Jesus Christ identified himself with the prophets.

  A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own
  home. (Matthew 13:57)

At Jesus’ transfiguration, again God’s intimidating direct word from the cloud, words that echo Jesus’ baptism.

  This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to
  him! (Matthew 17:5)

The early church took Christ to be God’s promised prophet of Deuteronomy 18 who would proclaim God's word in the same fashion as did Moses. But still, God’s people need other humans to help them listen and hear.

  And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? (Romans
  10:14)

And finally, in what probably speaks most to the nebulous protestant preacher of the question, we have Paul’s slow burn of a command to Timothy:

  In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living
  and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you
  this charge: Preach the word. (2 Timothy 4:1-2)

In conclusion, prophet is preacher throughout scripture entire and is the basis for the centrality of preaching to anything at all resembling the worship of God.

1 From the moment of Moses’ original commission, Moses objected to God that he could not speak because he was “slow of speech and slow of tongue.” God provided Aaron, one of the first appointed to speak God’s word.

2 Shema Yisrael (or Sh'ma Yisrael; Hebrew: שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל; "Hear, [O] Israel") are the first two words of a section of the Torah, and is the title (sometimes shortened to simply Shema) of a prayer that serves as a centerpiece of the morning and evening Jewish prayer services


Am I a party to the covenant of atonement?

If you are "in Christ", then any reward, inheritance, covenant, etc. that is given to Him is given to you. Gal 2:20. You are a joint-heir with Christ. Rom 8:17


Apparently, anything he likes, including an angel:

2 Corinthians 11:14:

  ... Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

Assuming Satan is an angel, then he can probably take on any appearance, at least that of a human:

  Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it.

Hebrews 13:2

And possibly a snake (though some Christians do not take this passage literally)

  Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made.

Genesis 3:1

More information can be found on the Christian demonology Wikipedia article.


What religious order do these nuns belong to?

They are of the Sisters of Charity of St. Elizabeth (source).


Why did God need to plant the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden in the first place?

I believe that your question is very closely related to the one of "How could an omnipotent God who hates sin allow sin?  If He's omnipotent, couldn't He have prevented us from sinning?"

The answer to that, of course, is that God gave us free will because He loves us, and because He wants to be loved in return.  Our love for Him wouldn't be real love if it were forced.  We'd be little better than robots, programmed to behave a certain way.

I believe that the tree was planted there because without it, Adam and Eve wouldn't have had the choice to obey or disobey Him, and without choice, there can be no true obedience, or true love, only mindless followers with no will of their own.

I don't believe He wanted them to eat it at all, but He knew that they would.  He knows all of history; past, present, and future.  We may not understand why He did certain things, but we can be sure that He has His reasons, and that His wisdom is far higher than ours.  (1 Corintians 1:25, 1 Corinthians 2: 16)


How does one "leave his wife" for the Kingdom of God?

How does one “leave his wife” for the Kingdom of God?

  Luke 18:28-30  Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed
  thee.   And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man
  that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children,
  for the kingdom of God's sake,   Who shall not receive manifold more
  in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.

In context, Peter was making his statement in contrast to the statement by Jesus that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom. After which the disciples asked, who then could be saved, to which Jesus replied that what was impossible with man was possible for God. It is at this point that Peter remarks about their having left all for Jesus.

We see in context that “house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children” are equated with the power of riches to keep the heart of someone from following Jesus.

Another example of this is seen earlier in Luke;

  Luke 14:15-27  And when one of them that sat at meat with him heard
  these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in
  the kingdom of God.   Then said he unto him, A certain man made a
  great supper, and bade many:   And sent his servant at supper time to
  say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.
  And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said
  unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see
  it: I pray thee have me excused.   And another said, I have bought
  five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me
  excused.   And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I
  cannot come.   So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things.
  Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out
  quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither
  the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.  And the
  servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there
  is room.   And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the
  highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be
  filled.   For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden
  shall taste of my supper.   And there went great multitudes with him:
  and he turned, and said unto them,   If any man come to me, and hate
  not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and
  sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.   And
  whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my
  disciple.

In this context Jesus uses the apparently pious statement of a man regarding the kingdom as an opportunity to illustrate that entry into the kingdom was not as automatic as many supposed.

Here we see the illustration that our interest in Jesus has to be more than cursory. If we value family or even our own life more, we fall short of being a disciple.

It is this totality of self that is to be given to Jesus. The “leaving” of a wife is not a physical departure, but the insertion of Jesus as being of greater importance.


Have there been any attempt in Christianity to draw a set of rules or principles on how the Bible must be interpreted?

There have been many attempts in Christianity to draw a catholic (catholic literally means "universal") set of rules or principles on how the Bible must be interpreted. This is called the field of biblical hermeneutics (and there is an entire Stack Exchange devoted to this field/art). Hermeneutics is not exclusive to scripture, it is also applied to other texts. The goal of hermeneutics is to determine the objective meaning of the text, which may include attempts to understand authorial intent, historical/cultural context, and the grammatical and linguistic meaning of the words and phrases themselves. Many church councils were centered on disputes on how various texts should be interpreted, and creeds were developed to clarify the Church's position on various issues.

Brief History

The field of hermeneutics has been applied to the Old and New Testament by both Jews and Christians throughout history. Early Jewish hermeneutics include the seven rules of Hillel which were passed down orally before being transcribed shortly before the birth of Christ, and Rabbi Ishmael's Baraita (13 rules) from the late first or early second century.

Seven ecumenical councils occurred throughout church history where specific interpretations of scripture were rejected or accepted. The goal of these councils was Church unity, thus it could be said that hermeneutics were being formulated through these decisions. I only reference seven because these were considered to be ecumenical and thus the decisions made at these councils are generally accepted by most major Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant traditions today.

Nicea I (325) - The first part of the Nicene Creed was formulated which defined the divinity of the Son of God, refuting Arius.
Constantinople I (381) - The second part of the Nicene Creed was formulated which defined the divinity of the Holy Spirit and refuted Apollinarism. The creed is sometimes called the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed because it was formulated in councils in both Nicea and Constantinople.
Ephesus (431) - Christ was defined as the Incarnate Word of God, refuting Nestorianism; and Mary was affirmed as Theotokos (God-bearer). The Nicene Creed was declared as being authoritative and it became unlawful to hold to a different faith than that as defined by the creed (the creed defined the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith).
Chalcedon (451) - Christ was defined as perfect God and perfect man in one person (Hypostatic Union), refuting Eutyches and monophysitism. Those who rejected the decisions of this council include the present-day 'Oriental Orthodox,' which includes the Coptic Church, Armenian Orthodox Church, and the Syrian Orthodox Church.
Constantinople II (553) - The Church reaffirmed the doctrines of the Trinity and of Christ, further refuting Nestorianism.
Constantinople III (680) - The Church affirmed the true humanity of Jesus by insisting upon the reality of His human will and action, refuting monothelitism.
Nicea II (787) - The Church affirmed the propriety of icons as genuine expressions of the Christian faith, restoring the veneration of icons and ending the first iconoclasm.

From then on, the Church interpreted the scriptures in light of these councils' decisions, notably the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith as defined in the Nicene Creed. Various factions within Christianity have accepted or rejected additional councils and decisions, which further affects how they interpret scripture. It should also be noted that many modern Christian leaders do not consider any church councils to be infallible, to include the first Church council held in Jerusalem which is recorded in Acts 15. I bring all of this up because everyone interprets scripture in light of Church history and their historical and cultural context. Some groups insist that their sole authority is "scripture alone," but even these groups hold specific interpretations that have come about due to historical events. This is true whether or not these groups are aware of their biases. Clearly the Church has attempted to come to universal agreement on biblical interpretation, but numerous schisms and divisions have made this virtually impossible.

Prior to the Enlightenment, most Christians treated the bible as a special class of literature (sacred revelation), and thus did not apply textual criticism methods to its study. But during the Enlightenment it became common to read the bible as any other piece of literature, and historical-critical methods of interpretation began to be employed.

In general (painting with a broad brush), most conservative Christian groups now employ some form of historical-grammatical interpretation, while most liberal groups employ historical-critical methods. Another recent trend is trajectory hermeneutics, which asserts that since revelation is progressive, there is a "redemptive movement" or interpretive trajectory to the text that must be determined.

General Hermeneutical Principles

I will now attempt to answer the second part of your question: "is it possible to present such rules here in general?" I would not go so far as to call these rules, but they are general hermeneutical principles that guide most Christians today as they seek to understand and apply the scriptures.

The original text (and the best text) must be used for interpretation.
There can be but one sense of a Biblical word or sentence (i.e., the plain grammatical sense). Thus no interpretation is correct unless it is grammatically correct, that is, according to the grammar and syntax of the language in which it was originally written.
The meaning of any phrase or word must be sought in its own context.
Jesus Christ is the center of all scripture.

From this point on various Christian groups differ significantly (and some may not even accept those listed above, although most would). Most conservative Protestants assert that "Scripture interprets scripture," while Roman Catholics would include the authority of the Church and the Pope as having the ultimate right to interpret scripture. Many others have specific principles to avoid the misinterpretation of specific genres of literature within the bible (allegorical, prose, apocalyptic, poetry, etc.), although these principles are not technically restricted to biblical interpretation.

I tried to give a thorough answer that steers clear of taking the sole view of any specific branch of Christianity. For additional hermeneutical principles specific to your Christian tradition, I would recommend speaking to your priest/pastor and/or taking a course in biblical studies.


What are full-time protestant proselyting missions like?

I come from a family of Protestant missionaries.

From a Protestant standpoint, the definition of a missionary is very apostle Paul-like. You simply have to go teach the gospel where it is not taught. There doesn't have to be a huge process to it.

The only time tight restrictions and approval processes come into play is when someone wanting to do mission work asks for monetary or other support. In such cases each overseeing organization has vetting processes to make sure a would-be missionary is sincere and reliable.

Common Examples,

A person decides to be a missionary in China. He or she goes to China, supports himself or herself by trade during the day, spends weekends and evenings teaching the gospel.

A person decides to be a missionary in Somalia. He or she goes to individual churches or support organizations and asks for monetary support, and will likely have to show evidence of due diligence to be considered. Each church or organization may choose to support or not support on their own.

A mission oriented organization seeks people to go to certain areas. People who express interest are vetted and sometimes put on a probationary or intern status. Sometimes these people must still raise their own funds( which is easier to do with a stamp of approval from a missions organization) or the organization may raise funds for them.

In almost all cases the global restrictions are no where near what they are for Mormons, though many protestant missionaries will self impose certain things like dress codes in order to not offend a particular culture.


Do any Christian traditions exist as to what type of animal skin did God clothe Adam and Eve with?

I have yet to find any satisfactory 'tradition' which adequately explains the absence of designation of the actual animal used by God in this instance. There is a lot of conjecture expressed about the matter but none that I have yet found to be accurate, only superstitious.

The traditions which I have found all attempt to improvise on what is not actually expressed by the scripture - and therefore miss the whole point of the allegory.

There is no information given in scripture as to the species which God used in order to clothe Adam and Eve with coats (kethoneth, long sleeved tunic, Strong 3801 ) of skins. It was an undefined species. The lack of information is highlighted by not being there.

  Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. [Genesis 3:21, KJV.]

My own understanding of the lack of information is that what was to clothe humanity in the future did not - yet - exist. Therefore it could not - yet - be expressed. Therefore it is left un-defined in allegory.

That which clothes humanity unto righteousness is the humanity in which Christ came, as Head of a new humanity.

'Clothing' - the 'robe of righteousness' mentioned by the prophet Isaiah (61:10), and mentioned by the Apostle John in Revelation, the 'righteousnesses of the saints' being 'fine linen' (19:8) - is a matter of clothing the human soul with a new humanity, in righteousness.

  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. [I Corinthians 15:22, KJV.]

In order to be so clothed, in the 'skin' of Another, that 'other' must die, in sacrifice.


Is Belief in the Historical Accuracy of Gospels a prerequisite to Christianity?

Personally, I do believe all events portrayed actually happened.

However I do not think there is any requirement in Christianity that you understand or even believe everything just perfectly so -- cross your t's and dot your i's -- in order to be saved. You can not be convinced of the exact details in the gospel accounts and still believe in Jesus as savior. Do you or do you not believe that He is Lord, the only way to the Father, the one who secured God's forgiveness for your sins? If so then there is lots of grace for our doubts and confusions.

My question in return would be: Why? What is the point? Also, how did you get there? Let's take the walk-on-water example. If you believe Jesus is who he said he is, something had to convince you of that. If the accounts we have of His miracles are to be distrusted and discarded, how are we to trust the accounts of His teachings about being the only savior of men? If his disciples fabricated the story of His walking on water, what business have we to trust the teachings they spread throughout the area in the years following?

There is room in Christianity for all manner of mis-directed beliefs. Our salvation depends on the person and works of someone else, not our own. We would all be damned if we had to get every detail right. However, if we HAVE been saved, I think it is part of our calling to learn as much about Him as we can as rightly as we can. There is no excuse for deliberate disbelief or being picky-choosy just because you don't LIKE something that He taught.


Has the Lord handed over the souls of the redeemed to St Michael?

Tibi trádidit Dóminus ánimas redemptórum in supérna felicitáte locamdas.

Here follows the Church’s translation taken from the
Exorcismus in Satanam et Angelos Apostaticos (page 40) of Rituale Romanum:

To thee the Lord has entrusted the service of leading the souls of the redeemed into heavenly blessedness.

This passage does reflect an ancient Catholic tradition that St. Michael leads souls to heaven at the moment of death or as they leave purgatory.

In Roman Catholic teachings, Saint Michael has four main roles or offices. His first role is the leader of the Army of God and the leader of heaven's forces in their triumph over the powers of hell.[31] He is viewed as the angelic model for the virtues of the spiritual warrior, with the conflict against evil at times viewed as the battle within.
The second and third roles of Michael in Catholic teachings deal with death. In his second role, Michael is the angel of death, carrying the souls of all the deceased to heaven. In this role Michael descends at the hour of death, and gives each soul the chance to redeem itself before passing; thus consternating the devil and his minions. Catholic prayers often refer to this role of Michael.
In his third role, he weighs souls in his perfectly balanced scales. For this reason, Michael is often depicted holding scales.
In his fourth role, Saint Michael, the special patron of the Chosen People in the Old Testament, is also the guardian of the Church. Saint Michael was revered by the military orders of knights during the Middle Ages. The names of villages around the Bay of Biscay express that history. This role also was why he was considered the patron saint of a number of cities and countries. - Archangel Michael (Wikipedia)

The tradition that St. Michael leads souls to heaven is centuries old.

This is an ancient tradition, in accord with a belief that St. Michael was the angel who weighed the deeds of a deceased person and led them into eternal life. For this reason St. Michael is frequently depicted in statues or paintings holding scales. The liturgy of the Church appears to confirm this role of St. Michael with the following offertory chant said during a Requiem Mass.
O Lord Jesus Christ, King of glory,deliver the souls of all the faithful departed … let the standard-bearer holy Michaellead them into that holy light.
A medieval text known as the Golden Legend relates an encounter Mary had with an angel prior to her death, preparing her for her assumption.

Then behold, an angel stood before her amid a great light and greeted her reverently as the mother of his Lord. “Hail, blessed Mary!” he said, “receive the blessing of him who bestowed salvation on Jacob. See, Lady, I have brought you a palm branch from paradise, and you are to have it carried before your bier. Three days from now you will be assumed from the body, because your Son is waiting for you, his venerable mother.”

The angel’s name is not immediately revealed, but later on when Mary “died,” Jesus comes into the narrative and gives instructions to the holy archangel.

Christ nodded his consent and immediately Michael the Archangel came forward and presented Mary’s soul before the Lord. Then the Savior spoke and said: “Arise, my dear one, my dove, tabernacle of glory, vessel of life, heavenly temple! As you never knew the stain of sin through carnal intercourse, so you shall never suffer dissolution of the flesh in the tomb.” Thereupon Mary’s soul entered her body, and she came forth glorious from the monument and was assumed into the heavenly bridal chamber, a great multitude of angels keeping her company.

While these legendary stories likely have no historical basis, they do provide for us a piece of meditation and invite us to consider how the Virgin Mary was welcomed into heaven by her Son and a company of angels. In particular, it would make sense for the “Prince of All Angels” to be at the forefront of those who welcomed the “Queen of Angels” into heaven. - How St. Michael the Archangel led the Blessed Virgin Mary to heaven

Deacon Guadalupe Rodriguez from Laredo, Texas puts this tradition into clear perspective:

Tradition tells us that St. Michael is the “Guardian of Purgatory” and that he holds “The Keys of Purgatory.”  In the life of mystics St. Michael is often seen sending his angels to console souls in purgatory by sprinkling them with the Precious Blood. St. Michael is also seen escorting souls from purgatory into heaven.  At other times like on First Saturday, Our Lady comes to release souls from purgatory. Three great saints and doctors of the Catholic Church also concur St. Michael’s intercession and consolation of the souls of purgatory.

“It is incontestably recognized since the foundation of Christianity that the souls of the faithful departed are delivered from Purgatory through the intercession of St. Michael the Archangel.” - St. Robert Bellarmine

“The Prince of the Heavenly militia is all-powerful in Purgatory, and he can assist the poor souls whom the justice and sanctity of the Almighty retain in this place of punishment.”  - St. Anselm

St. Michael has received the care of consoling and helping the Souls in Purgatory.” - St. Alphonsus Liguori

This also aligns with one of the early church writings called Apocalypse of Paul which explains how a soul was lifted up in a vision into the heavenly abodes:

“Behold! A river with its waters. I say to the angel, ‘what is it?’ he answers, ‘if anyone is impure or unholy, but repentant, once he has left his body behind, he is led forward first to adore God, and then by the command of the Lord he is handed over to the Angel Michael, who baptizes him in the river and then leads him to the city of God.’” - (Apoc., Paul 22.)

In the book St. Michael and the Angels testimonies from holy monks explain how one holy monk offered mass for a friend recommending his soul to St. Michael and how the priest was able to see the soul escorted from purgatory into heaven by St. Michael the Archangel.  In another testimony a priest offers mass also in honor of St. Michael for several souls but adds the prayer, “May the Prince of Angels, St Michael, lead them into the glory of Heaven,” and he is able to see St. Michael descend from heaven into purgatory to deliver the souls. - St. Michael & All Souls


What did God do to the Jews in Thessalonica?

From a straight-forward reading of First Thessalonians, it is hard to understand what wrath God wrought upon the Jews to such an extent that Paul would have expected his readers to understand just what he was alluding to. We need to think outside the box and consider that New Testament writings were often amended after they had been written.

It appears that 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 is widely regarded as an interpolation - see for example, An Introduction to the New Testament, pp 166, 463, by Raymond E. Brown. Its polemic against the Jews is quite at odds with Paul's usual treatment of the Jews and the fact that he, himself, was a proud Jew. It is consistent with late first-century condemnation of the Jews. The wrath of God is considered an unmistakeable allusion to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE, and the death of so many at Roman hands.


The tithe is seen by many to be an Old Testament law for people in the covenant and not binding on New Testament Christians.  That being said, the tithe is also seen as a good principle to start from.

I personally try to give more than 10% and hope to increase the percentage over time.  (However, the government keeps taking more of my money, which makes this more difficult.)   R. G. Letourneau actually gave 90% of his income away to various Christian ministries.

It seems a proper Christian attitude is not to give the bare minimal to the work of Christ and indulge the flesh with the rest of it, but to glorify God with 100% of our income, and to not store up for ourselves treasures on earth (Matthew 6:19-21).

The same principle should be applied to our time as well as our talents, opportunities, relationships, and everything else.  Paul gave us this instruction:

  So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.  1 Corinthians 10:31 ESV

So, "all" is not 10%, but 100%.


Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees

The Scribes and the Pharisees were the religious leaders. They were role models for the people to follow. They were blameless in their religious observances. The people looked at them for guidance. The people must have believed that the Scribes and the Pharisees were the first to enter the kingdom of Heaven. However, Jesus was teaching them that God's standard is higher than what man can accomplish. From  Matthew 5:21 onward, we clearly see the standard of God for anyone to be counted as perfect. For instance, while the Pharisees never slept with another woman, Jesus was telling them that even a lustful gaze is already an adultery.

We cannot enter heaven with our works and observance to the law, for we can never meet the standard required by God. We need God to save us. Therefore, God gave us His one and only Son, Jesus Christ, a perfect person to take our place and help us reach the standard demanded by God. For Jesus said "No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).

This is clearly explained by Paul in his Epistle to the Romans.

  Romans 3 (NIV)

  [10] As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one;

  [20-31] Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight
  by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious
  of our sin. But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has
  been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This
  righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all
  have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are
  justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by
  Christ Jesus. 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— 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. Where, then,
  is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that
  requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. For we
  maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of
  the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of
  Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who
  will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through
  that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at
  all! Rather, we uphold the law.


Why did Jesus refer to Gentiles as dogs?

Jesus is the king of metaphors. This reference was not meant as an insult.

To quote from Life Application Study Bible in reference to Matthew 15:24:

  Jesus' words do not contradict the truth that God's message is for all people. After all, when Jesus said these words, He was in Gentile territory on a mission to Gentile people. He ministered to Gentiles on many other occasions also. Jesus was simply telling the woman that Jews were to have the first opportunity to accept Him as the Messiah because God wanted them to present the message of salvation to the rest of the world. Jesus was not rejecting the Gentile woman. He may have wanted to test her faith, or He may have wanted to use the situation as another opportunity to teach that faith is available to all people.

Had she taken what He said as an insult, as it may sound to us today, her faith would have been damaged and her daughter would not have been healed. It is obvious that she understood His reference as nothing more than a metaphor. Much the same as we are referred to as sheep.


Did God change from a wrathful God to a loving God between Old Testament and New Testament?

There was a gap of about 400 years between the two Testaments, with the OT covering a vast time span, from creation till then.  Taking the time from after the Flood, that alone has been variously calculated as 2,454 years to 2,518 years.  This means that the OT deals with about two and a half thousand years of history after the Flood, whereas the NT only covers less than seventy-five years of history! The NT does not detail the horrific destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in A.D. 70 as all but its last book was completed before then. (The last book named Revelation may have used coded language to infer that event but it deals a lot with future events where the wrath of God will be poured out on the nations.)
It is unbalanced to compare the historical dealings of God with his people and the nations over thousands of years, with a mere 75 years history in the NT. This is especially so when the NT does not hold back from warnings about the coming wrath of God, both on individuals who continue in rebellion against him, and the various “bowls of wrath” coming on the whole world before Christ returns in judgment.
The idea that God must have changed in nature between the two testaments may indicate some ignorance of what those two testaments state, on the matter of God’s nature and his dealings with mankind. In both testaments, the immense patience and love of God is demonstrated, yet without holding back from clear evidence of God’s holiness, righteousness and sovereign judgements. There may be a bit of ‘cherry-picking’ going on, selecting gruesome events in the OT (which tells things the way they were) while only citing nice sentiments expressed in the NT.
Finally, you addressed your question to evangelical, Bible believing Christians, “who believe that God doesn't change and His nature is Love.” As one such Christian I would point out that the Bible does not limit God’s nature to love, but that his love is perfectly balanced with his holiness, his righteousness and his justice. It’s imbalanced to focus only on God’s love, as if a loving God would sweep sin under the carpet without judging sin and sinners. In his love, God has done everything we could never do to spare repentant sinners the punishment due their sin, by pouring it out on the sinless Son of God instead. But if people disregard what God has lovingly done, they will have to bear that punishment. Then they will know the righteous wrath of God. That was the pattern in the OT because forgiveness and time to repent was always available to those seeking to please God, and that continues in the NT. No change there, God be praised!


How to pray and meditate while saying the rosary?

The Handbook of Prayers contains a number of meditations written by St. Jose Maria Escriva which put you and him in the place where Jesus and Mary are in that particular mystery.  It is a lot like the Stations of the Cross in that regard, where in the short meditation, to be read before each decade, St. Jose Maria explains the feelings and thoughts a person might have when experiencing the things that Scripture and Tradition say happened during the events in the mysteries.
If you want to go even deeper, there is a meditation published on CatholicTradition.org which goes bead by bead which is adapted  from Ven. Mary of Agreda's work "City of God" (a work detailing visions she received).
However, neither of these have the Luminous Mysteries.

As for the Saint's who have given their input into the matter of the Rosary, there's no better work than St. Louis De Montfort's The Secret of the Rosary which you can also find on CatholicTradition.org (or at TAN books).  It's got writings from Bl. Alan De La Roche who revived what St. Dominic was handed from Our Lady herself. He also received visions and messages from The Virgin Mary on how and why to meditate on the mysteries of the Rosary:

She also taught it to Blessed Alan de la Roche and said to him in a vision: "When people say one hundred and fifty Angelic Salutations this prayer is very helpful to them and is a very pleasing tribute to me. But they will do better still and will please me even more if they say these salutations while meditating on the life, death and passion of Jesus Christ----for this meditation is the soul of this prayer."

But you're right, it is difficult to discern when you're meditating on the words and when you're meditating on the mysteries.  Because St. Louis also wrote this, concerning the Our Father:

People who say Our Lord's Prayer carefully, weighing every word and meditating upon it, may indeed call themselves blessed for they find therein everything that they need or can wish for.

Nevertheless, it would seem that mediating on the Lord Prayer inbetween the mysteries is more important and that Bl. Alan also says that you can't possibly fathom the meaning of "Hail Mary" so it's a mystery within a mystery.  The best advice I can glean from The Secret of the Rosary is that the meditation on the Hail Mary beads is mystery-related and the meditation between is on the meaning of the words of the Lord Prayer and other prayers.

Having attempted to put some of the word of St. Louis De Montfort into practice in praying the Rosary lately has greatly improved my understanding of what it means to pray the mysteries.  There are several sections in the Secret of the Rosary which break down the parts of the Hail Mary and the Our Father.  I believe the key to your question is in there.  It's not the individual words themselves, but the parts of the prayer in reference to the mystery.  The Hail Mary consists of two parts, the praise part and the petition part.  So in reference to the mysteries of the Rosary, one can praise Our Lady with the frame of reference being the backdrop of the mystery you are mediating on, then ask her intercession with that same backdrop.
In any event, here is one more resource that could come in handy, St. Louis apparently taught many ways of praying the Rosary, so you might be be able to have your cake and eat it too, just not at the same time.


"You must use the psalms of the day at Sext" - why?

I alerted Martin Kochanski, the author of Universalis, to this question, and he's written a blog post specially for it, to which readers are referred.

The simple answer is: on certain days in the four-week cycle, the Breviary has a small and slightly obscure rubric whose effect is that the complementary psalms aren't allowed at a certain daytime Hour.
No reason is ever given, but when I was programming Universalis I finally managed to work it out. On those days, some of the complementary psalms in question appear in one of the main Hours. For instance, on Monday of the third week of the four-week cycle, Psalm 70(71) is recited at Vespers. Psalm 70(71) is also one of the complementary psalms for Sext — so, to avoid repetition, the Breviary says "don't use the complementary psalms at Sext".

Similar things can happen at Lauds with the Invitatory psalm, and even in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, where some psalms which are alternatives to canticles are prohibited where they occur in the ordinary course of reciting the psalter.