How can I be sure someone I know is going to Heaven?

The book of 1 John was written for this exact reason.
1 John 5:13 NIV

13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of
God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

Throughout the book of 1 John, the author gives many examples of how people doing things and then he tells us whether or not that person is saved. You can take all of the following tests and measure anybody against them to see which direction that, that person is going in.
Repentance is about you no longer following your own desires, but the desires of Christ for you.
2 Corinthians 13:5 NIV

Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test
yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of
course, you fail the test?

Question 1: Do you sin habitually?
1 John 5:18-20 NIV

We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the one who
was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him. We
know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under
the control of the evil one.

1 John 1:6-76 NIV

If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we
lie and do not live by the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he
is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of
Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

Question 2: Do you occasionally fall short?
1 John 1:8,10 NIV

8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is
not in us. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a
liar and his word has no place in our lives.

John 8:44 NIV

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your
father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to
the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his
native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Question 3: Do you confess your sins?
Psalm 32:3-6 NIV

When I kept silent, my bones wasted away through my groaning all day
long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was
sapped as in the heat of summer.   Then I acknowledged my sin to you
and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, "I will confess my
transgressions to the LORD "—and you forgave the guilt of my sin.

1 John 1:9 NIV

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us
our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

Romans 2:5 NIV

But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are
storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his
righteous judgment will be revealed.

Question 4: Do you obey God?
1 John 2:4-5 NIV

The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a
liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's
love is truly made complete in him.

1 John 5:3 NIV

This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not
burdensome,

2 John 1:6 NIV

And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you
have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.

Question 5: Do you bear good fruit?
1 John 2:5-6 NIV

5 This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must
walk as Jesus did. 6 This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims
to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

Question 6: Do you love your brothers?
1 John 2:9-11 NIV

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in
the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there
is nothing in him to make him stumble. But whoever hates his brother
is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness; he does not know
where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him.

Question 7: Do you walk in love?
2 John 1:6 NIV

And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you
have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.

Question 8: Do you believe in Jesus?
1 John 3:23 NIV

And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus
Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.

Question 9: Do you hate the things of this world?
1 John 2:15-17 NIV

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the
world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the
world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the
boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from
the world. The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does
the will of God lives forever.

Question 10: Are you persevering in repentance?
James 5:20
let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
Acts 17:30

In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all
people everywhere to repent.

Job 36:10

He makes them listen to correction and commands them to repent of
their evil.

2 Timothy 2:19

Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this
inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Everyone who
confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness."

Matthew 3:8

Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.

Revelation 2:19

I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance,
and that you are now doing more than you did at first.

You will know them by their fruit.
And finally, Jesus tells us that we will know them by their fruit. The fruit that I just laid forth for you above.
Mathew 7 NIV

15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s
clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit
you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or
figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but
a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and
a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear
good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their
fruit you will recognize them.


According to reformed theology, how does the fall glorify God?

The Fall indeed glorifies God

The reformer that spent the most effort in making his thoughts fully known about this subject is Jonathan Edwards. He wrote two famous books on the topic:

Dissertation on the End for Which God Created the World, popularized in modern times by John Piper's edition, God's Passion for His Glory
Dissertation Concerning the Nature of True Virtue

Although both of these works appear highly philosophical Edwards derived his thoughts from scriptures and I will try and lay out the very basics.

The basic idea goes like this. God, due to his nature cannot be profited by, or receive anything from the creature as he is perfect. He can't suffer loss or gain outside of himself.

Since God is perfection anything "good and valuable" in and of itself itself,
God values it with an ultimate respect. Also since God is infinitely valuable "in and of himself" God must then be the reason for Creation as he must love himself above all things:

  That if God himself be, in any respect properly capable of being in its own end in the creation of the world, then it is reasonable to suppose that he had respect to himself as his last and highest end, in this work; because he is worthy in himself to be so, being infinitely the greatest and best of beings. (The Works of President Edwards, Volume 3, Page 14)

Edwards also notes that it is the final result of Creation that must be the original purpose for it and for all things part of Creation.

  Whatsoever thing is actually the effect of the creation of the worlds which is simply and absolutely valuable in itself, that thing is an ultimate end of God's creating the world. We see that it is a good which God aimed at by the creation of the world; because he has actually attained it by that means. (The Works of President Edwards, Volume 3, Page 18)

How it glorifies God

The mechanics of how is dependent on what we think "glory" is. When we define "glory" we can define how it is manifested by the Devil, fall, etc.

Defining glory

In describing what true virtue, or "God's glory", is, Edwards says:

  true virtue consists in love to being in general
  (The Works of President Edwards, Volume 3, Page 95)

Then Edwards clearly defines what he means by stating the proper objects of perfect love:

  The first object of a virtuous benevolence is being, simply considered; and if being, simply considered, be its object, then being in general is its object; and what it has an ultimate propensity to is the highest good of being in general. And it will seek the good of every individual being unless it be conceived as not consistent with the highest good of being in general.
  (The Works of President Edwards, Volume 3, Page 97)

In other words he says perfect virtue, glory seeks to be itself above all things and this is the same as seeking the good of every being. However as Edwards hold the election of the reprobate he adds the limitation of "unless..." which we should treat as off-topic as this goes too far into speculation about the mystery of election.

Here is the second prime object of perfect love, or glory:

  The second object of a virtuous propensity of heart is benevolent being. A secondary ground of pure benevolence is virtuous benevolence itself in its object. (The Works of President Edwards, Volume 3, Page 98)

In other words, not only does pure glory seek to be itself, but its glory is also held in its actual goodness towards any object that it seeks to bless.

From defining this "ultimate virtue", which is God's "glory", he says love to God is evidently what virtue is in us as well:

  it is evident, that true virtue must chiefly consist in love to god; the Being of beings (The Works of President Edwards, Volume 3, Page 101)

He adds that this must lead to an "enjoyment" and "rejoicing" as part of the nature of true virtue:

  A benevolent propensity of heart is exercised, not only in seeking to promote the happiness of the being towards whom it is exercised, but also in rejoicing in his happiness. (The Works of President Edwards, Volume 3, Page 104)

I will not continue to outline his arguments but from this you can see a reformed framework from which to argue anything about the subject. So to avoid the 17th century difficult language here is modern English verbiage: God is perfect and perfection must love itself above all things being perfectly benevolent. Therefore, the purpose of all creatures must be to serve the highest benevolence of all creatures to the pleasures of God, for which all things are done to the praise of his glory. We must not imagine that the praise of his glory in any way conflicts with our highest good for all manifestations of God's glory is to our highest good as the essential property of his perfection, so the more God is glorified only means the more we are blessed as he can't gain anything from our praise or obedience it is only by these that we obtain the effects of his perfect love towards us.

Regarding sin, the Devil and the fall specifically

We can see how this reformed faith is worked out. As God will not and can't suffer any thing but what is for his own glory, seeing that he turns everything he does to the greater and more illustrious advancement of his own glory, the Devil, the fall, sin, all evil, etc. were included in his decision to create the universe and all things in it. For example we would not know how loving and full of grace God was if a fall did not happen, because only by the fall do we see God was willing to suffer Himself in Christ to save His creation. This properly manifests God's perfection to us, more than if it did not happen. Similarly, we would not know how much God hates sin if we did not see the judgment he has made against it, which again makes his perfections known to us.

How it relates to providence and predestination

Regarding the specific question as it is tied into the words "predestined", from the wider standpoint of the term he did predestine it all, however, this predestination included some free choice of its creatures fully bound into the envelope of his sovereign will and determined purposes. In the narrow sense of the word, sin can't be said to be predestined at all, as being part of God's will, for its very nature is defined by its inherent opposition to God's will. This argument won deemed nonsensical and there are no reformers who thought this or taught it.

I mention a narrow and wider sense of "predestine" to distinguish how we use the word in English. In the Bible, when Paul says predestined, for example, in Romans 8:30, he used the Greek προώρισεν (proorízō). This comes from two root words (pró) "before" and (horizon) "establish boundaries, limits". Therefore the term "predestine" means "establish unmovable boundaries before creation". Therefore, it is the wider sense of the word that should be used and we can then answer Biblically in the affirmative. "Yes", God predestined everything to the praise and our enjoyment of his glorious grace. Yet as already mentioned, not specifically predestined as he did "specifically" predestine those souls who would, when all things are complete, enjoy him forever and ever. Our election is a special subset of God's overall general boundary-setting and providential management of all things and we should not confuse the two.

In regards to the "mechanics of how" this providential boundary-setting of all things, including those things that oppose God's will, is managed and maintained by God no man can conjecture, but only believe. At a minimum we can simply say that all things recorded in scripture manifest the mechanics and this, including all the history of God with Israel: where his holy will was revealed, his hatred of sin and opposition to it made known man's wickedness, his promise of a Messiah to bring salvation, etc. It also includes most importantly the actual sending of his Son, Christ's incarnation, death and resurrection. His resurrection is not for himself or "his own glory" in the wrongly understood selfish sense as though he can be glorified more than his own eternal glory is, but "for us" whereby we become possessors of the universe. God's glory is simply the manifestation of his perfect love to us by grace, giving him nothing more than he had before creation, but giving everything to us which we did not have. In this way "all things" work out for our own benefit as God's grace and our benefit coincide in Christ in an incomprehensible manner (taken up more in this post.


If there were sentient aliens, would Jesus be their messiah also?
That will depend on several a variety of things such as their origins of sin
, if any or what some Christians call original sin. It will also depend if they are in some degree human!

The discovery of life beyond Earth would be a triumph for science but might wreak havoc on certain religions. Some faiths, such as evangelical Christianity, have long held that we are God’s favorite children and would not easily accommodate the notion that we would have to share the attention; others, such as Roman Catholicism, struggle with thorny questions such as whether aliens have original sin.
Now that researchers have discovered more than 1,500 exoplanets beyond the solar system, the day when scientists detect signs of life on one of them may be near at hand. Given this new urgency, Vanderbilt University astronomer David Weintraub decided to find out what the world’s religions had to say on the question of aliens. In his new book, Religions and Extraterrestrial Life: How Will We Deal with It? Weintraub investigates the implications of life beyond Earth on more than two dozen faiths. Scientific American spoke to him about his findings, including whether Jesus saved the Klingons as well as humanity.
Which religion will have the toughest time reconciling aliens with its beliefs?
The ones that have decided that we humans are the sole focus of God’s attention. The religions that see the world through that viewpoint tend to be some of the Christian evangelicals. The Eastern Orthodox Church, a branch of Catholicism, also has that view.
There are some people who claim that if God had created extraterrestrials, then there clearly would be words in the Old and New testaments, which we would have already found, that would have said explicitly that God created extraterrestrials—and since those words don’t exist, there can’t be. Well, there’s nothing in the Old and New testaments that talks about telephones either, and telephones do seem to exist.
You write that the Roman Catholics have a particular issue when it comes to extraterrestrials. What is their viewpoint?
Original sin is an important idea in Roman Catholicism. The idea that Adam and Eve shouldn’t have eaten the apple—they committed a sin and that’s how sin entered the lives of humans. Jesus’s act of dying on the cross was to redeem all humans from that original sin, to allow us to get to heaven.
Let’s say you discover some aliens on some other planets and you decide that you should convert them to Christianity. A reasonable question should be why? If they live on planet Earth, they could be descendants of Adam and Eve but if they are Klingons living on planet whatever, they couldn’t suffer from original sin because they’re not descendants of Adam and Eve. Christianity would make no sense for these creatures, unless our understanding of original sin makes no sense.
Roman Catholic theologians are starting to rethink that in light of the possibility that there could be living beings on other worlds. The idea of original sin may be recast not as sin that comes directly from a literal Garden of Eden and a literal Adam and Eve but that original sin somehow simply exists in the fabric of the universe.
Then you’ve also got to rethink some other ideas. If the redemption by the son of God who was incarnated in human form on the Plains of Galilee 2,000 years ago provides redemption for human beings on Earth, does that also provide salvation for Klingons?
Or does Jesus have to separately visit their planet?
Right. That’s a serious theological problem. Most theologians are pretty seriously averse to the idea that the son of God will have to visit every planet and get crucified on every planet.
What if there’s another planet that’s been in existence for 100 million years before us? Do all of those creatures not get to go to heaven because the Jesus event didn’t happen until 2,000 years ago? Is that fair? It’s not for me to say.
Some Catholic theologians are wiling to wave their hands and say it’s simply not a problem; God will take care of it. Some say it’s a serious problem. But theologically it’s a pretty interesting problem. These questions have been sitting out there for several hundred years. Two hundred years ago [American revolutionary and political philosopher] Thomas Paine put these questions out there very eloquently, and theologians started to address this and decided, yeah, this is a problem.
Do any religions explicitly discuss the possibility of life beyond Earth in scripture?
The middle of the 19th century is when a whole bunch of new religions were born, and many of those religions had something to say about extraterrestrials. In Seventh-Day Adventism, for example, the founder had visions of extraterrestrials—Saturnians—in which she saw them and saw that they were pure; they had not sinned. The only sinful beings in the universe were humans on Earth. That was her solution to the Thomas Paine problem, the original sin problem. The Saturnians didn’t need Christianity because they didn’t suffer original sin. - Did Jesus Save the Klingons?

The Catholic Church doesn’t have an official teaching on aliens but doesn’t discount their possibility either. Pope Francis made headlines in 2014 when he said that even Martians have the right to receive the Holy Spirit through baptism.

Pope Francis has declared everyone has the right to be baptised, even aliens should they come knocking on the church's door.
Christians cannot "close the door" to all those who seek baptism even if they are "green men, with a long nose and big ears, like children draw," the pope said at his daily mass on Monday, according to Vatican Radio.
"If tomorrow, for example, an expedition of Martians arrives and some of them come to us ... and if one of them says: 'Me, I want to be baptised!', what would happen?" Francis said in another display of his lively sense of humour.
The Argentine pontiff known for his down-to-earth style has often used colourful and humorous expressions to make his points on the direction of the Roman Catholic Church. - Pope says baptism for all - even Martians

In any case of extraterrestrials, there is doubt whether they are human, so a conditional baptism would be required! In the case they have never sinned, there would be in principle no need to have Jesus as their Messiah, unless they are able to freely do so.
God’s ways are not man’s ways. And frankly there is too much unknown in the whole of the universe to absolutely take this question in an absolute manner at the present moment.


Where did Catholics and Catholicism come from?

I don't think they called themselves Catholics instead of...Christians. They called themselves Catholic and also as Christians. Just like Catholics do even today.

Incidentally the same place where Christians got their name as Christians, is the same place where the Church was first called Catholic. That is at Antioch. The very first reference to the term Catholic is found in a farewell letter by St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch. Around the year A.D. 107, he wrote, "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Note that he doesn't explain what the term means. Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.

In the English language, the first known use of the term is in Andrew of Wyntoun's Orygynale Cronykil of Scotland (~1420 AD), "He was a constant Catholic/All Lollard he hated and heretic." (src)

The reason why they used the term Catholic is because they believed being universal, that is being same everywhere with regards to what was believed, is one of the four marks of the true Church.


Is there a systematic theology resource based solely on the words of Jesus?

I'm pretty sure that there is no source that looks at only Jesus words. However there are certainly theological approaches that place a much greater emphasis on Jesus words. For a start you might want to look at Red Letter Christians, a group that attempts to redress what they see as an imbalance in North American Evangelicalism, which they believe has seriously de-emphasised Jesus' words in favour of Paul's writings and selected Old Testament teachings. However the members of that group do pay attention to other parts of the Bible, and do treat them as inspired and authoritative.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe the 144 000 are from Israel?

Here's Revelation 7:4 from the New World Translation of the Bible

And I heard the number of those who were sealed, a hundred and forty‐four thousand, sealed out of every tribe of the sons of Israel:

In the article "Great Crowd" in the Watchtower Biblical/theological encyclopaedia Insight on the Scriptures, we find:

The apostle [Paul] wrote: “He is not a Jew who is one on the outside, nor is circumcision that which is on the outside upon the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and his circumcision is that of the heart by spirit.” (Romans 2:28, 29) Why, too, would there be no mention of any ‘sealing’ of the Gentile Christians in this divine vision? And why would not the Gentile Christians be able to master the new song sung by the 144,000? (Revelation 14:3) It thus seems clear that the 144,000 sealed ones are of spiritual Israel, not fleshly Israel—hence include both Jewish and Gentile Christians.—Galatians 6:16.

The 144,000 sealed ones are of spiritual Israel.  In other words, adopted into one of the tribes.
Here's a further explanation from the article "Do All Faithful Christians Go to Heaven?" in the 1 June 2011 issue of The Watchtower magazine.

So, too, with this heavenly Kingdom. Jesus, the Lamb of God, rules with 144,000 co-rulers “bought from among mankind.”—Revelation 14:1, 4, 5.
True, 144,000 is a small number compared with the number of all faithful ones, past and present. But this is understandable because the 144,000 are resurrected to heaven for a specific sacred assignment of work. If you were to build a house, would you contract all the skilled builders in your area? No. You would need only as many as were required for the job. Similarly, not all faithful ones are chosen by God for the unique privilege of ruling with Christ in heaven.


Since the term "predestination" in your question specifically refers to God's choice of individuals for blessed eternal life or eternal damnation, after death, and with that understanding, I would like to make short comments:

First, is it knowable? The answer is a "binary" one: if you are "in" then you are "not
       out." And the best place to find the answer is the Scripture:

Jesus says,

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me (Jn 10:27).
"And I have other sheep(you and I) that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice (v 16);
"When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” (v4-5).
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. ....The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

So, it is knowable, and the knowing is between you and the Lord, a personal thing. And NO denomination or any human can claim to know for certain.

Paul says in Romans 8:16 -"The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God."

So, it is knowable and knowing comes from your inner person, because the Holy Spirit abides in you as "Parakletos" (Πνεύματος), works within you. Can you NOT know when He is in you? (Paul use an analogy of being drunken with wine (Eph. 5:18.)

Scripture witness that, where ever He appears, i.e, Gen. 1:2, a new order and creation happens, and changes occurs. When believers in faith yield to Him, they will see  He "bear witness"- a slow but radical changes in your prayer, devotion, and attitude to others Because, your world view changes, so the value system, and purpose of life, etc.  You will become "seeking His kingdom and His righteousness first", etc. You will repent and confess of your sin that is the sure way a child can enjoy the peace and love of God in your life.
Mediate on the Parables- the Pearl merchant & the treasure hunter (Mt.13:44, 45-46).
"Jesus says, "You are the light" implies the darkness will flee from you and in your presence, and "you the salt" - people associate with you will see what difference you bring into their life.

Yes, it is knowable, NO one can claim to know for sure, but you and people around you will notice something going on with you,  and the **Lord knows YOU are His, that's all that matter. Blessings to you!

If you would like to read my comment on what is the role of our will,  the link:{here}


Praying with non-Christians as evangelism?

Prayer has never been and never will be an act only reserved for Christians. It takes its form in almost every religious belief system on the earth.

While prayer is not unique to a religion or restricted, the problems arise with people misunderstanding prayers on behalf of others. (ie. Pr. Benke) In his specific religious sect he was praying not just for himself but for all the people in the stadium therefore speaking in the name of Christ for people who possibly did not believe.

Theologically and scripturally there is nothing strictly against this specific act, but as we are aware religious sects interpret scripture and meaning differently.

In this case you have people who are most likely looking at prayer as an earned rite for the believers.

For more specifics I would hope someone of that particular sect of christianity may help. But there is not canonical scriptural evidence backing the aforementioned actions in plain understanding of the text.


This is actually a curious question. Wikipedia actually suggests the existence of the census is in doubt.

  In Christianity, the Gospel of Luke connects the birth of Jesus to a "worldwide census" in which individuals had to return to their ancestral cities. Jesus' parents, Joseph and Mary, travel from their home in Nazareth, Galilee, to Bethlehem, where Jesus is born. This explains how Jesus, a Galilean, could have been born in Bethlehem in Judea, the city of King David. No other record of such a census exists, and the idea of everyone in the Roman Empire returning to an ancestral city for a census is questioned by scholars.[3][4] The Gospel of Matthew has a different birth narrative, with Jesus' birth taking place during the life of Herod the Great, who died c. 4 BC. Bible scholars have traditionally sought to reconcile these accounts; while most current scholars regard this as an error by the author of the Gospel of Luke,[5] thus casting doubt on the Historical reliability of the Gospels.

Thus there is obviously no physical record of the census documents. Therefore it would be impossible to know if Jesus was counted among them, or was the last one mentioned.


What are the differences between the spirit of God and spirit of Man?

It helps to first know what the word "Spirit" actually means, which is more of a question for the Hermeneutics site.  I do see you've been asking questions about the meaning of the word there, so I'll include a brief bit here as introduction.

From http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/soul-and-spirit.htm

  In the New Testament the word for "spirit" is pneuma. Pneuma is
  translated the following ways:

  ghost 2
  Ghost (with Holy) 90
  life 1
  spirit 151
  Spirit 137
  spiritual gift 1
  spiritually 1
  wind 1

The entire article is very long, but it does a good job of illustrating how a simple word can be interpreted different ways based on the context of the verse.

The word "Spirit" can carry the more religious/supernatural connotation associated with the word today, or it can simply mean "life" or "the breath of life". Quite commonly it is used as a literary form of personification:

  One brief thought before we look at the verses: There are some verses
  that seem to use "soul" and "spirit" in ways that harmonize with the
  common concept of the nature of man. How can this be? Is the Bible
  contradicting itself?

  Here is one suggestion: It was commonplace for the Bible writers to
  take parts of man’s being and personify them, give them attributes
  they did not in actuality possess. Perhaps sometimes they personified
  the "soul" and "spirit" as well.

  The most familiar example of a part of a person being personified is
  the heart. The heart, simply an organ that pumps blood, is said to
  have qualities that the mind does have, but that the heart definitely
  does not have.

  Another example which is not so familiar is the personification of the
  kidneys, called the "reins" (Ps. 7:9; 16:7; 26:2; 73:21; Prov. 23:16;
  Jer. 11:20; 12:2; 17:10; 20:12; Rev. 2:23). The kidneys seem to have
  been made the seat of the affections and emotions.

  Another example is the use of the words for "bowels" (Ps. 40:8
  (translated "heart"); Cant. 5:4; Is. 16:11; 63:15; Jer. 4:19; 31:20;
  Lam. 1:20; 2:11; Luke 1:78 (translated "tender"); 2 Cor 7:15
  (translated "inward affection"); Php. 2:1; Col. 3:12; Phm. 1:7, 20; 1
  Jn. 3:17).

  In the light of these scriptures, the possibility that the Bible
  writers also occasionally personify the "soul" and "spirit" should be
  considered. In other words, the "soul" and the "spirit" may in some
  verses be given qualities that they do not in actuality possess.

The article shows the various verses in which the word "Spirit" is used.  I'll include just a few:

  "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
  into his nostrils the breath (neshamah, pnoe) of life; and man became
  a living soul" (Gen. 2:7). [God put the "spirit" into Adam's nose.]

  "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to
  destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath (ruach, pneuma) of life, from
  under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die" (Gen.
  6:17). [Animals have the "spirit" in them too.]

  "All the while my breath (neshamah, pnoe) is in me, and the spirit
  (ruach, pneuma) of God is in my nostrils" (Job 27:3). [The "spirit"
  lives in the nose.]

  "The Spirit (neshamah, pnoe) of God hath made me, and the breath
  (ruach, pneuma) of the Almighty hath given me life" (Job 33:4). [God's
  "spirit" gives us life.]

I'm assuming your question deals with verses like the last two shown above.  In the context, and general meaning.

Job 27:3 has been translates several ways by scholars, in the various versions of the Bible.  Examples:

  GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) 'As long as there is one breath [left] in me and God's breath fills my nostrils,

  American King James Version All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils;

Both of these clearly indicate that the Spirit of God is distinct from the breath of life (spirit of man).  It indicates that man has a spirit in him, given to him by God, not that the spirit in him is the same spirit that God possesses.

The spirit that God gives may be from God, but the connotation of the word "spirit" when it comes to man is simply life itself.  We each have our own life - our own spirit - our own ?breath that gives us life" that is certainly a gift from God, but is not the same as God's spirit.

It's also completely different than the Holy Spirit, which is the third person of God in the Trinity and, according to most traditions, indwells us at the point of, and remains in us after salvation.


Do non-Catholics ever have the priest visit the sick parishioners and deliver them communion?

The Church of England does this.

It's an important part of the clergy's ministry to their little bit of the country — and they will go to anyone resident in the parish who would receive communion in the Church of England but can't (so it's not restricted to actual members of the Church of England).

Although the Church of England is the established Church in England, and each incumbent has a statutory role within his parish, it's highly likely that any Anglican minister would operate in the same way.


What is the Biblical basis for believing God is the same throughout the Old and New Testament?

There is reference to God not changing in both the Old Testament and the New Testament:

 I the Lord do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not
destroyed. (Malachi 3:6)
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. (Hebrews
13:8)

While God has not changed, there are some things that have changed, such as God's dealing with mankind based on the death & resurrection of Jesus Christ.
As stated:

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but
also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)

God has dealt with mankind based on covenants or testaments, so there is a distinction between Jew, Gentile, and the Church of God.

Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of
God (1 Corinthians 10:32)

In the New Testament there is still reference to God being a jealous God:

Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he?
(1 Corinthians 10:22)
Or do you think Scripture says without reason that he jealously longs
for the spirit he has caused to dwell in us? (James 4:5)

The apostle Paul refers to being jealous:

I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one
husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to
him. (2 Corinthians 11:2)

But he states that it is a "godly jealousy".
This is a really big topic, which may raise more questions, but to wrap up what I'm saying, 1 John 2:2 talks about Jesus satisfying God's wrath against sin. That is the difference, we now have a better covenant/testament based on better promises.

But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs
as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one,
since the new covenant is established on better promises. (Hebrews
8:6)


How does the Catholic Church choose the patron saint of a parish church?

The naming of a patron saint of a parish church must be chosen by the clergy and the faithful of the area in union with their local ordinary (bishop) and then approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Often the faithful of a specific region will hold a particular devotion to a particular saint, thus making the choice more easy. The bishop can not name the patron saint of a church without the aid and inspiration of local clergy and the faithful.

  As an intercessor or advocate before God, the patron is a created person, such as the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Holy Angels, a Saint or Blessed. For the same reason, the Most Holy Trinity and the divine Persons are always excluded as patrons.
  A patron must be chosen by the clergy and the faithful, whose choice must be approved by the competent ecclesiastical authority. In order that they may carry liturgical effect, the choice and approbation require the confirmation of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, which is granted by decree of this same Dicastery.
  The patron of a place is distinguished from the title of a given church; they may be the same but are not necessarily so.
  When a new parish has been erected in place of several suppressed parishes, the new parish may have its own church, which, unless it is a new building, retains its existing title. Further, churches of suppressed parishes, whenever such parishes are considered as ‘co-parishes,’ retain their own proper titles. - Patron Saints of Churches

Ultimately it is up to the local clergy and the faithful to propose the patron saint of a parish church to the bishop, who will give his approval to the motion

Nota Bene: Number 8 simply means that the title of a church may be of the Most Holy Trinity or one of the divine Persons; but since they are not Saints, Blesseds or Angels they are always excluded from being the patron saint of a church. In this case we refer to the parish as being associated with a particular divine mystery and the parish’s feast day will occur on the feast when the Church celebrates that particular divine mystery.


Where Does Jesus Say "I will save humanity"?

There are indirect passages that state this.

John 3:16-17 ESV For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

John the Baptist had this to say:

John 1:29 ESV The next day he [John the Baptist] saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! ... "

Jesus himself never outright said "I am God. Worship me." He did this because he wanted his followers to have faith in him. His miracles testified to his Godliness.

John 10:24-25 ESV So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me...
John 14:8-11 ESV Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever 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 authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.
John 10:31-33 ESV "I and the Father are one." The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

Note the last passage: people say that Jesus is claiming to be God and want to kill him because of it, and Jesus does not correct them.


Which Christian Churches today teach that a Christian should not pursue a highest post in the state?

Some Baptists and most Anabaptists preach a strict separation of church and state. Historically, this has precluded many from any type of government involvement.

Mennonites and the Amish, for example, in being called out of the world, believe they should have nothing to do with elected or high office.


In Calvinism, why does free will to accept salvation seem to take away from God's glory?

The reason freely choosing to accept the gift of Jesus would rob God of glory in Reformed theology is that it would soft pedal the nature of the fall. Calvinists understand that when mankind fell into sin it affected our entire person and nature, leaving no portion unaffected. This is not the same thing as saying that humanity is as bad as it could possibly be. We do have choices, and God bridles evil as a matter of common grace, but that every part of man has been corrupted by the fall: our thoughts, our consciences, our bodies, our emotions, our reasoning, our spirituality, and everything else that makes us human is worse than it was before we sinned, but we have enough of the general idea behind the thing that we can recognize what we are missing.

The phrase, "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" has lost its rhetorical effect due to common usage in situations where helping yourself is merely challenging and not impossible, but the literal imagery is someone doing something physically impossible but conceptual feasible for someone who does not understand physics. We are familiar with the experience of pulling on something heavy and lifting it up, so we can imagine a person who is really strong being so strong he can lift his own weight and pull himself out of a pit by pulling on his bootstraps. But to explain in precise physical terms why that can't happen takes some effort.

In the same way, "choosing Jesus" with no special grace or election in the Calvinist conception is virtually the same as pulling oneself up by their own bootstraps. It seems possible, but in order for it to happen it would have to mean that a person who is enslaved to sin one day decides for themselves that they've had enough of it and don't want to be a slave. What then is slavery if you can just walk away from it? It means that a person who decides to sin because of a mistrust and growing enmity with God decides one day that God is now trustworthy again and a friend.

The free-will emphasis ultimately takes the work of God in planning, urging, sending, entreating, disciplining, electing, and regenerating and attributes it to the person who is not responsible for it. Jesus died on the cross to accomplish this, and it was the Father's will from the foundations of the world to bring about salvation for his people this way and his primary method of glorifying his name. To undercut the divine action and attribute it the the sinner gives the credit to the sinner for doing the thing that God did, which robs him of glory.

When the Israelites made the Golden Calf they said, "These are the gods that delivered us out of Egypt," and in so doing attributed the salvific work of God to inanimate idols and thereby robbing him of glory. God makes a name for himself by dealing mercifully with and saving his people, so Christians in turn are to ascribe to the Lord honor for his mighty deeds; the greatest of which is saving sinners.


No, a retired pope is not infallible because that guarantee is not a personal quality; it is attached to the office that he no longer holds. This is true in terms of the pope’s extraordinary teaching authority, which Pope Pius XII used in his 1950 definition of Mary’s assumption into heaven. He acknowledged consulting the world’s bishops prior to that decision.
Benedict XVI remains a member of the college of bishops—though obviously a unique member. When that group collectively teaches something as essential to the Catholic faith (for example, the Nicene Creed, the Trinity, or the Incarnation), it teaches infallibly. The college of bishops has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff” (Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 22).
Infallibility is a guarantee that the Church cannot lead Catholics into definitive error on a matter essential for their salvation.
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has chosen a hidden life of prayer as his new ministry within the Church. Less than 12 hours before he resigned on February 28, he publicly pledged to the College of Cardinals that he would accept and obey whomever they elect as his successor.
Theoretically, a retired pope could become a point of division within the Catholic Church; Benedict XVI has promised not to cooperate with any such attempt.

Taken from Ask a Franciscan.


What's the significance of hyssop in John 19:29?

Hyssop represents common faith. Hyssop was a weed that grew practically anywhere. The blood is applied by common faith in God's word.

  EXODUS 12:22 And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the
  blood that is in the bason, and strike the lintel and the two side
  posts with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go
  out at the door of his house until the morning.

In many of the Old Testament sacrifices (the two turtle doves for the cleansing of the leper, and especially the sacrifice of the red heifer), hyssop was burned in the fire, with the sacrifice, along with scarlet and cedar.

  Numbers 19:6 And the priest shall take cedar wood, and hyssop, and
  scarlet, and cast it into the midst of the burning of the heifer.

Hyssop represents the first step of salvation, believing on the Lord through common faith (justification).

Scarlet represents the blood sacrifice which atones for our sins, and being set aside for service (sanctification).

Cedar represents a Holy God coming to dwell in our hearts (baptism of the Holy Ghost).

The reference to hyssop in John 19:29 ties together the Old Testament prefigure of the red heifer (who died for the sins of the people) with the death of Christ (who died "once for all"). There on Golgotha was Hyssop, the Blood Sacrifice (Scarlet), and Emmanuel (God with Us, Cedar).


If the Sacrament of Confirmation gives the gift of fortitude, why are we still afraid to do the right thing?

The short answer is that our human nature is still damaged because of sin, both original sin and actual sins.

Before getting into more details of this question, let us see what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say on the effects of confirmation.

  The Effects of Confirmation

  1302 It is evident from its celebration that the effect of the sacrament of Confirmation is the full outpouring of the Holy Spirit as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost.

  1303 From this fact, Confirmation brings an increase and deepening of baptismal grace:

  it roots us more deeply in the divine filiation which makes us cry, "Abba! Father!";115
  it unites us more firmly to Christ;
  it increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us;
  it renders our bond with the Church more perfect;116
  it gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as true witnesses of Christ, to confess the name of Christ boldly, and never to be ashamed of the Cross:117

  Recall then that you have received the spiritual seal, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of right judgment and courage, the spirit of knowledge and reverence, the spirit of holy fear in God's presence. Guard what you have received. God the Father has marked you with his sign; Christ the Lord has confirmed you and has placed his pledge, the Spirit, in your hearts.118

  1304 Like Baptism which it completes, Confirmation is given only once, for it too imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual mark, the "character," which is the sign that Jesus Christ has marked a Christian with the seal of his Spirit by clothing him with power from on high so that he may be his witness.119

  1305 This "character" perfects the common priesthood of the faithful, received in Baptism, and "the confirmed person receives the power to profess faith in Christ publicly and as it were officially (quasi ex officio)."120

This sacrament completes that of baptism and confirms us in grace.

Original sin and actual mortal sin destroys sanctifying grace in our souls. Baptism restores sanctifying grace to the souls. However our human nature remains damaged due to original sin and actual sin.

  Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).

Thus actual sins weaken our abilities to resist future evils and temptations and induces us to commit greater sins; thus making it harder to stay in the state of sanctifying grace.

Although sanctifying grace has been restored to our souls through the sacrament of baptism and we are strengthened through the graces received in the sacrament of confirmation, we must still work out our individual salvation. The sacrament aid us in becoming saints, but we must still do our part in fortifying our souls through all means the Church places at our disposal, such as the sacraments of the Eucharist and Confession.

Sin is terrible and continuously weekends our human nature while the sacraments do the opposite. The Catechism of the Catholic Church can shed some light on this:

  1714 Man, having been wounded in his nature by original sin, is subject to error and inclined to evil in exercising his freedom.

  1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,129 became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.

  1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

  Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

  1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

  When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner's will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.

  1872 Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man's nature and injures human solidarity.

The sacrament of confirmation helps us to live our lives as saints, but we must at the same time cooperate with those very same graces received on the day we were confirmed by our local ordinaries (bishops).

  Actual sin primarily consists in a voluntary act repugnant to the order of right reason. The act passes, but the soul of the sinner remains stained, deprived of grace, in a state of sin, until the disturbance of order has been restored by penance. This state is called habitual sin, macula peccati. reatus culpæ (I-II:87:6).

Since our human nature has been damaged by original sin and actual sin; the sacraments of baptism and confirmation are there to restore us to God’s sanctifying grace and to give us the graces necessary to remain holy. We must strive to do our part and be docile to the Spirit of Holiness and cooperate with the graces infused into our soul by the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of confirmation.

In closing, we must also keep in mind that the Devil is always seeking way to make us fall, whether that be or through fear of some other motivation.


When was the first occurrence of Jesus being used as a name?

Well, to be accurate, are you asking about the Greek name Ἰησοῦς (English transliteration: Iēsous), or the actual Anglicized (English) name, "Jesus"? Or, are you referring to his likely Hebrew/ Aramaic name, יֵשׁוּעַ (English transliteration: Yeshu'a)?
I suspect you're probably talking about his Hebrew/ Aramaic name since that was what he would have been named --- and that is the name that actually has relevance to the phrase, "...he shall save his people from their sins."
So, who was the first to be called יֵשׁוּעַ? Well, I can tell you who was the first to be named יֵשׁוּעַ in the Tanakh, but you must understand that the Tanakh does not record the name of every Israelite who has ever been born. So, there may have been people named יֵשׁוּעַ even before the first one to possess that name as recorded in the Tanakh. In any case, the first one to be named יֵשׁוּעַ in the Tanakh (if I am not mistaken) is recorded in Ezra 2:2:

who came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah. The number of the men of the people of Israel: (JPS Translation)

There was an early Hebrew variant of the name יֵשׁוּעַ, it being יְהוֹשׁוּעַ (English transliteration: Yehoshu'a). This was the name of the one we known in English as "Joshua son of Nun." Both the names יֵשׁוּעַ and יְהוֹשׁוּעַ were transliterated into the Greek Septuagint by the proper name Ἰησοῦς.
Compare Nehemiah 8:17:

יֵשׁוּעַ בִּן־נוּן
Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Ναυη

with 1 Kings 16:34:

יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן-נוּן
Ιησου υἱοῦ Ναυη

For this reason, the KJV translators mistook "Jesus" for "Joshua" in Acts 7:45:

Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

The passage is not referring to the Lord Jesus, but rather, Joshua son of Nun (Yehoshu'a bin Nun), the successor of Moshe, who brought the Israelites into the promised land.
As an aside, the Hebrew/ Aramaic names יֵשׁוּעַ and יְהוֹשׁוּעַ are actually quite common in the Jewish culture. For example, you can see many people by those names in the Talmud.


What are the arguments that Acts was written prior to 70 AD?

J. A. T. Robinson, in Redating the New Testament (1976), lays out a thorough case for a pre-70 date for the publication of Acts.  His main points are also maintained by other conservative scholars, such as D. A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris in their Introduction to the New Testament, and in the Reformed Study Bible. The key points are:

Evidence for authorship by a companion of Paul
No mention of Paul's letters
Language considerations
Abrupt ending
No mention of important events in AD 62–70

A companion of Paul
Robinson argues that internal evidence points to a companion of Paul. First, he points to the passages where the author uses "we" in the narrative:

the style of the 'we' sections of Acts (16.10-17; 20.5-15; 21.1-18; 27.1-28.16) is, as Harnack showed, the style par excellence of the writer of the whole when freely composing in his own hand. There is no real ground for arguing that he is here using a source or travel-diary other than his own.

Against those who argue that this supposed "companion of Paul" made too many theological errors to be credible, Robinson argues that "the discrepancies with Pauline teaching have in my judgment been much exaggerated," for two reasons.  First, in Acts, Paul deals primarily with non-Christians, while in the epistles he addresses Christians – and Paul's only speech to Christians in Acts (to the elders at Miletus) "contains some remarkable parallels with later Pauline writings."  Second, the author of Acts presents himself as a layman, a historian, not a theologian, which accounts for a lack of precision in some statements (e.g., Acts 13:39).
No mention of Paul's letters
Against a second-century date, Robinson argues that Luke's failure to mention Paul's epistles, though not "decisive," is still problematic:

Silence on the very existence of the epistles is, as Kummel says, a formidable objection, amongst many others, to a second-century date. It is unbelievable that a later writer should not have made use of them for his reconstruction or at least alluded to them.

Language
Another evidence that Robinson cites is one of language:

Harnack goes on to adduce numerous positive indications of an early dating of Acts derived from the primitive character of its terminology.

The Reformed Study Bible offers some specifics along these lines:

Certain vocabulary points to an early date.  This vocabulary includes "disciple"; "the first day of the week" (later to become "the Lord's Day," Rev. 1:10); a reference to "the peoples of Israel" in 4:27 (a term later to include both Jews and Gentiles; Titus 2:14); the early title "Son of Man" (7:56); as well as language about geographical and political details.

Abrupt ending
The "rather lame and unfulfilling" ending of Acts, as Carson et al. call it, is widely cited as evidence for an early date.  Robinson quotes Harnack:

The question is: why does the account stop at this point? As Harnack said,

Throughout eight whole chapters St Luke keeps his readers intensely interested in the progress of the trial of St Paul, simply that he may in the end completely disappoint them — they learn nothing of the final result of the trial! Such a procedure is scarcely less indefensible than that of one who might relate the history of our Lord and close the narrative with his delivery to Pilate, because Jesus had now been brought up to Jerusalem and had made his appearance before the chief magistrate in the capital city!

Carson et al. draw particular attention to Luke's failure to mention Paul's release from prison (if he was indeed released), or his execution a few years later, given that his execution would have made a "fitting parallel" to the execution of James recorded earlier, and a similar ending as the gospel of Luke, in which Jesus is executed.
Surrounding events
But the outcome of Paul's trial is not the only event that is not mentioned by Luke.  Robinson breaks down a series of events that are inexplicably absent.  First, Nero's persecution in AD 64:

There is no hint of the Neronian persecution, which because of its excesses won considerable sympathy for the Christians, as Tacitus says. [Am. 15.44.]

The martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus, would have fit Luke's narrative well, but it isn't mentioned either:

Nor for that matter is there any hint of the death of James the Lord's brother in 62, which took place at the hands of the Sanhedrin against the authority of Rome. [...] No incident could have served Luke's apologetic purpose better, that it was the Jews not the Romans who were the real enemies of the gospel. Yet there is not a hint of James ever falling foul of the Jewish authorities, unlike his namesake, James the brother of John (Acts 12. ff.)

And, of course, there's no mention of the Jewish revolt that lead to the destruction of the temple in AD 70:

Nor is there any shadow in Acts of the impending Jewish revolt, let alone of the destruction of Jerusalem to bear out the earlier prophecies of the Gospel. When last we hear of them, the representatives of Judaism, alike of church (24.21.; 25.1-5) and state
(25.13-26.32), are living in a condition of courteous, if suspicious, detente with Rome. One could never guess from Acts what was to break within a few years.

Conclusion
Robinson concludes:

The burden of proof would seem to be heavily upon those who would argue that it does come from later, and there is nothing, as far as I can see, in the theology or history of the Gospel or Acts that requires a later date [...]. From the internal evidence of the two books we should therefore conclude (as did Eusebius) that Acts was completed in 62 or soon after, with the Gospel of Luke some time earlier.


How do Trinitarians interpret Jesus's statement that "I live because of the Father"?

Orthodox Trinitarians believe that the Son and the Spirit are eternally dependant on the Father, just as the heat and light of the fire are distinct from one another, contemporaneous with, yet dependant on, the fire. Just as the light can say "I live because of the fire" the Son can say "I live because of the Father." Yet there is no fire without the heat or light — no Father without the Son, nor vice versa.
If this weren't true, whence would the Son derive His life? If He derived it elsewhere, He would be another God from the Father, having life apart from the Father. Which cannot be and which contradicts His express teaching.


How long has the church been observing Lent?

The word Lent itself is derived from the Anglo-Saxon word meaning "Spring," and another word which also was the word for "March," the month in which the majority of Lent falls. Fr. Saunders writes:

  "Since the earliest times of the Church, there is evidence of some kind of Lenten preparation for Easter. For instance, St. Irenaeus (d. 203) wrote to Pope St. Victor I, commenting on the celebration of Easter and the differences between practices in the East and the West: "The dispute is not only about the day, but also about the actual character of the fast. Some think that they ought to fast for one day, some for two, others for still more; some make their 'day' last 40 hours on end. Such variation in the observance did not originate in our own day, but very much earlier, in the time of our forefathers" (Eusebius, History of the Church, V, 24). When Rufinus translated this passage from Greek into Latin, the punctuation made between "40" and "hours" made the meaning to appear to be "40 days, twenty-four hours a day." The importance of the passage, nevertheless, remains that since the time of "our forefathers" -- always an expression for the apostles -- a 40-day period of Lenten preparation existed. However, the actual practices and duration of Lent were still not homogenous throughout the Church.

  Lent becomes more regularized after the legalization of Christianity in A.D. 313. The Council of Nicea (325), in its disciplinary canons, noted that two provincial synods should be held each year, "one before the 40 days of Lent." St. Athanasius (d. 373) in this "Festal Letters" implored his congregation to make a 40-day fast prior to the more intense fasting of Holy Week. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) in his Catechectical Lectures, which are the paradigm for our current RCIA programs, had 18 pre-baptismal instructions given to the catechumens during Lent. St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) in his series of "Festal Letters" also noted the practices and duration of Lent, emphasizing the 40-day period of fasting. Finally, Pope St. Leo (d. 461) preached that the faithful must "fulfill with their fasts the Apostolic institution of the 40 days," again noting the apostolic origins of Lent. One can safely conclude that by the end of the fourth century, the 40-day period of Easter preparation known as Lent existed, and that prayer and fasting constituted its primary spiritual exercises."

Others have speculated that Lent may have originally only been for believers preparing for baptism.


How do Trinitarians understand Peter's response to Jesus at Matthew 16:16?

The question appears to assume that "son of the living God" (a biblical phrase) is somehow a lesser term than "God the son" (a man-made phrase) however Trinitarians do not think that Peter's confession of Jesus as the son of the living God is an understatement of any kind.
Peter was not the only one to whom Jesus' true relationship within the Godhead was revealed.  The critical difference is that Peter received the revelation, as evidenced by his confession, whereas the others, acknowledging and understanding the revelation, rejected it.

And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. - John 5:16-18

What those who were persecuting and trying to entrap Jesus clearly understood was that when Jesus called God his Father he was not identifying God's fatherhood in the same way as all those who came before him.  Here are only a few examples of many harvested from this paper titled "The Fatherhood of God in the Old Testament":

You are the sons of the LORD your God. You shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your foreheads for the dead. - Deuteronomy 14:1

Do you thus repay the LORD, you foolish and senseless people? Is not he your father, who created you, who made you and established you? - Deuteronomy 32:6

For you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us, and Israel does not acknowledge us; you, O LORD, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name. - Isaiah 63:16

God is portrayed as Father/creator who formed man, formed a people for His own, protected, disciplined, and blessed as a Father, and, as a Father, grieved when his sons and daughters reject him over and over again.  This type of language and imagery is all throughout the Scriptures and Jesus would have raised no eyebrows at all employing language of this kind.
John however, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, explicitly declares (5:17) that when Jesus says "My Father is working until now, and I am working" he is not using the term Father in this generalized, national way.  Jesus is calling God his own Father; his "personal, individual* Father.  The Greek literally says "The Father of me" and not "the Father", "your Father", or "our Father".  It is clear in verse 18 that this is exactly what Jesus was understood to be saying.
Further clarity is given in that those who heard Jesus refer to God as the "Father of me" also understood that this phrasing placed Jesus in a different category than all others:  God, the Father of me, is a claim by Jesus to equality with God, which claim his enemies very clearly understood for the Scripture says "This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him"  The highly debated phrase "only-begotten Son" is pregnant with this understanding.
In Mark 14 we see a similar scenario where Jesus claims God as his personal Father and murderous intent results:

And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death. - Mark 14:60-64

"God the Son" is a man-made theological construct intended to capture, preserve, and focus upon what Jesus was claiming and what folks were hearing and either receiving or rejecting:  "... he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God".  When Peter confessed "You are the Christ, the son of the living God" this is what he was confessing; that Jesus is not a created son like every other person but he is God's begotten Son and equally God, just as Jesus claimed.


Why did the early Christian church stop building and worshiping in temples?

The Temple was an extension of the concept of the Tabernacle which God instructed the Nation of Israel to build as a place for God to come and talk with them. That was the purpose of the Mercy seat, from which God talked to Moses.

The Temple was originally built by Solomon on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, It was enlarged and enhanced by King Herod. It was and still is a revered part of Judaism, which is a point of contention with Islamist since they have built a Mosque on the site. According to the Jews that Temple must be rebuilt on the original plot where it was originally built.

That having been said; The most probable reason that the Temple is not used for Christian worship is because Gentiles are not allowed to enter past the outer part of the compound. This is vividly shown in Acts where Paul is accused of denigrating the Temple by bringing a Gentile  into the Temple:

  Acts 21:28  KJV Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

There is only one Tabernacle and all that is currently left of it is the wailing wall.

The other places that the Jews congregated to worship were known as the Synagogue. These were in the Jewish communities.  When Christianity began to spread due to the persecution by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, and elsewhere. 'The people of the way'; which was what the first Christians were called, began to meet in secret in homes in order to not be taken back to Jerusalem for punishment. Paul was on his way to Damascus to capture and take them to Jerusalem when He was converted.

Christians were persecuted by Rome until Constantine was converted, and during that period did not meet openly.


What is the Biblical basis the for Immutable Nature of God?

Here are a few verses that support this:

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  Hebrews 13:8 NIV
Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the
work of your hands.  They will perish, but you will remain; they will
all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and
they will pass away, but you are the same, and your years have no end.
Psalm 102:25-27 NIV
For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed. Malachi 3:6
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.  James 1:17


Is a claim of 50,000,000 Baptist martyrs accurate?

No, there is no reliable historical evidence to support such a claim.

Before going into the question significantly, I should point out that the number of Baptists killed by the Catholic Church depends on how one defines "Baptist" - apparently, there are some who consider any early sect of Christianity which did not practice infant baptism to be a "proto-Baptist"; a predecessor of the Baptists. Rather than decide "who really is a Baptist", I'm just going to count all Christians who were killed, or died, by order or complicity of the Catholic Church: to my shame I must admit there were many.

The first appearance of the number "fifty million" that I can find is in Charles Buck, A Theological Dictionary, Containing Definitions of All Religious Terms, 1836, in the article "Persecution":

  It has been computed that fifty millions of Protestants have, at different times, been the victims of the persecutions of the Papists, and put to death for their religious opinions.

Unfortunately, Buck does not state where he gets this number. In his discussion of "Persecution of Christians by those of the same name", in which he focuses exclusively on post-Reformation persecutions of Protestants by Catholics, he mentions the Inquisition, the Dutch Revolt (not by that name), the French Wars of Religion (likewise not by that name), the English Reformation, the 1641 Irish Rebellion, and unspecified slaughters by Catholics in Scotland and Spain (although it specifies that the Spanish killings it mentions are of Jews, Muslims, and "barbarians", not of Christians).

According to this source, which cites the "fifty million" number as well (and which refers to the statement by Buck), between fifty and sixty-eight million people (not necessarily all Protestants) were killed by "Inquisition", 1518 and later. This apparently refers to the Roman Inquisition, although it could refer to the Spanish and perhaps the Portuguese Inquisitions as well. This academic source states that relatively few of those tried by the Inquisitions were in fact executed; Wikipedia estimates that the total number of people executed by the inquisition was probably between three and five thousand. There are much higher estimates, but none higher than 350,000; the median of several reliable estimates is 32,000.

The Dutch Revolt appears to have killed between 50,000 and 100,000 people.

The French Wars of Religion probably killed about three million people (Wikipedia estimates between two and four million).

In the English Reformation, based on the Wikipedia list, fewer than 500 people were killed.

In the Irish Rebellion of 1641, about 112,000 Protestants were killed.

Wikipedia, citing an article in The Oxford Book of Scottish History, estimates that "over 1,500 people" were executed for witchcraft, of between 4,000 and 6,000 tried.

These numbers total well under 5 million. While this amount is lamentable, it is nowhere near the fifty million cited.

Perhaps one could add the figures referred to in this source from FaithAssemblyOnline.org, which includes the Albigensian Crusade and the Thirty Years' War. It appears that scholarly estimates of the deaths from the Albigensian Crusade amount to between 100,000 and 1,000,000, roughly in agreement with the Faith Assembly source. Wikipedia's article on the Thirty Years' War, however (citing Europe, A History by Norman Davis), estimates that it caused 8 million deaths on all sides.

Finally, since I am unable to find a good source for the number of deaths caused by the crusade against the Waldensians, let's assume that the number given in the Faith Assembly source (900,000) is correct. These numbers total 14.5 million, nowhere near the 50 million.

Note several things:

This is a total of all self-described Christians whose deaths might be ascribed to the Catholic Church, whether they're considered precursors of Baptists or not.
In conflicts (the Dutch Revolt, the French War of Religion, the Thirty Years' War) for which separate numbers of Catholic and Protestant deaths were not given, I assumed that all people killed were Protestants. This is almost certainly quite far from the truth.
This is the highest possible estimate I could get from the numbers; the low estimate (taking the lowest estimate of non-conflict casualties, and assuming that casualties from conflicts were about half Protestant and half Catholic) is about 4 million.
The conflicts were in part caused by religious divisions, but they were political events as much as if not more than religious events; calling them "deaths caused by the Catholic Church" grossly misrepresents the causes and structure of the conflict, in my opinion. Nevertheless, I have included them to attempt to inflate the numbers as much as possible.

Based on my review of both the sources which provide the "50 million" number, and the historical evidence regarding the events to which the sources allude, I conclude that there is no historical reason whatsoever for believing that this number is anywhere close to accurate.


The short answer is yes, they do.

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, what is called "Mass" is usually referred to as "Divine Liturgy" or "Liturgy", although I have seen a Prayer Book from the Antiochian jurisdiction also use the term "Mass".

There is a strict rule within the Eastern Orthodox Church, however, that Divine Liturgy cannot be served at the same altar more than once per day nor by the same priest(s) more than once per day.  Also, the Sunday Liturgy is only served on Sunday - there is no Saturday evening Liturgy that takes the place of Sunday morning (usually on Saturday evening a Vespers service takes place, preceded or followed by Confession).  Large cathedrals and monasteries may have multiple chapels that allow more than one Liturgy to be served on-site each day, but by different priests at different altars. (I seem to recall that there is some ancient Church canon governing this practice, but I cannot find it).

There is nothing prohibiting the Divine Liturgy being served every day, except during those days of the year when there is no Divine Liturgy (e.g. Great and Holy Friday - "Good Friday" in the West).  I think that within most jurisdictions, the bishop tries to have individual parishes schedule at least one Divine Liturgy during the day on different days of the week, so that there is one Liturgy available each day.  Within my parish - which is very small - we have Divine Liturgy three times per week during the normal year, and sometimes every day during the Lenten and Pascal seasons, depending on the calendar.  In addition we have usually have Vespers services on Wednesday and Saturday evenings and on the eves of major feast days.  Many Orthodox monasteries celebrate the Divine Liturgy every day, again depending on the Church calendar.

Within the Eastern Orthodox Church we celebrate four types of Liturgies:

The Liturgy of St. James, which is very ancient and very long and is now celebrated only during the actual Feast of St. James
The Liturgy of St. Basil, which is quite a bit shorter and is celebrated during special seasons (e.g. Great Lent on Sundays).
The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which is the "normal" Liturgy
The Presanctified Liturgy of St. Gregory Diologist (Pope St. Gregory the Great), which is said weekdays during Lent.

I am not completely sure, but I expect that you will find that most or all of what I describe above also applies to Eastern Rite Catholics under the jurisdiction of the Pope.

[Note:  It is not relevant to your question, but I am a convert from Roman Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy, fairly steeped in the western monastic tradition (Benedictine)]


How did Thomas More manage to save his family?

According to Sir Thomas More: Biography, Facts and Information and according to
The last letter of Sir Thomas More, 1535 the Act of Succession was that which began the events leading to More's execution.

  It was the Act of Succession, passed the following month, that sealed his fate. It stated that all who were called upon must take an oath acknowledging Anne as Henry’s wife and their future children as legitimate heirs to the throne. This More was fully prepared to do. [Facts and Information.]

More was prepared to suffer, as a subject, the demands of Royalty. But some believe that the words added to the Act, regarding 'prince or potentate' were added specifically to entrap More :

  But – and of course this clause was added simply to trap More – the Act also required a repudiation of “any foreign authority, prince or potentate.” More could recognize Anne as the crowned queen of England. But he could not recognize the king’s authority as head of the new church of England. And so he was imprisoned in the Tower of London on 17 April 1534. [Facts and Information]

More had made little comment to Henry when the King claimed his previous marriage, to Catherine of Aragon, to be 'incestuous' (and therefore should be annulled) a non-existent argument since the brother involved, Arthur, died in 1501, eight years before his widow married Henry in 1509.

Wherever Henry found scriptural backing for this argument is not clear. John the Baptist's rebuke to Herod Antipas regarding his brother Philip's wife is irrelevant since both men were alive at the time. There is far greater scriptural argument that, since the brief marriage of Catherine and Arthur was childless, Henry, the brother, should marry the widow and produce progeny.

But More was not prepared to attend the King's subsequent re-marriage to Anne Boleyn in 1533. And not prepared to swear the oath in allegiance which excluded any loyalty to a foreign, earthly, power.

Nor was More prepared to accept Henry as the 'Head' of the Church in England.

Thus, to answer the question, More felt obliged, it would seem, to resist Henry and Parliament and he was not permitted to merely be silent on his own position, privately.

The Act demanded an oath to be sworn.

But More's last letter reveals nothing about either his intentions, or his own personal view, regarding his family and their rights or their future in England (or anywhere else).

The Wikipedia entry on 'hanging drawing and quartering' explains that those being so executed for treason - as was Henry's former wife Catherine Howard, although, being a woman, she was only beheaded - would, as she did, make a submissive confession on the scaffold, not for their own sakes, but for the sake of their surviving relatives, who could well suffer the same fate if the Monarch was displeased with how matters were going with the purging of treasonable rebellion.

For whatever reason, political or personal, Henry commuted More's sentence 'hanging drawing and quartering'(the usual for treason) to a simple beheading.

Therefore it is unlikely that Sir Thomas More's intentions regarding his family's status beyond his decease would be documented. If he made provision of any kind, then he probably did so secretively and if he discovered any justification for them not being treated as he was, then it would have been unwise to publicize that information widely, at the time leading up to his own execution.


I think the biggest grammatical clue is the existence of the phrase itself.

  “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree" Gen 3v12

We also see Eve's words.

  And the woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” Gen 3v13

I think claiming, "I ate" would have been telling enough however Adam makes it a point to qualify his statement with the additional words.  I believe the conversational language in this chapter tells more of the story and that Adam was downplaying the severity of his choice with the additional qualifiers.  By doing so it appears that he was blaming Eve.  The serpent tried to downplay the severity of the consequences for eating the fruit earlier in the chapter.


Who sent John the Baptist to baptize with water?

When the angel came to Zechariah to announce the birth of John, he said that the child would be "filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb. (Lk 1:15)" Also, Jesus said of John that "all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. (Mt 11:13)" It seems most reasonable to view him as a prophet like those of the OT, that he was commissioned and sent directly by God, and that he received inspiration and revelation directly from God.


Comparative religion textbooks from a Catholic viewpoint

I would suggest a good apologetics book, because these are designed to refute the errors of false religions / belief systems and show how the Catholic religion is the only true one, e.g.:

Catholic Apologetics: God, Christianity, and the Church by Fr. John Laux
The Principles of Catholic Apologetics by Fr. T. J. Walshe

This more recent one compares Catholic theology and philosophy to that of other, non-Catholic belief systems (including even Eastern, Indian thought):

The Way toward Wisdom: An Interdisciplinary and Intercultural Introduction to Metaphysics by Benedict Ashley, O.P.Fr. Benny had a very interesting life, being an ex-Marxist before his conversion.

A classic comparing Catholic doctrine to Protestant/Lutheran doctrine is:

Symbolism, or, Exposition of the doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants as evidenced by their symbolical writings by Möhler, Johann Adam, 1796-1838"Symbol" in the sense of "creed" (σύμβολον, symballein, means a collection: "It is from its being a collection of maxims of faith that the symbol [*The Greek {symballein}] takes its name."


Was the Synagogue of Satan the same as the Synagogue of Libertines?

"Synagogue of Satan", according to theologians, may refer to -

Assembly of Jews who rejected Jesus Christ and persecuted the Christians

  (Pulpit Commentary)

  We have here strong evidence of the early date of the Apocalypse.
  Throughout this book "Jew" is an honourable name for the worshippers
  of the Christ; "Gentiles," a name of reproach for those who oppose the
  Christ. [...] These persecutors of the Church of Smyrna are Jews in
  name, but in reality are rather Gentiles - opponents, and not
  worshippers of the Messiah. (source: Bible commentaries on Rev 2:9)

Heretics who professed Christianity

  (Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible)

  they professed Christianity in words, but in works denied it; they
  were men of bad principles and practices, and both blasphemed the ways
  and doctrines of Christ themselves, and caused them to be blasphemed
  by others also; they were false Christians, nominal professors, and
  shunned persecution for the Gospel; who were not what they would be
  thought to be: these were the broachers of heresies in this period of
  time (source: Bible commentaries on Rev 2:9)

"Synagogue of Libertines" was probably the assembly of the Freedmen from Rome, descendants of the Jews enslaved by Pompey after his conquest of Judaea in 63 BC.  (source). They were persecuting the Christians, they were responsible for the death of Stephen, the first martyr.

Synagogue of Libertines were Hellenistic Jews and were persecuting Christians. If "Synagogue of Satan" means "Jews who reject Christ", then we can deduce that "Synagogue of Libertines" was indeed one of the Synagogues of Satan mentioned in Rev. 2: 9 and Rev. 3: 9.


Is the New Covenant a unilateral or a bilateral covenant?

Yes, it is a bilateral covenant! This is the new covenant, Jeremiah 31:31-34 (NIV) :

  “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”

This new covenant started when Jesus poured out his blood (symbolized by the wine in the last supper), Luke 22:20 (NIV):

  In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

All we have to do to accept this new covenant is stated in Romans 10:9-12 (NIV):

  If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Jesus basically stated the "terms" in John 15:5-7 (NIV), though not speaking specifically about a covenant:

  “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.


Why did Jesus defend the disciples' failure to wash hands prior to eating? (Catholic perspective)

Cornelius à Lapide, S.J., commentates on Mt. 15:2-3:

  Why do thy disciples, &c. Bread, in this verse, is a common Hebraism for all kinds oi food. Observe : Moses, m the old Law,enjoined, by God's command, that the Jews should abstain from contact with the dead bodies of rapacious birds and unclean animals,from lepers and various other persons and things. And if any one touched them accidentally, he was accounted unclean ; and was not allowed to enter the Temple until he had performed the ablutions which the law prescribed. And these corporeal washings were enjoined for the purpose of adumbrating to the dense minds of the Jews those spiritual washings of the soul, which are effected by contrition and repentance. (See what I have said on Levit. xi. 31.)

  The Jews then, but especially the Pharisees, who wished to be accounted more religious than other people, made their whole sanctity consist in such outward and frequent washings before their meals,yea even when they were taking their food, as seems to be her eintimated. This was why, at the wedding-feast at Cana, there were placed six water-pots for these purificatory purposes. This was why they so frequently washed the cups and basons, out of which they ate and drank, yea even their beds and tables, as may be seen in Mark vii. 4. They were thus careful, lest if the vessels out of which they ate were polluted, they should contaminate those who ate out of them. But all this was merely done out of custom, since the law prescribed nothing of the kind.

  Observe 2. This excessive scrupulosity of the Jews was little if indeed at all conducive to piety, or profit, since it kept them wholly intent upon external washings. And so it called off their minds from the interior care and purification of the mind from sin. Neither did God require of them this exceeding anxiety about external lustrations; but seems rather to have discouraged it. (Deut. iv. 2) Christ therefore being about to put an end to these vain and frivolous, or noxious traditions, and being desirous of directing their whole attention to the purification of the mind, was unwilling to observe these ablutions, or to enjoin them upon His disciples, although He did not say so in express words, in order to avoid the envy and calumnies of the Pharisees.

  […]

  Jesus answered, &c., for the sake of your tradition. Arabic, for the sake of your ordinances. Instead of, for the sake of, some translate, through. But the meaning is the same in both; viz., your traditions set at nought and violate the Law of God. Therefore they are false and impious, and ought not to be observed.

  Note the word, your. Your traditions were not instituted by God,or His Saints : nor by the ancient Patriarchs and Prophets. They were only invented in recent times by the Scribes and Pharisees,your predecessors. And you wish to maintain them, not from love and reverence for them, but because ye have come into their place,and because ye would arrogate to yourselves power and authority to ordain similar traditions. But there are Divine and Patriarchal traditions, which must be in every way observed. They are, that the Books of Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, and the rest of the Prophets are Canonical : that God is One in Essence, Three in Person: that sins are blotted out by true contrition arising from the love of God :that infants are guilty of original sin, and therefore must be cleansed by the Sacrament which God has ordained, and so on. These traditions ye ignore, or make of none effect, O ye Scribes ; being wholly taken up with your own traditions.

The Pharisee's hand-washing was their own tradition made to appear like the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law, which were no longer in force since Christ's passion. The ceremonial precepts were only intended to help prepare the Israelites for His coming. As St. Thomas Aquinas writes addressing the question "Whether the ceremonies of the Old Law ceased at the coming of Christ?":

  All the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law were ordained to the worship of God as stated above (Question [101], Articles [1],2). Now external worship should be in proportion to the internal worship, which consists in faith, hope and charity. Consequently exterior worship had to be subject to variations according to the variations in the internal worship, in which a threefold state may be distinguished. One state was in respect of faith and hope, both in heavenly goods, and in the means of obtaining them—in both of these considered as things to come. Such was the state of faith and hope in the Old Law. Another state of interior worship is that in which we have faith and hope in heavenly goods as things to come; but in the means of obtaining heavenly goods, as in things present or past. Such is the state of the New Law. The third state is that in which both are possessed as present; wherein nothing is believed in as lacking, nothing hoped for as being yet to come. Such is the state of the Blessed [in heaven].

  In this state of the Blessed, then, nothing in regard to worship of God will be figurative; there will be naught but "thanksgiving and voice of praise" (Is. 51:3). Hence it is written concerning the city of the Blessed (Apoc. 21:22): "I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty is the temple thereof, and the Lamb." Proportionately, therefore, the ceremonies of the first-mentioned state which foreshadowed the second and third states, had need to cease at the advent of the second state; and other ceremonies had to be introduced which would be in keeping with the state of divine worship for that particular time, wherein heavenly goods are a thing of the future, but the Divine favors whereby we obtain the heavenly boons are a thing of the present.


In "take up your cross daily" what does "cross" refer to?

There are at least two questions here, probably three. What would his hearers have understood by it before and after his arrest and crucifixion? And again after his resurrection? Jesus spoke in Aramaic, translated into Greek by Luke and later into English. To complicate things further, the word he used for cross was probably the Latin furca, a fork. This was a term used in the Roman Army for a backpack, and as slang for a punishment yoke or gallows, not the cross used in crucifixion as Romans were mainly exempt. General Marius devised cross-shaped backpacks for his men, capable of carrying large loads, reducing the need for baggage trains. This resulted in the men being nicknamed Marius's Mules. Each day they would take up their packs and march.
You asked what Jesus would have meant by it. That will no doubt be answered fully by other contributors. Comments by him and others point to literal and non-literal answers. He knew what he was heading towards. Outside Roman slang there was no reason not to extend the use of furca for a crucifixion cross or a burden carried to that end. Non-Romans probably did.


Why are days like "Sunday" or "Monday" not mentioned in the Bible?

The ancient Hebrew people simply numbered the days of the week except for Saturday which was known as the Sabbath.

  In Hebrew, the days of the week are simply numbered, except for the 7th, which is the Sabbath (Shabbat, שַׁבָּת ). - The Days of the Week

As for the Greco-Roman tradition:

  Between the 1st and 3rd centuries the Roman Empire gradually replaced the eight-day Roman nundinal cycle with the seven-day week. Our earliest evidence for this new system is a Pompeiian graffito referring to the 6th February (viii idus Februarius) of the year AD 60 as dies solis ("Sunday") - Names of the days of the week

It could be noted that some Liturgical books in the Catholic Church still use a numbered system for the days of the week.

  In the Judeo-Christian or Abrahamic tradition, the first day of the week is Sunday. Biblical Sabbath (corresponding to Saturday), when God rested from six-day Creation, made the day following Sabbath the first day of the week (corresponding to Sunday). Seventh-day Sabbaths were sanctified for celebration and rest. After the week was adopted in early Christianity, Sunday remained the first day of the week, but also gradually displaced Saturday as the day of celebration and rest, being considered the Lord's Day.

  Saint Martin of Dumio (c. 520–580), Archbishop of Braga, decided not to call days by pagan gods and to use ecclesiastic terminology to designate them. While the custom of numbering the days of the week was mostly prevalent in the Eastern Church, Portuguese and Galician, due to Martin's influence, are the only Romance languages in which the names of the days come from numbers rather than planetary names. - Days numbered from Sunday (Wikipedia).

As for the Roman Rite itself:

  In the Roman Rite liturgy, the term feria is used in Latin to denote days of the week other than Sunday and Saturday. Some use the term even in English, but the official translation of the Roman Missal uses "weekday" instead. Various reasons are given for the Latin terminology. The sixth lesson for December 31 in the pre-1969 Roman Breviary says that Pope Sylvester I ordered the continuance of the already existing custom "that the clergy, daily abstaining from earthly cares, would be free to serve God alone". Others believe that the Church simply Christianized a Jewish practice. The Jews frequently counted the days from their Sabbath, and so we find in the Gospels such expressions as una Sabbati and prima Sabbati, the first from the Sabbath. (Wikipedia).