Why are LDS missionaries instructed to stay away from bodies of water?

LDS missionaries are instructed to not go swimming. Commonly, this idea is misunderstood to be for the entire Mormon population, which is untrue.

That interpretation is "Mormonlore" which, I believe, spawns from a careless reading of D&C 61 (also see the section heading):

  3 But verily I say unto you, that it is not needful for this whole
  company of mine elders to be moving swiftly upon the waters, whilst
  the inhabitants on either side are perishing in unbelief.

  4 Nevertheless, I suffered it that ye might bear record; behold,
  there are many dangers upon the waters, and more especially hereafter;

  5 For I, the Lord, have decreed in mine anger many destructions upon
  the waters; yea, and especially upon these waters.

  6 Nevertheless, all flesh is in mine hand, and he that is faithful
  among you shall not perish by the waters.

The context is that of early missionaries traveling by boat to their assigned areas of labor. Here the Lord is reminding them that they ought not pass by all the people along the river on their way up, and that instead they should go preach to them on the way. This is not unlike missionaries today who drive from appointment to appointment... most are encouraged to stop and talk to people along the way.

Later in the section:

  14 Behold, I, the Lord, in the beginning blessed the waters; but in
  the last days, by the mouth of my servant John, I cursed the waters.

  15 Wherefore, the days will come that no flesh shall be safe upon the
  waters.

  16 And it shall be said in days to come that none is able to go up to
  the land of Zion upon the waters, but he that is upright in heart.

The Doctrine and Covenents has a footnote in these verses to Rev. 8:10 (8–11).

So really, this is only repeating what is already in the Bible, that the waters will be a means of scourge before the Jesus' second coming, except to those people who are righteous which will be spared.

There is no teaching in the LDS church that says, "You shouldn't go swimming." Yes, they preach modesty even in swimming suits as much as possible and practical, but this isn't to say that swimming is evil or anything of the sort.

Missionaries are given particular instruction to not swim as it isn't consistent with the nature of their call, and there have been accidents -- and the Church doesn't want to have to deal with those issues.

As an aside, and perhaps an interesting corollary, there is the incident with Zion's Camp which happened a couple years after this revelation was received, which typifies the power of God, especially related to these promises given here about destruction with the waters, and protecting His servants.

From the Church History Institute Manual, Chapter 12, "Zion's Camp":

  Instead of reaching their intended destination of Liberty, they camped
  just inside Clay County on a hill between two branches of the Fishing
  River. When Joseph learned that mobs were preparing to attack, he
  knelt and prayed again for divine protection. Joseph’s fears were
  confirmed when five armed Missourians rode into camp, cursing, and
  swore that the Mormons would “see hell before morning.”

  They boasted
  that nearly four hundred men had joined forces from Ray, Lafayette,
  Clay, and Jackson counties and were then preparing to cross the
  Missouri River at Williams Ferry and “utterly destroy the Mormons.”
  Sounds of gunfire were heard, and some of the men wanted to fight, but
  the Prophet promised that the Lord would protect them. He declared,
  “Stand still and see the salvation of God.”

  A few minutes after the
  Missourians left, a small black cloud appeared in the clear western
  sky. It moved eastward, unrolling like a scroll, filling the heavens
  with darkness. As the first ferry load of mobbers crossed the Missouri
  River to the south, a sudden squall made it nearly impossible for the
  boat to return to pick up another load. The storm was so intense that
  Zion’s Camp abandoned their tents and found shelter in an old Baptist
  meetinghouse nearby. When Joseph Smith came in, he exclaimed, “Boys,
  there is some meaning to this. God is in this storm.” It was
  impossible for anyone to sleep, so the group sang hymns and rested on
  the rough benches. One camp member recorded that “during this time the
  whole canopy of the wide horizen was in one complete blaze with
  terrifying claps of thunder.”

  Elsewhere the beleaguered mobbers
  sought any refuge they could. The furious storm broke branches from
  trees and destroyed crops. It soaked and made the mobbers’ ammunition
  useless, frightened and scattered their horses, and raised the level
  of the Fishing River [30 feet], preventing them from attacking Zion’s Camp. The
  Prophet recalled, “It seemed as if the mandate of vengeance had gone
  forth from the God of battles, to protect His servants from the
  destruction of their enemies.”

The whole chapter is interesting history. See this for more information.


What is the origin among the Church of England of the Paschal Greeting?

Best I can make of it is that it began with the 1979 revision of the (Episcopalian) Book of Common Prayer, when the liturgists decided since Eucharist was replacing Morning Prayer as the standard Sunday worship service, there needed to be a more formal introductory rite.  In the 1928 Prayer Book (and in earlier books), the rubrics assume that Morning Prayer and its introductory rites would have preceded Eucharist in a similar fashion as older Catholic rubrics assume that Terce would have preceded Mass.  In both the 1928 and earlier Anglican Eucharist services and the Tridentine Mass, the priests do not formally greet the people, while in the preceding offices (Morning Prayer/Terce) there is a formal greeting ("O Lord open Thou our lips"/"Deus in audiutorium").  In order to make the service make sense when standing alone, the liturgists compiled 3 different greetings for the 1979 Prayer Book, and I do not know why the specific greetings were included because they are not found in any tradition related to the Anglican liturgy or any other Western rite that I am aware of.  Perhaps there is an explanation for it in Hatchett's exhaustive Commentary on the American Prayer Book, but I do not have a copy on hand right now.

The practice of using the Paschal greeting became more and more common over the years within the Anglican Communion and in other Protestant Churches as well, and even began to be used outside of the liturgy.


Would men have ever sinned if Satan did not tempt Eve in the garden in the first place?

There is a basic concept that you appear to be overlooking. Satan is eternal. God never totally destroys any of his creations, which have life given by him. He only destroys Heaven and Earth in Revelation Chapter 21 verse one.

That Heaven that is destroyed is the heaven we know as our atmosphere. The Heaven we aspire to is eternal, and all things that were created for that Heaven are also eternal, whether or not they end up there.

Consider the following verses from the Revelation:

  Revelation 19:20 KJV And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Note that it says that they were cast alive. that tells us two important things. That both beast and the false prophet have life. A large part of God's punishment is eternal pain and suffering, as we see in the following verse:

  Revelation 20:10 KJV And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Here we find that Satan is also going to be tormented forever. There will be no lessening of that torture and there will be no end to it. And they will never be completely destroyed, since death will have been eradicated.

  Revelation 20:14 KJV And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Now as to whether or not man would have sinned if Satan were not there to tempt Adam and Eve. The only Angels left in Heaven are those who chose to reject Satan and his Dominion. When God created mankind he gave us that same choice that the Angels had, that of choosing between two eternal destinations. Satan and the fallen Angels could have chosen to remain in Heaven under God's rule, instead of rebelling, and we have that same choice. It was not Satan who made them sin, it was the choice they made to disobey God. That within itself is the sin which doomed all who followed them.

Would they have eaten from the tree had Satan not tempted them, we cannot know the answer to that question, but God knew that unless they were in some way tempted they would not exercise their free will. Satan was only doing God's will, in tempting them even if he did not know it at the time.

And there is one more thing to consider, that being that unless we make the right choice, we will suffer that same punishment that God initiated for Satan and his minions.

  Revelation 20:15 KJV And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

The Book of Life is a list of those who have chosen God as their King rather than Satan. At this point I would like to say that living a life in worship of God; whether or not God actually does exist (of which I personally have no doubt) only makes sense in light of the probability that Every Word of the Bible, is actually the word of a living God. Believing in God in that case is far more desirable than the alternative.


From the FaithLife Study Bible, this (three heavens) represents the understanding of the universe held by the Greeks:

  According to ancient cosmology, there are seven levels: the sky, the clouds, the sky above the clouds, the firmament, the waters above the firmament, the heavens, and the heaven of heavens, where God dwells. The three heavens view understands the first heaven to be the visible sky or the “firmament” (see Gen 1:8 and note), the second heaven to either be the “heavens” or the division between the “heavens” (the “waters above the firmament”; Psa 148:4), and the third to be the “heavens of heavens” or “highest heavens” (1 Kgs 8:27; Psa 148:4). All views agree on the places, but they label them differently.

In a nutshell then:

the first "heaven" is the atmosphere, the sky - the "heavens" that you can imagine a Victorian talking about.
the second heaven is the border between the sky and what we think of as "heaven," or, what I like to think of as "Space"
the third heaven is that bit with the pearly gates, the gold streets, and free harps.

In identifying "the third heaven," Paul is saying he was in the presence of God directly.


I will answer as much of your questions as I can, some of them need be asked on other sites. For instance I do not know what ritualistic sacrifices were in other religions at the time, and most Historic questions will be better answered on Biblical Hermeneutics.
Some things to keep in mind are:
These sacrifices; given to the Hebrew nation were given prior to Jesus time on Earth. Therefore, there had been no sacrifice of human life which is indicated in the following Scripture:

Genesis 2:17 KJV But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

It is significant that this command was only given to one person that being Adam. Man was the only creature that was made in the image of God himself, and his life was therefore, more significant than God's other animalistic creations.

Genesis 1:27 KJV So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The reason this is significant lies in the fact that Man had become a living Soul.
The Soul is an eternal being, So man has an eternal part, and yet God said that if Man disobeyed him he would have to taste death.

Genesis 2:17 KJV But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

The Hebrews had just left Egypt, where they had served other gods, and although it is spelled out, it seems that they would also make unholy sacrifices to those gods.
They had also taken many riches from the Egyptians, God did ask for the sacrifice of those riches. What he did ask for was a sacrifice of life, and it must be remembered that God had saved the cattle of the Hebrews, when he killed Egyptians cattle along with the first born of the Egyptians.

Exodus 12:12 and 13 KJV For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD. 12:13  And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

Cattle were at the time a measure of wealth. So God's sacrifice was not only a sacrifice of wealth but also a sacrifice of life, as was demanded for disobeying God's commands.
The sacrifice ritual was so different from food preparation, in that it required actions not normal in the normal killing of livestock, and only certain parts of animals, not sacrificed for a sin offering could be eaten, and then only by a chosen few.

Exodus 29:10 thru 14 KJV  And thou shalt cause a bullock to be brought before the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron and his sons shall put their hands upon the head of the bullock. 11  And thou shalt kill the bullock before the LORD, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 12  And thou shalt take of the blood of the bullock, and put it upon the horns of the altar with thy finger, and pour all the blood beside the bottom of the altar. 13  And thou shalt take all the fat that covereth the inwards, and the caul that is above the liver, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, and burn them upon the altar. 14  But the flesh of the bullock, and his skin, and his dung, shalt thou burn with fire without the camp: it is a sin offering.
 Exodus 29:27 and 28 KJV  And thou shalt sanctify the breast of the wave offering, and the shoulder of the heave offering, which is waved, and which is heaved up, of the ram of the consecration, even of that which is for Aaron, and of that which is for his sons:
Exo 29:28  And it shall be Aaron's and his sons' by a statute for ever from the children of Israel: for it is an heave offering: and it shall be an heave offering from the children of Israel of the sacrifice of their peace offerings, even their heave offering unto the LORD.

These sacrifices were a precursor to the one true sacrifice, which is Jesus. Even though man has an eternal soul that Soul will not necessarily spend its eternity with God in Heaven. This is because life is necessarily sacrificed to God in exchange for our disobedience. That requirement is not possible because we have inherited the knowledge of good and evil, and unfortunately, we appear to have only enough knowledge to more often ignore God's requirements in favor of our own desires.
Christianity is the knowledge that:

John 3:16 and 17 KJV  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

All sacrifices both in the Old Testament and the New Testament serve to bring the world back into the good graces of God.
Hope this helps.


How is it just that Jesus, an innocent, would be punished for our sins?

This is certainly a challenging question.  I'll rely on the writings of two prominent reformed theologians, Louis Berkhof and Charles Hodge, who are strong supporters of this doctrine.  It's important to note, for reasons that will become clear, that they defend their position in the face of arguments made by opponents who believe in a just God.  Those who reject the existence of a just God due to the problem of evil, for example, are not in view.
Briefly, the arguments are 1) there are certain circumstances in which human judges can transfer criminal punishment, and those circumstances apply to Jesus, 2) the testimony of the Bible demonstrates that it is just, and 3) it is presumptuous to put one's own sense of justice over that of God's.
Human analogies
Berkhof begins his treatment by recognizing that "[t]here is undoubtedly a real difficulty here," particularly because the idea of a just God pouring out judgement on an innocent party rather than the guilty party "seems to be contrary to all human analogy."  Along these lines Berkhof does suggest a few examples from the secular world, such as substitution in the case of mandatory military service.
Berkhof's main argument here, however, is that even in the case of criminal law, there are circumstances in which substitution is legitimate.  He quotes Amour's Atonement and Law:

"[L]aw, as understood and administered by men in all lands, provides that the penalty may be met by a substitute, in all cases in which the penalty prescribed is such that a substitute may meet it consistently with the obligations he is already under."

Berkhof lays out some of the criteria under which a human judge might permit substitution: (1) the guilty party is not able to bear the punishment, (2) the substitution does not infringe on the rights of any innocent third parties, (3) the substitute is not already indebted to justice, and (4) the guilty party retains consciousness of guilt.  Saying that "[i]t is perfectly evident that the law does recognize the principle of substitution," he admits difficulty but defends the position, saying,

In view of all this it will be understood that the transfer of penal debt is well-nigh, if not entirely, impossible among men.  But in the case of Christ, which is altogether unique, because in it a situation obtained which has no parallel, all the conditions named were met.  There was no injustice of any kind.

He continues:

[T]he fact that it is impossible to find men who meet these requirements, is no proof that Jesus Christ could not meet them.  In fact, He could and did, and was therefore an acceptable substitute.

Testimony of the Bible
With respect to the Bible's teachings, Charles Hodge succinctly defends the doctrine from attack as follows:

If the Bible teaches that the innocent may bear the guilt of the actual transgressor; that He may endure the penalty incurred in his place, then it is in vain to say that this cannot be done.

This argument will fall flat to any who do not accept the Bible as divinely inspired, but Hodge's point is that the teachings of Scripture overwhelming support this doctrine, leaving "us no alternative but to receive them as the truths of God, or to reject the Bible as his word."
As a side note, some of the points along these lines are the expiatory and substitutionary nature of Old Testament sacrifices (Leviticus 1:4, 16:20-22, and 17:11), the teaching of our sins being laid upon Christ (Isaiah 53:6, 53:12; Galatians 3:13;  Hebrews 9:28; 1 Peter 2:24), and that the prepositions used in these and other passage must mean "instead of," not "on behalf of," upon thorough evaluation of all uses of these words in the New Testament. (see Berkhof for more on this)
God is Justice
Addressing those who find the last argument unconvincing, Hodge calls on his opponents to consider:

Rejecting the Bible does not help the matter.  We cannot reject the facts of providence.  Where is the propriety of saying that the innocent cannot justly suffer for the guilty, when we see that they actually do thus suffer continually, and everywhere since the world began? [...] In teaching the doctrine of legal substitution, [...] the Bible asserts and assumes no moral principle which does not underlie all the providential dealings of God with individuals or with nations.

The point, Hodge says, is that men foolishly attempt to judge God for his supposed injustice, instead of recognizing that God defines what justice is.  "Men," he says, "constantly deceive themselves by postulating as moral axioms what are nothing more than the forms in which their feelings or peculiar opinions find expression."  If all these opinions are left unchecked,

[t]here would be no end of controversy, and no security for any truth whatever, if the strong personal convictions of individual minds be allowed to determine what is, or what is not true, what the Bible may, and what it may not, be allowed to teach.

He summarizes:

[T]here is nothing in the nature of things, nothing in the moral nature of man, nothing in the nature of God as revealed either in his providence or in his word, which forbids the idea that this obligation may on adequate grounds be transferred from one to another, or assumed by one in the place of others. (532)

Berkhof addresses these objections similarly, and also emphasizes that Christ's substitutionary work was voluntary, part of "a solemn agreement between the three persons in the Godhead."  Furthermore, he argues that those who deny substitutionary atonement are forced to defend God's injustice for unnecessarily subjecting his Son to suffering and death.
Closing points
Obviously, as mentioned at the beginning, the arguments made by these two theologians will not be found particularly satisfactory to those who object to the existence of God based on the problem of evil.  Without the common ground of belief in a just God who reveals himself in the Bible, arguments to defend the justice of penal substitution will be ignored for the same reason as arguments to defend God's justice in allowing pain and suffering in the world.
However, for those who believe that a just God exists, Berkhof and Hodge argue that human analogies for penal substitutionary atonement are available, that rejection of the doctrine requires rejection of the clear teaching of the Bible, and that our understanding of the nature of justice must be informed by God's revelation, not merely our intuitions.

References:

Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 3.3.4
Hodge, Systematic Theology, 2.3.7.7


Is baptizing someone without consent valid? (Roman Catholic view)

I think you'll find the section on Baptism in the Code of Canon Law helpful in answering your question.

Code of Canon Law: Title 1 - Baptism

To summarize a bit (please check out the link for the lion's share of details):

There is more than one way to be baptized, not all of which require a minister or other baptized person to be present. (e.g. the Baptism by Desire referenced by @Alypius above.) One form doesn't even require the recipient to be aware, but it's a special case (infants) that assumes the guardians have the infant's best interests at heart.
Consent is mandatory, and the person must be alive. This is where Catholic baptism parts ways from Mormon baptism. In the latter, it is acceptable to baptize the dead.

So, if the people on the plane expressed a desire to be baptized, and gave their consent, it matters little that they're conscious or not when the sacrament is conferred. An infant isn't cognizant of the act, yet it is acceptable to baptize the infant (for many reasons that you'll find in "illuminated" versions of the Code of Canon Law.)

Here's another pretty decent source of info (goes into much greater detail than the Code of Canon Law): Catholic Encyclopedia


Why did Luther add the word 'alone' to Romans 3:28?

At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):

Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.

REFERENCE:

(Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):


Why does Christmas end on the Baptism of the Lord and not on the Presentation of the Lord?

The Christmas season still ends on the Feast of the Presentation of the Lord. Some so called liturgical calendars seem to state that it ends with the Feast of the Baptism of Our Lord, but this is not congruent with the Church's sacred tradition.

The Christmas Season starts with First Vespers of the Nativity of the Lord and continues with a holy joy until the 2nd Vespers of the feast of the presentation of the Lord (February 2nd).The celebration of a 40 day season for Christmas goes so far back into antiquity that it is impossible to know at what point in time it became a tradition. The Feast of the Presentation was established as a feast on this date at least by the 6th century. Mary was obliged by Jewish law to present Our Lord to the Lord 40 days after his birth, thus bringing the joys of Christmas to a natural conclusion.

  Until 1969, the ancient Feast of the Presentation of Our Lord, which is of Oriental origin, was known in the West as the feast of the Purification of Our Lady, and closed the Christmas season, forty days after the Lord's birth.- Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy (120) of the Vatican Website.

Traditionally speaking, our Christmas trees should go up on Christmas Eve and brought down on the Feast of the Epiphany with the arrival of the Magi with their gifts of gold ,frankincense and myrrh. On this day the three wise men are added to our manger scenes! In Europe, the Christmas Crèches are only taken down on February 2nd.

Here is what Dom Gueranger has to say on this subject:

  We apply the name of Christmas to the forty days which begin with the Nativity of our Lord, December 25, and end with the Purification of the Blessed Virgin, February 2. It is a period which forms a distinct portion of the Liturgical Year, as distinct, by its own special spirit, from every other, as are Advent, Lent, Easter, or Pentecost. One same Mystery is celebrated and kept in view during the whole forty days. Neither the Feasts of the Saints, which so abound during this Season; nor the time of Septuagesima, with its mournful Purple, which often begins before Christmastide is over, seem able to distract our Holy Mother the Church from the immense joy of which she received the good tidings from the Angels [St Luke ii 10] on that glorious Night for which the world had been longing four thousand years. The Faithful will remember that the Liturgy commemorates this long expectation by the four penitential weeks of Advent.

  The custom of celebrating the Solemnity of our Savior's Nativity by a feast or commemoration of forty days’ duration is founded on the holy Gospel itself; for it tells us that the Blessed Virgin Mary, after spending forty days in the contemplation of the Divine Fruit of her glorious Maternity, went to the Temple, there to fulfill, in most perfect humility, the ceremonies which the Law demanded of the daughters of Israel, when they became mothers.

Besides, who has ever known of a joyous liturgical season (Christmas) being shorter than the season of preparation and joyful penance. Please recall that in some regions, Advent is six weeks long, not four like ours.

  Unlike the Roman Rite, the Ambrosian Rite celebrates six Sundays of Advent (beginning with the Sunday after St. Martin’s Day) with proper epistle and gospel readings. These six Sundays were marked by seven Prefaces altogether: one for each of the first five, with two assigned to the Sixth Sunday of Advent. - Ambrosian Preface Texts for Celebrating Advent

If a table of comparision between the Ordinary Rite and the Extraordinary Rite would interest you, the following may be informative:

Christmas to Candlemas: When is the Real End of the Christmas Season?

The liturgical seasons of the Ordinary Form (OF) and the 1962 Extraordinary Form Calendar (EF)

Although there are several differences between the current General Roman Calendar (OF) and the 1962 Extraordinary Form Calendar (EF), the structure of both of the liturgical seasons is still very similar. Christmastide is not another name for the Christmas season, which extends from Christmas Eve until the Feast of the Baptism of Our Lord in the Ordinary Form of the Mass. Christmastide in the Extraordinary Form (EF) extended from Christmas Eve until the Feast of the Epiphany (January 6). For on this feast three miracles took place: Catholic tradition holds that on this day the Magi come to visit Jesus, that Jesus was baptized in the Jordan and that Jesus performed his first  miracle. Liturgical books of the Mass of Pope St. Pius V call the time following the Epiphany the Time after the Epiphany which is still remained encompassed in the Christmas season of 40 days.

The 1960 Code of Rubrics defined "Christmastide" as running "from I vespers of Christmas to none of 5th of January inclusive.

  Closely connected with the salvific events of the Epiphany are the mysteries of the Baptism of the Lord and the manifestation of his glory at the marriage feast of Cana.

  Christmastide closes with the Baptism of the Lord. Only in recent times has the feast been rehabilitated, and hence has not given rise to any particular displays of popular piety. However, the feast presents an excellent opportunity for the faithful to be reminded of their rebirth as children of God in Baptism. The rite of asperges could be opportunely used at all Masses on this day, and homilies could well concentrate on the symbols associated with Baptism. - Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy (119) of the Vatican Website.

Epiphanytide is a whole different subject yet closely related to Christmastide because it follows it.


Why was Jeremiah treated well by the Babylonians?

I would suggest Jeremiah 1:7-8 and 1:18-19 as an answer. There we find that it is God who protects him wherever he goes. It wasn't the Babylonians' pity that stayed their hands; God Himself protected Jeremiah from them and the Israelites.

  Jer 1:7  But the LORD said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou
  shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee
  thou shalt speak.  Jer 1:8  Be not afraid of their faces: for I am
  with thee to deliver thee, saith the LORD.

  Jer 1:18  For, behold, I have made thee this day a defenced city, and
  an iron pillar, and brasen walls against the whole land, against the
  kings of Judah, against the princes thereof, against the priests
  thereof, and against the people of the land.  Jer 1:19  And they shall
  fight against thee; but they shall not prevail against thee; for I am
  with thee, saith the LORD, to deliver thee.


According to the bible, where did egypt arise from?

According to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10, the Egyptians are descended from Ham (the son of Noah):

  The sons of Ham were Cush and Mizraim and Put and Canaan. - Genesis 10:6 NASB

Mizraim is the Hebrew word for the nation of Egypt, in fact a number of versions translate this verse as such, eg:

  The sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan. - Genesis 10:6 NIV


How much did Moses and Elijah know about Jesus' Imminent Death?

I think that the answer to this question must lie with the reason that Moses and Elijah, specifically, are here. From the earliest times, it has been recognized that their role is to point to Jesus as the culmination of Law and Prophecy, since Moses is the pre-eminent figure with respect to the Law, as Elijah is the archetypal prophet. Moreover, there are specific parallels in the lives of all three - John Wesley specifically mentions fasting (his Sermon 27, on Mt 6:16-18), and some others are discussed in Aquinas' Summa Theologica 3.45.3 ad 3. So Augustine writes (Sermon 78, a.k.a. 28, on the Old Testament):

  Here is the Lord, here the Law and the Prophets, but the Lord as the Lord: the Law is in Moses, Prophecy in Elijah, but they are only as servants, as ministers. They are as vessels; he as the fountain. Moses and the Prophets spoke, and wrote: but when they poured out, they were filled from him.1

and likewise Wesley (Explanatory Notes on Matthew 17:3):

  Moses, the giver of the law, Elijah, the most zealous of all the prophets, and God speaking from heaven, all bore witness to him.

Methodist theologian Geoffrey Wainwright says that in Wesleyan thought, the Transfiguration is an "extraordinary manifestation of the identity of the Son of God incarnate [...] a testimony to his divine and cosmic status and an exemplary promise of their glorious destiny to those who find their life in him." 2 Along this line of interpretation, the critical idea is witness or testimony, whereby Moses and Elijah assist in making the nature of Jesus known to the disciples, and they in turn share it with the world. That meshes with the experience-based mode of conversion promoted by Wesley, who encouraged "experience meetings" wherein people would share their testimonies and manifest acts of prayer and devotion.3

In this connection, it's hard not to draw a parallel with a well-known section in Wesley's journal, from the end of April 1738:

  I was much confirmed in the "truth that is after godliness" by hearing the experiences of Mr. Hutchins, of Pembroke College, and Mrs. Fox: two living witnesses that God can (at least, if He does not always) give that faith whereof cometh salvation in a moment, as lightning falling from heaven.

Hutchins and Fox, Moses and Elijah - acting as prophetic witnesses, sharing their own experience of God, and thereby provoking such experiences in others. Wainwright points to some hymns of Charles Wesley for the specific prefiguring role of Moses and Elijah, such as:

  Moses and the prophets speak
  And witness to our Lord,
  Him and only Him we seek
  Throughout the sacred Word:
  When we find the Saviour there,
  The figures and predictions shine,
  Seen with Christ, they all declare
  The majesty Divine. 4

Their knowledge, then, must be prophetic in nature, of the same kind now as it was in their earthly lives. It is not a mere repeating of facts they had been told, but a sharing of "religious experience" in the fullest sense - for Wesley, prophets are by nature miraculous, characterized as people "on whom the Holy Ghost came in an extraordinary manner" (his Sermon 115, on Hebrews 5:4). Both the Law and the Prophets point to Christ, and so both Moses and Elijah are here to continue their witness - presenting a testimony derived from the direct presence of the Holy Spirit. While we do not know exactly what they said, and in how much detail they described the events to come, the point is that they faithfully communicated the transcendence of Christ to the disciples. This is reflected in further Wesleyan hymns on the Luke passage, where the Transfiguration is presented as a model of communion with the divine.

1. "Hic Dominus, hic Lex et Prophetae : sed Dominus tanquam Dominus : Lex in Moyse, Prophetia in Elia; sed ipsi tanquam servi, tanquam ministri. Ipsi tanquam vasa : ipse tanquam fons. Moyses et Prophetae dicebant et scribebant: sed de illo implebantur quando fundebant." In Migne, Patrologia Latina 38.490.
2. "The transfiguration of Jesus in Wesleyan exegesis and application", Geoffrey Wainwright. Ch. 20 in Orthodox and Wesleyan Scriptural Understanding and Practice,
ed. S. T. Kimbrough, Jr. (St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2005).
3. Fits, trances and visions: Experiencing religion and explaining experience from Wesley to James, Ann Taves (Princeton University Press, 1999).
4. Hymns on the Four Gospels, no. 431 on Mt 17:3, in The poetical works of John and Charles Wesley, vol. 10.


Has a pope ever visited Macau?

The short answer is no.

Macau is under Chinese administration. No pope has ever visted China or it's specially administrated regions such as Macau. The reason is quite simple: The Vatican has no diplomatic relation with the People's Republic of China. Even prior to 1999, when Macau was under Portuguese administration, Pope John Paul II never visited Macau. See Wikipedia's list of pastoral visits of Pope john Paul II outside of Italy.

In fact, Pope Francis wants to be the first pontiff to visit mainland China — but it won’t be easy.

  There have been no official People's Republic of China – Holy See relations since 1951.

  The Beijing government broke off diplomatic relations with the Holy See in 1951 after a complicated incident. Throughout 1950 and 1951, China had been putting pressure on the Vatican by threatening a breakaway of "independent Catholics", but many priests opposed the movement, and Zhou Enlai sought a middle ground. A deadly controversy was then manufactured: a priest working at the Holy See internunciature (legation) had thrown out an old 1930s-era mortar in a trash pile out of his home. A businessman named Antonio Riva discovered the mortar and took a non-functioning piece of it back to his house to display as an antique. When Communist officials saw Riva's curio in his home, they arrested him for conspiracy to assassinate Mao Zedong, which Riva denied. Riva was executed and the Holy See's diplomatic mission was banished from the country for "espionage". Tarcisio Martina, the regional apostolic prefect, was sentenced to life in prison and died in 1961, while four other "conspirators" were given shorter sentences.

  The Beijing government has set two conditions for reestablishing the relations: that the Holy See "not interfere in religious matters in China" and that, in line with Beijing's One-China policy, it break the ties with the Taipei government that it established after the expulsion of Archbishop Riberi, ties that, since the United Nations' recognition of the Beijing government as the government of China, it now maintains only at the level of chargé d'affaires. - China–Holy See relations (Wikipedia)


Salvation for Protestants who knowingly reject Catholicism?

Father John O'Brien wrote in The Faith of Millions

  ... those who are convinced of the truth of the Catholic Church, but who for some selfish reason fail to profess their faith in her. It is only these ... who remain out of the Church, in bad faith, until death, that the Church teaches that the words of Christ apply: "He that believeth not, shall be damned."

I certainly hope you don't fall into that hole. I have some dead uncles who I hope didn't fall into that hole too!  That kind of obstinancy requires hard work and determination (or willful ignorance).  Fr. O'Brien goes on to write:

  it is the view of the Church that every person who, with an open mind and without prejudice investigates in a careful and impartial manner, the evidence of her claims to be the one true Church can scarcely fail to be convinced of the truth of those claims.

So, one would hope it is a learning process.  Few are convinced overnight. If you read Orthodoxy, by G.K. Chesterton, you'll have read the auto-biography of a man who was utterly convinced, but remained outside the Catholic Church for another 12 years.  He found the truths in the Catholic Church to be astonishing.  He admired it because it is a "Truth telling thing". Everyone, with a soul, applauds whem seeing truth spoken to power; but it makes power nervous.  When truth is spoken to everyone, everyone gets nervous - it's a natural consequence of our fallen nature. Chesterton has no more "Idea of becoming a Catholic than becoming a Cannibal"

Fr. O'Brien goes on to say that the reasons for not being convinced may stem from antagonism or prejudice taught in ones youth or some otger subjective circumstances.  Not that these are good things, but they're not salvation inhibitors.  Still Catholics would like to win you to 'their side' so that you can participate in the sacraments, which they find to be "sure signs of salvation". Namely, the Eucharist and Confession.

The last thing to consider is what you actually do beleive. Where did your morality come from.  Was the culmination of all of history with or without the Catholic Church?  Was it riding the momentum of the Church until the split and now it is coasting on it's own? Does it progess?  Does it have answers to the new attacks on religion?  Does it preseve the old truths? Fr. O'Brien claims that protestants and irreligious people are actually borrowing from that which has it's roots only in Catholicism today.  Basically, and arboralleally, you can't plant a sucker in the ground and expect an apple tree, you can only really graft it to another tree that has already got some roots.

So, the Catholic Church would exist with 0 living members and people would still be saved after death through the Grace of God. So  I think you need to re-evaluate what is meant by necessary. I doubt many people come to believe because the existence of the Church equals x in their faith equation x + Jesus = saved.  People believe what the Church teaches because it reveals Jesus in a way we couldn't do on our own. Pope Paul VI also showed in humanae vitae that the Church is the interpreter of the natural moral law.   Both of these things, a close relationship with Jesus and clear discernment of right and wrong, can sometimes be acheived sans-ecclesia, even perfect contrition can be attained without confession (says Fr. O'Brien).  But these things are made much easier with the spiritual grease that is Actual Grace which the Catholic Church spreads out on a table for you to partake of every day.

Pope Benedict XVI said, in an ecumenical dialouge at the Cologne World Youth Day that our divisions are "contrary to the will of Jesus" and he went on to make pathways to full communion for some sects.  Pope Francis is continuing that and speaks openly about ceasing divisions with the Orthodox Church.


First, let me answer your question near the end of your comments, and then I will be able to give a swift, simple answer to your question in the heading. You asked near the end, “Why do the Jehovah Witnesses quote Professor William Barclay saying "it is difficult to be sure who is the actual speaker?"
The first point to make is that establishing who the actual speaker is in verse 13 is not clear-cut. More than one speaker speaks in chapter 22, from when the epilogue starts (verse 6) to the last verse (21).

Verse 6 starts, “And he said unto me…” (unto John, that is. I won’t
include John’s comments in these verses, as those are clearly
identified.) Verses 7 and 12 say, “Behold, I come quickly…”.  Verse 13
says, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and
the last.”

It is legitimate to ask whether there are two, or three heavenly speakers here, because there were no inverted commas in koine Greek, to help distinguish one speaker from another. This is where translations like the Authorised Version openly show the nature of the difficulty, not having inverted commas. But some translations, like the Jehovah’s Witness New World Translation, do insert inverted commas, which demonstrate their belief that a third heavenly speaker breaks into the dialogue – they would say that the new speaker from verse 12 through to the end of verse 15 is Jehovah God.
But trying to identify various speakers in the epilogue, without reference to the preamble (chapter 1 verses 1 to 3) and everything from there to the epilogue is ridiculous and, thankfully, you do not ask us to make any identifications of speakers in chapter 22. However, anyone who has studied the whole book of the Revelation will know that it is neither chronological nor literal. And chapter 22 deals with future events. Therefore, anyone who claims that it is difficult to be sure who the speaker is in chapter 22 verse 13 is being honest. As was William Barclay in that partial quote by the Watchtower Society.
The reason why they gave that partial quote was because they hoped it would substantiate their argument for claiming the speaker there to be Jehovah God. Unfortunately for them (as you proved in your comments) Barclay came to the conclusion that it was Jesus speaking, so all that can be claimed from Barclay’s quote is that he found it difficult to state who the speaker was in verse 13 even though, on balance, he came down on the side of it being the resurrected Christ.
Now the answer to your main question: "Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses cite William Barclay as to the identity of the speaker in Revelation 22:13 knowing he believed it is Jesus?" To be charitable, we cannot state that the anonymous writer who incorporated that partial quote of Barclay knew that Barclay believed it to be Jesus.  He may not have done any research into Barclay’s other comments about what Jesus said in the book of the Revelation. Perhaps he was under instructions to pick quotes from various theologians that could pad out the Watchtower article, to encourage readers to think that ones such as Barclay concluded the same as the Watchtower Society (when he did not.) Certainly, the wording immediately following Barclay’s partial quote easily lends itself to the erroneous idea that “Thus, ‘the Alpha and the Omega’ at Revelation 22:13 can be identified as the same Person given this title elsewhere in Revelation—Jehovah God.”
At risk of sounding uncharitable now, I would say that from my experience of the amount of checking up on Watchtower quotes that rank and file Jehovah’s Witnesses do, very few of them would even try to get hold of Barclay’s writings, to see if he had been quoted out of context or not. Indeed, it has only been in comparatively recent years that the Watchtower Society has ensured that full citation references are given when it quotes others, to enable their readers to check, should they so wish. I have a considerable library of their books, and hundreds of their magazines (up till the turn of the century) and I was almost never able to chase up quotes purely via their literature. Even with the advent of the Internet, it still remains a hugely time-consuming task to get a full quote without a precise source and page number given. But as the full citation for Barclay's partial quote was given in that Watchtower article, any diligent Jehovah’s Witness can do a check and discover for themselves what appears to be a somewhat misleading misconstruction of Barclay, to make it seem as if he agreed with the Watchtower Society re. Rev. 22:13, when he actually disagreed. And if anyone thinks I am being uncharitable here, please just check out for yourself by researching Barclay, as I have done on such matters. He is now dead, so cannot defend himself from misleading applications of his work, which I think this is an example of. But Jehovah’s Witnesses will disagree, which they are entitled to do. After all, this is a matter of interpretation of one of the most profoundly symbolic and prophetic parts of the Bible. Nevertheless, scholastic integrity requires honest representation of those quoted, and not partial quotes that are not balanced by more quotes that would lead to a different conclusion.


Were ALL 1st century Christians called “saints” by saints Paul, Jude, John etc, as they addressed all believers reading their NT writings as ‘saints’

According to Catholicism, were all 1st century Christians called “saints” by saints Paul, Jude, John etc, as they addressed all believers reading their New Testament writings as “saints”?
The short answer is yes, however he applied other terms to 1st century Christians as well.
Saint Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles employed several terms by which the Followers of the Way were addressed, either by himself or employed by other including the term of saints.
In Acts 11:26, we see that the followers of Christ were called Christians.

The first recorded use of the term (or its cognates in other languages) is in the New Testament, in Acts 11 after Barnabas brought Saul (Paul) to Antioch where they taught the disciples for about a year, the text says: "[...] the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." (Acts 11:26). The second mention of the term follows in Acts 26, where Herod Agrippa II replied to Paul the Apostle, "Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." (Acts 26:28). The third and final New Testament reference to the term is in 1 Peter 4, which exhorts believers: "Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf." (1 Peter 4:16)

Then there are the disciples.

[A] disciple primarily refers to a dedicated follower of Jesus. This term is found in the New Testament only in the Gospels and Acts. In the ancient world, a disciple is a follower or adherent of a teacher. A disciple in the ancient biblical world actively imitated both the life and teaching of the master. It was a deliberate apprenticeship which made the fully formed disciple a living copy of the master.
The term "disciple" represents the Koine Greek word mathētḗs (μαθητής),3 which generally means "one who engages in learning through instruction from another, pupil, apprentice" 4 or in religious contexts such as the Bible, "one who is rather constantly associated with someone who has a pedagogical reputation or a particular set of views, disciple, adherent."

St. Paul frequently addresses the faithful as Brothers or Brethren.
The term brother occurs in verses like Acts 18:27. The King James Version renders the plural form used here as "brethren", while modern English versions have "brothers" (ESV) or "brothers and sisters" (NIV). The term comes from the theological concept of adoption, which says that believers are made part of God's family, and become his children.

1Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. - 2 Thessalonians 2

We can se the the Scriptures of the New Testament as well as St. Paul employed different titles to the believers in Jesus Christ. He equally employed the term Saint(s) to those who followed The Way.
The Epistle to the Ephesians is written to the "saints at Ephesus" (Ephesians 1:1). In the New Testament the word is used to refer to Christians generally, but Robert S. Rayburn notes that "the name survived as a general title for Christians only through the second century." Rayburn suggests that the "juxtaposition of sainthood and martyrdom" in Revelation 17:6 may have resulted in the word becoming an "honorific title for confessors, martyrs and ascetics."

All believers, living and dead are a part of the Communion of Saints. The Catechism says, "We believe in the communion of all the faithful of Christ, those who are pilgrims on earth, the dead who are being purified, and the blessed in heaven, all together forming one Church; and we believe that in this communion, the merciful love of God and his saints is always [attentive] to our prayers" (CCC 962).

The saints are exemplars of how to follow Christ; they teach us how to live faithful and holy lives. The saints are our advocates and intercessors, and they are also friends and mentors.
The Saints in Scripture
In scripture, Paul addresses many of his letters to the various local communities under the title of “saints:” Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, etc. The term “saints” was also applied to those whom Christians served. In 1 Corinthians we read that Paul made a collection in Corinth for the relief of the saints in Jerusalem.
Paul also talks about the Communion of Saints in that each of us participates by baptism in the one Body of Christ. In his letter to the Romans, Paul tells us

“For as in one body we have many parts, and all the parts do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ and individually parts of one another. Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us” (Romans 12:4-6).

Paul is very clear that members of this common body had obligations to build up the community – these members were called “saints.” This is connected with the Jewish idea of being a holy nation, a covenanted people. The “saints” are those who have inherited the covenant. - Saints
There are many biblical saints named in the New Testament that are recognized as
Saints in the sense that both Catholics  and Orthodox recognize them as being in heaven. St. Paul is obviously is using this title in a honorific sense in reference to all believers as those set apart from the rest of mankind. Does this mean that all believers were saved? Perhaps, but it could be called into question, especially when we read about what happened to Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:5-10

5 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.
3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”
“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”
9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”
10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

Although Ananias and Sapphira were possibly numbered amongst the saints of Jerusalem, they have never been venerated as saints by the Catholic Church in the sense of being  honoured as saints in heaven.
Saints in the mind of St. Paul are those set apart and are worthy of being called saints. Even Strong’s term in Greek (ἅγιος) or hagios reaffirms this interpretation.

ἅγιος, , (from τό ἀγός religious awe, reverence; ἄζω, ἅζομαι, to venerate, revere, especially the gods, parents (Curtius, § 118)), rare in secular authors; very frequent in the sacred writings; in the Sept. for קָדושׁ;

properly reverend, worthy of veneration: τό ὄνομα τοῦ Θεοῦ, Luke 1:49; God, on account of his incomparable majesty, Revelation 4:8 (Isaiah 6:3, etc.), equivalent to ἔνδοξος. Hence, used:

a. of things which on account of some connection with God possess a certain distinction and claim to reverence, as places sacred to God which are not to be profaned, Acts 7:33; τόπος ἅγιος the temple, Matthew 24:15 (on which passage see βδέλυγμα, c.); Acts 6:13; Acts 21:28; the holy land or Palestine, 2 Macc. 1:29 2Macc. 2:18; τό ἅγιον and τά ἅγια (Winer's Grammar, 177 (167)) the temple, Hebrews 9:1, 24 (cf. Bleek on Heb. vol. ii. 2, p. 477f); specifically that part of the temple or tabernacle which is called 'the holy place' (מִקְדָּשׁ, Ezekiel 37:28; Ezekiel 45:18), Hebrews 9:2 (here Rec.st reads ἅγια); ἅγια ἁγίων (Winer's Grammar, 246 (231), cf. Exodus 29:37; Exodus 30:10, etc.) the most hallowed portion of the temple, 'the holy of holies,' (Exodus 26:33 (cf. Josephus, Antiquities 3, 6, 4)), Hebrews 9:3, in reference to which the simple τά ἅγια is also used: Hebrews 9:8, 25; Hebrews 10:19; Hebrews 13:11; figuratively of heaven, Hebrews 8:2; Hebrews 9:8, 12; Hebrews 10:19; ἅγια πόλις Jerusalem, on account of the temple there, Matthew 4:5; Matthew 27:53; Revelation 11:2; Revelation 21:2; Revelation 22:19 (Isaiah 48:2; Nehemiah 11:1, 18 (Complutensian LXX), etc.); τό ὄρος τό ἅγιον, because Christ's transfiguration occurred there, 2 Peter 1:18; ἡ (Θεοῦ) ἅγια διαθήκη i. e. which is the more sacred because made by God himself, Luke 1:72; τό ἅγιον, that worshipful offspring of divine power, Luke 1:35; the blessing of the gospel, Matthew 7:6; ἁγιωτάτῃ πίστις, faith (quae creditur i. e. the object of faith) which came from God and is therefore to be heeded most sacredly, Jude 1:20; in the same sense ἅγια ἐντολή, 2 Peter 2:21; κλῆσις ἅγια, because it is the invitation of God and claims us as his, 2 Timothy 1:9; ἅγιαι γραφαί (τά βιβλία τά ἅγια, 1 Macc. 12:9), which came from God and contain his Words, Romans 1:2.
b. of persons whose services God employs; as for example, apostles, Ephesians 3:5; angels, 1 Thessalonians 3:13; Matthew 25:31 (Rec.); Revelation 14:10; Jude 1:14; prophets, Acts 3:21; Luke 1:70 (Wis. 11:1); (οἱ) ἅγιοι (τοῦ) Θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι, 2 Peter 1:21 (R G L Tr text); worthies of the O. T. accepted by God for their piety, Matthew 27:52; 1 Peter 3:5.

set apart for God, to be, as it were, exclusively his; followed by a genitive or a dative: τῷ κυρίῳ, Luke 2:23; τοῦ Θεοῦ (equivalent to ἐκλεκτός τοῦ Θεοῦ) of Christ, Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34, and according to the true reading in John 6:69, cf. John 10:36; he is called also ὁ ἅγιος παῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ, Acts 4:30, and simply ὁ ἅγιος, 1 John 2:20. Just as the Israelites claimed for themselves the title οἱ ἅγιοι, because God selected them from the other nations to lead a life acceptable to him and rejoice in his favor and protection (Daniel 7:18, 22; 2 Esdr. 8:28), so this appellation is very often in the N. T. transferred to Christians, as those whom God has selected ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου (John 17:14, 16), that under the influence of the Holy Spirit they may be rendered, through holiness, partakers of salvation in the kingdom of God: 1 Peter 2:9 (Exodus 19:6), cf. Exodus 19:5; Acts 9:13, 32, 41; Acts 26:10; Romans 1:7; Romans 8:27; Romans 12:13; Romans 16:15; 1 Corinthians 6:1, 2; Philippians 4:21; Colossians 1:12; Hebrews 6:10; Jude 1:3; Revelation 5:8, etc.; (cf. B. D. American edition under the word).


A "version" of the bible with sentence structure written in English but retaining most of the original untranslated "nouns/verbs/adjectives"?

If you want "hard-core", you might want to look into the Apostolic Bible:

It's a solid resource for the New Testament.

However, as @Ollie Jones mentioned, the Old Testament for this is based on the Septuagint--an ancient Greek translation--rather than the original Hebrew.  Because of that, it's not quite as reliable as going straight to the source.  (In some situations it can be quite a ways off.)

For the Old Testament, I like to use the Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible

It should be noted that there is a corresponding online version of the Greek for the New Testament, but I prefer the Apostolic Bible for the NT.


Why is Origen considered a Church Father, but not a saint?

Origen was a great teacher, but he also had some non-Orthodox positions on Scripture and the faith in general.  His teachings were specifically anathemitized by the Second Council of Constantinople in 1553, which inherently means you can't be a saint, since you are condemned, at least according to the Roman Catholic Church.
That said, he was also an ardent follower of Jesus, a prolific and influential teacher, and fighter of other heretics.

The only reason he didn't get martyred was because his mother hid his clothes to keep him from going out.
He literally castrated himself because he felt convicted by Scripture
He wrote vigorously against the Gnostics and other heretics, and even spurned his patron who supported other heretics.

From this article in Christianity Today, for example:

But Origen’s interpretations pushed the boundaries of orthodoxy.
He believed, for instance, in the pre-existence of souls and that eventually everyone, including the Devil, would be saved. In addition, he described the Trinity as a hierarchy, not as an equality of Father, Son, and Spirit. Though Origen attacked Gnosticism, in many ways, like the Gnostics, he rejected the goodness of the material creation. His critics have always complained that in many ways this teacher was “blinded by Greek culture.”

Between the pre-existence of souls and his unorthodox view of the Trinity, he was technically a heretic, albeit one with probably very good intentions.  The Coptic church, and his Alexandrian school of thought had many followers, but even they will admit his teachings were mixed.

Obligatory joke about Origien:  https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6467/1039


Must all Mormons marry and have children?

Does this mean all Mormons must marry and have children?

'Must' is a strong word, Mormons believe in agency: the ability and privilege God gives us to choose and to act for ourselves. As with all commandments, Mormons believe we have a choice, however, if we want the blessings, promises, or protection a commandment brings then we should/will make the choice to keep God's commandments.
If a Mormon wants to attain exaltation, the highest glory of the celestial kingdom, then they must marry, be sealed, and live faithfully to their covenant.1
The Family Proclamation restates the command given in Genesis 1:28 for families:

to multiply and replenish the earth

and while there is not a specific blessing attached to this command, we know that God blesses us for keeping the commandments. So if you want the potential blessings yes.2

Or can some be perpetual virgins?

Yes, because Mormons believe in agency, no if they want the same blessings and promises to those who are sealed.

What about infertile or childless marriages?

God knows the intents and desires of our hearts.3 Mosiah 4:24-25 says:

24 And again, I say unto the poor, ye who have not and yet have sufficient, that ye remain from day to day; I mean all you who deny the beggar, because ye have not; I would that ye say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give.
25 And now, if ye say this in your hearts ye remain guiltless, otherwise ye are condemned; and your condemnation is just for ye covet that which ye have not received.

This lets us know that God will judge us based on our desires. So if we have righteous desires but are unable to act on them for some reason we can still attain the blessings.

President Harold B. Lee relied on these scriptures in another example:
“[Women] who have been denied the blessings of wifehood or motherhood in this life—who say in their heart, if I could have done, I would have done, or I would give if I had, but I cannot for I have not—the Lord will bless you as though you had done, and the world to come will compensate for those who desire in their hearts the righteous blessings that they were not able to have because of no fault of their own.” (Ye Are the Light of the World, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1974, p. 292.)4

Because in the context of the LDS Church, where the family is celebrated as the fundamental unit of society, childlessness can be an especially difficult challenge. There are many articles to address those facing infertility:

Faith and Infertility By Melissa Merrill
Faith and Infertility An Ensign Online Exclusive
Many more

1 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/131.1-4
2 D&C 130:20-21, D&C 14:7
3 Hebrews 4:12-13 and https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/god-omniscience-of?lang=eng
4 The Desires of our Heart


The meaning of John 20:22 is clear in its context:

19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” John 20:19-23 (Bold added)

The disciples were alone with each other. Not only that they were hiding from the public and those that would kill them. Jesus appears before them then address them, specifically. Jesus sent the holy spirit on them only.
Again in John 16:7 Jesus is addressing the disciples only. He goes on further to say that the disciples will not be able to be effective without the Spirit because the disciples alone do not know the Truth of which Jesus was speaking.

13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. John 16:13

The disciples were incapable of building up the church without the Holy Spirit. Peter was incapable of delivering likely the most convincing testimony ever in Acts two without the Holy Spirit. They were "pierced to the heart." The exact dwelling of the Holy Spirit. It was at that moment that the Holy Spirit was "outpoured" on the people. It was freely given from that moment forward. The times before this moment it was necessary to be given to some so that hearts may be pierced and the whole world might believe.

So in specific answer to your questions:
A: No, Pentecost was not the first "appearance" of the Holy Spirit. That is clearly shown in the Scripture. It was, however, the first outpouring. Pentecost marks the day that the Holy Spirit was freely given to any who might believe.
B: It seems so. There is much evidence that the Holy Spirit was quite active and always has been, but only for certain persons. As Luke Ritchie has already said, this study shows that well, from the Spirit giving life in Genesis to It guiding the prophets. One thing to note is that The Spirit only does what is commanded by the Father and subsequently Jesus, too.

14 [The Holy Spirit] will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you. John 16:14-15

With this, one might interpret that God and Jesus almost always act through the Holy Spirit. A notable exception would be Moses.


Is murder allowed if God tells you to do it?

Murder and killing are not necessarily the same thing. The King James Bible adds confusion to this debate by translating Exodus 20:13 as:

  Thou shalt not kill.

Which historically has been interpreted to mean a commandment against all forms of killing, including capital punishment, war, and in some cases, even against killing animals.  In the context of the rest of the Law, this is clearly not what was meant. (See especially Leviticus 20).

The same holds for your examples--they are examples of killing, but that does not mean they are examples of God-ordained murder.

EDIT

In response to Richard's comment below:

According to dictionary.com, the relevant definition of murder is:

  Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder),  and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

So here, legal killing is differentiated from illegal killing, and it is only illegal killing that is "murder."

In ancient Israel, since God was the giver of all laws, then any God-ordained killing (whether in the form of the Law, as I mentioned previously in Leviticus, for example), or by way of his prophets, would be "legal", and therefore not murder.

It may sound a bit like a cop-out, but in a nut shell, "If God says to do it, it's not murder." It can probably be boiled down to a question of "Where does morality come from?" But that's obviously not the specific intent of this question. :)

Numbers 35:16,  35:18, and 35:21 also provide Biblical examples or definitions of a "murderer".


John 1:18 - "No one has ever seen God" - How do Trinitarians reconcile this scripture with the belief that the Lord Jesus Christ is God?

From a Trinitarian standpoint there is nothing to reconcile.

As with most things, the answer is found in the context. The whole of John 1:18 reads:

"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (NASB)

The person John refers to here is the same one Jesus exclaims in John 6:46:

"Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father." (NASB)

Jesus explicitly states that he is "the One" when he says, "I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father." (John 16:28 NASB)

I'm not aware of any arguments to the contrary, though I think it would be quite extraordinary if John were contradicting his own testimony from John 1:1 by excluding Jesus as the one from God who is God.


In Catholic art imagery, how is hell symbolized?

In Catholic art and imagery how is hell symbolized?
In Catholic imagery hell is symbolized with the Labyrinth. The labyrinth can equally symbolize other things also.

Background:
In Greek mythology, King Minos of Crete defeated King Aegeus of Athens and threatened to destroy his country unless, every nine years, he sacrificed seven boys and seven girls to the Minotaur -- a half-man, half-bull monster -- who lived in the labyrinth in Crete. King Aegeus's son, Theseus, decided to go to the labyrinth and kill the Minotaur, releasing the captives and ending the sacrifices once and for all.
On the way to fulfill his mission, he met King Minos's daughter, Ariadne, who fell in love with him and promised to help him find his way back out of the labyrinth if he would marry her and take her back to Athens with him. She gave him a sword and a ball of thread and told him to fasten one end of thread at the labyrinth's entrance and unravel the spool behind him as he walked through to find the Minotaur and kill him with his sword. Following the thread in reverse, he'd be able to find his way out of the dark, twisting passages. Theseus did as Ariadne told him, killed the Minotaur, and followed the thread back out to safety (neither here nor there with regard to our purposes, he left Ariadne behind when he went back to Athens! (The classic-style, seven-circuit, Cretan labyrinth is shown at right.)
From 19th c. archaeologist Rodolfo Lanciani's "Pagan and Christian Rome":

Theseus killing the Minotaur in the labyrinth of Crete, and labyrinths in general, were favorite subjects for church pavements, especially among the Gauls. The custom is very ancient, a labyrinth having been represented in the church of S. Vitale at Ravenna as early as the sixth century. Those of the cathedral at Lucca, of S. Michele Maggiore at Pavia, of S. Savino at Piacenza, of S. Maria in Trastevere at Rome (destroyed in the restoration of 1867), are of a later date. The image of Theseus is accompanied by a legend in the "leonine" rhythm: Theseus intravit, monstrumque biforme necavit ["Theseus entered, and killed the bi-form monster"].

The classical world's labyrinths were at first seen by Christians as metaphors for sin and the powers of Hell, as can be seen from this inscription which was originally found at the center of the Chartres labyrinth:

This stone represents the Cretan's Labyrinth. Those who enter cannot leave unless they be helped, like Theseus, by Ariadne's thread.

Though originally seen as metaphors for the dark powers of Hell and our need to rely on Our Lady to show us her Son, over time labyrinths came to be seen quite differently. During the Crusades when Christians couldn't make visits to the Holy Land, and in the same manner that the Way of the Cross devotion developed as a sort of substitute "pilgrimage" to the Holy City, labyrinths came to be used as substitute "Chemins de Jerusalem." Christians, barred from earthly Zion, would walk the labyrinths, often on their knees in penance, meditating on the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. - Labyrinths:
Symbols of Hell & the Pilgrim's Way

The labyrinth can symbolize many things to the Early Christians.

Many Christian labyrinths appear relatively late in history, around the 20th century. The first labyrinth in a Christian church appeared in the forth century. When Christians could no longer make physical pilgrimages to their spiritual home in Jerusalem, they walked a symbolic pilgrimage on a labyrinth built in to the floor of the nave of a cathedral. They turned a physical journey in to a spiritual journey.
To early Christians the labyrinth symbolized many things.
§ Some thought that if they could not get to Jerusalem, they made believe that they were
walking to Jerusalem on the Labyrinth.
§ Going into the labyrinth also symbolized a trip to the underworld, and the trip was a
resurrection; heaven and hell are both invoked in its pattern.
§ Some thought the labyrinth to represent the soul’s journey to Christ.
One of the most famous Christian Labyrinths that is still intact is found on the floor of the Chartres cathedral in France. The circle on the floor repeats the pattern of the stained-glass circle of the western rose window. This window symbolizes heaven with Christ at the center surrounded by four rings with twelve circles in each. Twelve is the number of Apostles. When the sun hits the window, which is composed of nothing but colored lights, it cases its image down to the earth and the maze. - Labyrinth


What were the godparent requirements back in the 1960s?

TL;DR: An Anglican is neither then nor today permitted to be godparent at a Catholic baptism.

The then actual Code of Canon Law 1917 (Codex Iuris Canonici, CIC) says:

Can. 765 CIC/1917 Ut quis sit patrinus, oportet:
[...]
2° Ad nullam pertineat haereticam aut schismaticam sectam, [...];
(my translation)
can. 765 In order to be godparent, it is required:
2° He belongs to no heretical or schismatical sect, [...];

In the former terminology the Church of England is a heretical and schismatical sect (we now use other terminology). So an Anglican were not able to be godparent in a Catholic baptism.
This requirement did not change with the reform of the Code 1983:

can. 874 § 2 CIC/1983 A baptized person who belongs to a non-Catholic ecclesial community is not to participate except together with a Catholic sponsor and then only as a witness of the baptism.

The reason for this is also given:

can.  872 CIC/1983 Insofar as possible, a person to be baptized is to be given a sponsor who assists an adult in Christian initiation or together with the parents presents an infant for baptism. A sponsor also helps the baptized person to lead a Christian life in keeping with baptism and to fulfill faithfully the obligations inherent in it.

This function cannot be fulfilled by someone who does not hold the whole Catholic faith and is not in full communion with the Church.
By the way: This rule cannot guarantee that there were and are no Anglican godparents in reality. The priest should check this, but maybe not everyone does this or he just ignores the rule.


How do different Protestant denominations view the relationship between Israel and the Church?

It sounds like you are wondering about the debate between covenant theology and dispensationalism.  These are big questions, and only a very high-level summary can be provided here.

Covenant theology holds that there is one people of God, and that the saved from both Israel and the Christian church are members of that people.  Thus, God's promises to Israel in the Old Testament apply to the Christian church as well.

Dispensationalism sees Israel and the Christian church as distinct groups, and that the promises to Israel in the Old Testament generally do not apply to the Christian church.

Take note too that there are many other categories besides these two frameworks.  Ideas like dual-covenant theology and supersessionism ("replacement theology") are sometimes seen to be more extreme forms of dispensationalism and covenant theology, while frameworks like New Covenant Theology are seen to be somewhere in the middle.

Regarding denominations, remember that there are thousands of Protestant denominations, so the best we can do on a site like this is a high-level summary.  That said, Reformed and Presbyterian denominations tend to be adherents of covenant theology.  Baptist denominations and especially "non-denominational" churches tend to be dispensational.  But most denominations do not take an official stance, or their stance is general enough that it allows for friendly disagreement within their churches.


To me, it seems the speaker is saying that all the rulers from every part of the world crucified Jesus somewhere on 33 AD.

"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." (1 Cor. 2:7-8)

The speaker is saying that none of the rulers of this age understood the wisdom of God.

Then he says, if they had known the wisdom of God (the fact that Jesus was indeed the Son of God), they would not have crucified Him.

The last "they" in verse 8 is probably referring to the rulers complicit in Jesus' crucifixion.  3 come to mind.

Herod the tetrarch of Galilee:  "Then Herod, with his men of war, treated Him with contempt and mocked Him, arrayed Him in a gorgeous robe, and sent Him back to Pilate." (Luke 23:11)

Pontius Pilate the governor of Judea: "But they were insistent, demanding with loud voices that He be crucified. And the voices of these men and of the chief priests prevailed. So Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they requested. And he released to them the one they requested, who for rebellion and murder had been thrown into prison; but he delivered Jesus to their will." (Luke 23:23-25)

Caiaphas the high priest and president of the Sanhedrin: "And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.” Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die ... Then, from that day on, they plotted to put Him to death. (John 11:49-51, 53)

"the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” Jesus said to him, “It is as you said ... Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy! What do you think?”. They answered and said, “He is deserving of death.” (Matt. 26:63-66)


Reformed perspective on "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" (Acts 15:28)

But the way [Acts 15:28 is] phrased, and the context of the meeting, seem to point to the church having authority in this moment; that there's something special about these people being gathered together, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which gives them the right to make the decision and send the letter.

Yes.  The early church leaders had the authority to decide what was and what wasn't Christianity.  Paul's letters were not merely good advice.  They were guidance for the various congregations.

Today, whether a church is part of a large denomination or an independent entity, somebody or some group runs the church.  Administratively and doctrinally.

Hopefully, this leadership group runs the church with the counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit.  And the Holy Spirit is willing to guide the leadership group in harmony with God's will.

John 16:13-15 (NRSV):

  When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.


Do saints and church fathers generally make the claim that most people go to a hell of everlasting torment?

1) the large majority of people go to hell

See ch. 32 § "The Mystery of This Number" of Life Everlasting: A Theological Treatise on the Four Last Things: Death, Judgment, Heaven, Hell by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. For example, he writes:

  The number of the elect is known only by God. "The Lord knoweth who are His." [II Tim. 2:19.] …

  …

  Many Fathers and theologians incline to the smaller number of the elect, because it is said in Scripture: "Many are called, but few are chosen." [Matt. 20:16; 22:14.] Again: "Enter you in at the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction; and many there are who go in thereat; how narrow is the gate and strait is the way that leadeth to life and few there are that find it." [Ibid., 7:14.] Still, these texts are not absolutely demonstrative.

  …

  The common opinion of the Fathers and ancient theologians is without doubt that those who are saved do not represent the greater number. We may cite in favor of this view the following saints: Basil, John Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen, Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Leo the Great, Bernard, Thomas Aquinas. Then, nearer to our own times: Molina, St. Robert Bellarmine, Suarez, Vasquez, Lessius, and St. Alphonsus. But they give this view as opinion, not as revealed truth, not as certain conclusion.

  In the last century the contrary opinion, namely, of the greater number of the elect, was defended by Father Faber in England, by Monsignor Bougaud in France, by Father Castelein, S.J., in Belgium.

  To conclude: some insist on the mercy of God, others on the justice of God. Neither one side nor the other gives us certitude. And the reasons of appropriateness which each invokes differ very much from the reasons of appropriateness invoked in favor of a dogma which is already certain by revelation, whereas here we are treating of a truth that is not certain.

-

  2) hell is a place of fire and "physical" torment

Pope Benedict XII defined the following dogma in Benedictus Deus:

  Moreover we define that according to the general disposition of God, the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin go down into hell immediately (mox) after death and there suffer the pain of hell.

The Council of Florence declared (DZ 693):

  the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds

-

  3) that torment lasts forever with no hope of salvation.

St. Matthew 25:41, the Athanasian Creed, and Pope Eugene IV's bull Cantate Domino all mention eternal hellfire.

The Athanasian Creed (DZ 40) ends:

  those who have done good, will go into life everlasting, but those who have done evil, into eternal fire. — This is the Catholic faith; unless every one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.


Why is the use of certain common words offensive?

Growing up in central Kansas in the 1980s, I was taught—both by my Sunday School teacher and by the english teacher in public school—that "damn" and "hell" were not obscene but vulgar, i.e., that they were only used by uneducated people. I remember being told that if we used them, people would think we weren't very smart. I can't remember ever hearing anyone say they were offensive. And plenty of people from church used these words in casual conversations.

Edit:

Also, I recall C.S. Lewis using both words in the Narnia series. So I'm thinking the offense is cultural, not religious.


What is the basis for the argument that Jesus DID have the ability to give in to temptation?

The argument comes both from the fact that Jesus was fully human, and from the Hebrews 4:15, which says (in the King James)

  For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the
  feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we
  are, yet without sin.

This outlines the fact that even though Jesus is fully God, He was also fully human.  He felt all our infirmities and weaknesses, and yet, as God overcame them.

A complete theological statement would be "because Jesus was fully Human, He had the capacity to sin, but because of His perfect nature, also being fully God and therefore perfectly good, He could not sin."

Both are true, but people have a hard time wrapping their head around that, choose half the truth, and fall into error.


What was C.S. Lewis referring to in The Weight of Glory?

If you check out "The Abolition of Man" you'll get an understanding of what he means. He's basically saying that modern education has a tendency to move our eyes from the joy that is set before us in heaven, to the created things of this world.  In Lewis' time (think mid-1940's) the "modern education" system which he decries was more or less about a century old.

Basically, Lewis' beef with modern education is that it teaches our heavenly intuitions, imaginations, and feelings, are excluded by modern techniques. He wants to see us being whole creatures capable of apprehending the "shadows of heaven" that is joy.


What is the evidence that someone is filled with the Holy Spirit?

Various traditions have different answers on this.  There's no consensus. (That may be your answer.  The rest may be irrelevant.)

Greg Bala has already addressed the Catholic view.  Here are some Protestant ones, ranging from extreme Pentecostal to conservative Christian.  None of these are universal.  Some groups believe some of them, others think that some of the beliefs are insane, pure guff, or just wrong.  I'm not saying which is which, just listing them out.

Ability to pick up deadly serpents, not get bitten, and be immune to their poison if they do bit you
Being overtaken with Holy Laughter
Prophecy
Growling, dancing, shaking, barking like dogs, and even some even being stuck in positions of paralysis.
Speaking in tongues

On the less Charismatic end of the spectrum...

Possessing the fruits of the Spirit - a combination of Matthew 7:16 and Galatians 5:16-25.  Many non-Charismatic protestants see these fruits as evidences that we are filled with the Spirit.

  Matthew 7:16 (KJV) Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

  Galatians 5:16-25 (KJV) 16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17For the flesh lusteth
  against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are
  contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye
  would. 18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
  19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery,
  fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft,
  hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
  21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the
  which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that
  they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22But
  the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
  gentleness, goodness, faith, 23Meekness, temperance: against such
  there is no law. 24And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh
  with the affections and lusts.

  25If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26Let us
  not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one
  another.


Does the New Testament mention Christians worshipping the Holy Spirit?

The New Testament does not explicitly mention worshipping the Holy Spirit as it does God the Father and His only-begotten Son. However, it does mention worshipping the Holy Spirit in an implicit manner.

The Father is worshipped (John 4:23)

But the hour comes, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father seeks such to worship Him.

The Father is spirit (John 4:24)

God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father (Mark 13:11 cp. Matt. 10:19-20):

But when they lead and deliver you up, do not worry beforehand about what you shall speak, nor meditate, but whatever shall be given you in that hour, speak that, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.
But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you shall speak, for what you shall speak shall be given to you in that same hour. For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.

The Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father (Matt. 28:19).

Therefore, go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

If people worship the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father, then they must also be worshipping the Holy Spirit when they worship the Father.


Meaning of term "satisfactory" in T. S Eliot's Journey of the Magi

You are right in thinking that the word satisfactory has a particular meaning in Christianity. It describes the effect of Christ's death in achieving reconciliation between humanity and God.

The root meaning of satisfy is to do enough.

There are several theories and beliefs about exactly how Christ's death achieves human salvation. Some, but not all, of these are based on the concept of the satisfaction of God's honour or justice.

St Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century developed the view that because God's honour had been offended by human sin, this honour needed to be restored. The death of Christ paid such honour to God that it satisfied, did enough, some say infinitely more than enough, to restore God's honour. This view was developed more fully by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century.

A different understanding, known as the Penal Substitution theory, was developed by Calvin and others in the sixteenth century. This understanding is that God's justice, rather than his honour, was offended by human sin, and that Christ's suffering and death satisfied this justice.

There is a brief article inTheopedia which discusses these in slightly more detail, and shelf upon shelf in university libraries that go deeper. The Theopedia article summarises the Anselmian and Calvinist understandings of satisfaction as .

  For Anselm, Christ obeyed where we should have obeyed; for Calvin, he was punished where we should have been punished.

Most Catholics and Protestants hold to the Satisfaction theory in one or other form.

Although the word satisfactory sometimes has connotations of bare sufficiency, this is not the connotation here. To satisfy God's honour and/or justice required nothing less than Christ's sacrifice.

The Prayer of Consecration at Holy Communion in the Church of England Prayer Book includes these words about Jesus, who:

  suffered death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world

TS Eliot's poem belongs to the field of English Literature, but as a churchwarden in London, he would surely have been aware of the Christian understanding of "satisfactory", and the Prayer of Consecration.