How should a Christian evaluate whether a particular action a sin or not?

Sin as a condition is separation from God. A sin as an action is an action that brings about such separation from God; such an action "misses the mark," which is the Greek word for the act of sinning. This is the general---very general---rule of thumb. The trick is to tell what separates us from God.

A good rubric, for those who already know in their heart of hearts what is right and wrong, is that given by Mississippi comedian Jerry Clower in his album Classic Clower Power, disc 2, track 25 "You're Fixin' to Mess Up" (cf. http://jacksonianlawyer.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/some-sage-words-of-advice-from-the-legendary-jerry-clower/). For the sake of those yet unable to endure heavy Southern accents, here is the rubric distilled:

  If you’re fixing to make a decision about what’s right and what’s wrong in your life, do you ask other people’s opinion about it? That’s a pretty good indication you're fixing to mess up.

  Number two: do you argue with yourself? ...if you’re arguing with yourself, [that's a] pretty good indication you should not do it.

  Number three: do you feel uneasy when you do it?

  Number four: Can you give thanks and say ‘Lord, I thank You for providing this for me.’? The Bible says, give thanks for all things. So when you do it, can you say ‘Lord, thank You for providing this for me. [Indeed, I thank You] for [making things the way they are, so that] I can commit to what it is I’m doing.'?

  What is right or wrong? Do you ask other people? Do you argue with yourself? Do you feel uneasy when you do it? Can you give thanks and say ‘Lord, I thank You for providing this for me.’? If you can’t, you [had] better watch out…you’re fixin’ to mess up.

N.B. in Southern dialect, to be fixing to do something is to be about to do something.

At the root of sin is self-will and insistence upon our own way at the expense of submitting ourselves to our Father in heaven Who knows better. The resulting cognitive dissonance brings about the signs 1--3 above.

Edit: as @Jürgen A. Erhard has pointed out, this rubric is insufficient on several counts. In my opinion, this is because it displays the signs of cognitive dissonance, which (thank God) accompany a struggle with temptation. These signs are useful in a sort of basic triage to call oneself to attention: if experiencing the signs in this triage (or quadriage), mustering all your dispassion, immediately ask yourself, "Have I committed to doing something wrong, and am I now only trying to justify myself and my wrong actions?"

However, cognitive dissonance may also accompany any difficult decision, which is not necessarily a result of wrongdoing. Also, weighing both sides of a difficult decision is, presumably, an attempt at wisdom and not an attempt at self-justification; and furthermore, asking someone else (whom you respect as someone following the truth, not just someone whom you know will agree with you) is a manifestation of humility. So perhaps at the root of Clower's observation is that one must flee all appearance of sin: in particular, the self-justification that accompanies an assent to sin.

This is a way to tell if you are doing wrong. It is another story to tell what is right, i.e. what is best.


A great deal of this move to identify a group of people as the lost tribes of Israel stems from a misunderstanding of prophesy from the OT.  They use scriptures such as Isa. 45:17,

  " But Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end."  (KJV)

without understanding the definition of Israel under the new covenant of the gospel of Christ. Some analysis is required.

Under the old covenant, the Israelites were identified by their blood line to be children of Abraham, or proselytes to the faith.

Under the new covenant of the gospel of Christ, all those that are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ, and are counted for the seed of Abraham.

Matt. 3:9,

  "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."  (KJV)

The blood line was not important any longer, and truly was not important even under the old covenant, as anyone whose faith brought them to a knowledge of the laws of God could become a proselyte, and counted in the congregation.

It was always the faithful of God who were the true Israelites.

Rom.4:16-148,

  "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,  17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.  18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.”  (KJV)

Today, the house of Israel which is saved with an everlasting salvation are all those of the saved under the old covenant, along with all who are in Christ under the new covenant.  If we have been baptized (immersed) into Christ, then we are counted for the seed of Abraham, and we are Israel (Gal. 3:26-29).

Those who seek a DNA strand of the blood line have become confused, and are seeking after the old covenant which has passed away.

I have more material that you can use to support your arguments at my blog at ShreddingTheVeil. My posts titled God's Definitions, Part I: The House of Israel, and Part II: The House of God show how these changed under the gospel of Christ.


What does the symbology in this painting of the Trinity mean?

The painting most probably comes from Byzantine Tradition as we can see the use of gold a well-known attritube of most of the Orthodox artist in expressing their views or faith.

The symbol ICXC in the middle of the painting with overline make certainty that this artwork belong to Eastern or Byzantine Tradition and there's no Muslim iconography here as it would be an obvious contradiction to their upheld Tradition.

  "In Eastern Christian tradition, the monogram ΙϹΧϹ (with Overline indicating scribal abbreviation) is used for Ἰησοῦς Χριστός in both Greek and Cyrillic tradition."
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christogram

The artwork depicted the five (5) characters who had the important role in the Drama of Man's Salvation.

Abba Father the source of Authority & Graces.
The Begotten Son Jesus the source of the Holy Eucharist
And the Holy Spirit in the form of the dove, the source of Sanctification the giver of Life.
Plus, I saw the Ark of the Covenant meaning Mary the chosen Woman from eternity is also depicted here and we will elaborate below as part of the hidden character here.
In addition, Lucifer is also depicted here below the Throne of God as wing angel in a circle form signifying resemblance to God's likeness in power.

Note : Both the foot of the Father and the Son was shown by the artist in the same color tone & sandals meaning both of them had set their foot on their creation.

  The painting title can be name as " The Abba Father Divine Plan of Salvation"

Further deciphering the image we can describe them as follows;

The Abba Father wears a white garment signifying clothe in Holiness or Light. His left hand contain the written Divine Plan for the Salvation of Mankind and the right hand raise in a familiar hand symbol of Jesus having the 2 fingers, others interpret this as 2,000 years, meaning only the Abba Father knows the hour. The Abba Father although He is the one seated on the Throne His halo is represented by a lot of triangle formation representing the Wisdom of the Holy Trinity.
Jesus the Begotten Son is clothe in gold representing purity and not clothe with the Light or Holiness like the Abba Father as Jesus will come in the form of man devoid of Majesty and Glory but will be born sinless or pure. Noticed the artist emphasis of the Abba Father and the Begotten Son had the same color tone or body essence meaning same substance or nature. Jesus halo represented the symbol of Cross signifying His Redemptive mission was already foreordained in Eternity before He came into this world.The "Way of the Cross"(Genesis 1:1).Noticed also the Hand of Jesus holding a white circle, a symbol that represents the Holy Eucharist that will be the source of Eternal Life in John Gospel Chapter 6 Bread of Life discourse.
The Holy Spirit was represented by a dove like when it came down to Jesus to dwell with Him in the Baptism in the river Jordan. The halo of the dove is represented with gold meaning His Holiness is the same nature with the Father and the Son depicted in their bodies but the Holy Spirit is white dove representing that She was clothe with the Holiness or Light same as the Abba Father. Since the white dove has no body, how can She manifest Her existence on earth? The mystery was answered by the blue & white colored circle and will interpret it below in the hidden character title.

Hidden Characters :

The Hidden Character and symbols here is the Ark of the Covenant expressed by the artist by putting the two wings cherub on both side. This is supported by Jesus hands on the white circle representing the manna or the Holy Eucharist in the New Testament. Mary role & character was hidden here in the form of the blue circle as we know Tradition called Mary the Lady in Blue and the white dove was inside the blue circle meaning Mary the Lady in Blue was indwelt by the Holy Spirit. St.Kolbe called this "quasi-incarnate" in comparison to Jesus which is known as the Incarnated Logos. The white circle that the hands of Jesus holds symbolizing He is the one offering the sacrifice but it is connected to the blue circle as the Mary is the Mother of the Eucharist the flesh or "body & blood" of Jesus comes from Mary."
Lucifer is included here, the artist depicted Lucifer below the Throne as wing angel in circle signifying Lucifer perfection of beauty among the Heavenly Angels and likeness of power to God. Lucifer was "anointed" by God to guard the Holy Mountain or the Throne of God. (Ezekiel 28:14-ff) described Lucifer perfection that made him feel that he is like God. But Lucifer only bear the Light of God or was "anointed" to guard the Throne of God. Lucifer is only a cherub but in Book of Ezekiel, Lucifer was able to surpass the power of Seraphim thru his anointing able to walk in the fiery stones. Seraphim is known as the fiery angels the burning ones that is much closer to God's Throne compare to Lucifer which is only a cherub.

NOTE: The artist colored the circled wing angel below the Throne brown denoting earthly color. Biblically, Lucifer after his fall was cast down to earthly realm. A color contrast with the color of wing cherub on left & right side is artist way of conveying the difference of Angelic glory.And size difference denotes wing cherub was glorified and Lucifer shrink in size denotes demotion.

In closing, the artist perfectly describes what is the "Divine Plan of God"existed in eternity represented by three concentric circles symbolizing the Holy Trinity inside the Third Heaven. We can see that the artist included the Ark of the Covenant here plus Lucifer being the bearer of God's Light or guardian of God's Throne in the Holy Mountain. The Five Characters (Abba Father, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit the "another Advocate & Spirit of Truth, Mary the Theotokos and Lucifer which is created good and bestowed with perfect gifts & anointing)  are the main actors in the Drama of Man's Salvation.


What is the purpose of the Tree of Life according to YEC?

Genesis 2:9 first notes the presence of the Tree of Life in the center of the garden of Eden:

  The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food. (Now the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were in the middle of the orchard.)

Genesis 2:16-17 states:

  Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.

Presumably, every tree in the garden included the Tree of Life, since Adam and Eve were only forbidden from consuming fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

In Genesis 3:22-24, God states:

  And the Lord God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” So the Lord God expelled him from the orchard in Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. When he drove the man out, he placed on the eastern side of the orchard in Eden angelic sentries who used the flame of a whirling sword to guard the way to the tree of life.

What becomes clear then, is that by eating of the Tree of Life, Adam and Eve are like God - they have everlasting life. By forbidding Adam and Eve from eating the fruit of the Tree of Life, God is instituting the promised consequence ("You shall surely die") and if God continued to allow them to eat from the Tree, Adam and Eve would not die, but instead would live forever and have eternal Life.

According to Romans 6:23:

  For the payoff of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Revelation 22:1-3 makes it clear that after the rapture, we will be able to partake of this tree again:

  "Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life—water as clear as crystal—pouring out from the throne of God and of the Lamb, flowing down the middle of the city’s main street. On each side of the river is the tree of life producing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month of the year. Its leaves are for the healing of the nations. And there will no longer be any curse, and the throne of God and the Lamb will be in the city. His servants will worship him, and they will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads."

From this passage we see that the Tree of Life produces 12 kinds of fruit (for the 12 tribes of Israel with which God made the Covenant*), that the Tree of Life's leaves are for the healing of the nations (of Israel), And there will no longer be any curse (The curse of Genesis - that by eating of the Fruit, Adam and Eve would not have eternal/everlasting life).

As Paul makes clear in his epistle to the Galatians, all believers are members of the nation of Israel to which the Covenant to give Abram's descendants the promised land was made. Galatians 3:29 states,

  If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

And the promise of the promised land, was not just the promise of the land that is now Israel, but really a promise to give back the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Life contained therein vis-a-vis, the sacrifice of the Messiah (Jesus Christ). In God's promise to Abraham, you will note in Genesis 15:18 it says:

  That day the Lord made a covenant with Abram: “To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates River

This is the same land in which the Garden of Eden is located according to Genesis 2:10:

  Now a river flows from Eden to water the orchard, and from there it divides into four headstreams. The name of the first is Pishon; it runs through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. (The gold of that land is pure; pearls and lapis lazuli are also there). The name of the second river is Gihon; it runs through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is Tigris; it runs along the east side of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.

And just as Eden is described as a paradise, the Promised Land is said to be "Flowing with Milk and Honey" which is the probable origin for the belief that the Promised Land included the Garden of Eden.

Conclusion

According to Young Earth Creationism, the Tree of Life provides the everlasting or eternal life that was present in the Garden of Eden and was promised to us in Romans 6:23 ("the gift of God is eternal life") and at the end of time.


Has there ever existed a Catholic local church feast at Rome in honor of the Domine Quo Vadis?
This is going to be answer by way of deduction, rather than one supported by an actual source. It should perhaps have been put in the comments, but it would be too long.
Some time ago I asked this question: What date to place the patronal feast day of St. Mary’s Church? Geremia‘s answer truly fit the bill.

Your hunch "that it is the Feast of the Assumption" appears correct, at least according to
Rev. W. J. Wiseman, “The Titular Feast,” The Pastor 3, no. 5 (March 1885): 129–36.
In the § "Practical Directions" (p. 131), he writes:

Blessed Virgin is a general title. […]
(a) If the titulus is simply B. M. V., the titular feast is to be celebrated on the feast of the Assumption, where everything remains as now in the Ordo.

Given that fact that churches dedicated to the Virgin Mary with any fixed date for a patronal feast day are to be that of her Assumption.
It seems logical that the feast day for the Church of Domine Quo Vadis would be that of the major feast day of St. Peter on June 29 (his martyrdom): Feast of Saints Peter and Paul.
Seeing that there is also a direct link to this episode and the martyrdom of the Prince of the Apostles, it again makes sense that it patronal feast day was June 29, until the title of the church changed and became Santa Maria in Palmis.

Chiesa del Domine Quo Vadis is a tiny church near the start of the Appian Way. It was built on the site where St. Peter saw a vision of Jesus while St. Peter was fleeing the persecution of Nero in Rome. Peter asked Jesus, "Lord, where are you going?" (latin: Domine quo vadis?). Jesus answered "I am going to Rome to be crucified again." Peter returned to Rome, where he was crucified in about 64 AD by the emperor Nero in the Circus of Nero, which became the site of St. Peter's Basilica. Inside the nave of the Domine Quo Vadis church, you can see a stone with the footprints of Jesus worn into it. - Domine Quo Vadis

The story seems more legendary than fact, but it remains a sacred place for many pilgrims in Rome.

Church of Domine Quo Vadis?*
Chiesa di Santa Maria in Palmis, better known as Chiesa del Domine Quo Vadis is a small Church southeast of Rome. It is located about 800 m from St. Sebastian Gate (Porta San Sebastiano), where theVia Ardeatina branches off the Appian Way.
There has been a sanctuary on the spot since the 9th century, but the current church is from 1637. The current façade was added in the 17th century.
It has been supposed that the sanctuary might have been even more ancient, perhaps a Christian version of some already existing temple: the church is in fact located just in front of the sacred Campus dedicated to Rediculum, the "God of the return" (his name comes from the Latin verb redeo = to come back); this campus hosted a sanctuary for the cult of the god, that received devotion by travellers before their departure, specially by those who were going to face long and dangerous journeys, towards far places like Egypt, Greece or the East (and the travellers who returned, always stopped to thank the god of the happy outcome of the journey).
The position of the sanctuary in Campus Rediculi was not accidental, first of all because the ancient Appian way was the most important among the Roman "consular" roads, secondarily because from this location the traveller could give the last look to the walls of Rome. In the sacred field there was also the tomb of a famous talking crow, buried at the time of emperor Tiberius with a great popular funeral. Besides, the god Rediculum had a terrible reputation: a legend remembers that Hannibal, after the Battle of Cannae, arrived in front of the doors of Rome following this road; here the god appeared to him in a frightful way, in order to suggest retreating with all his army. This legend lets us suppose that Romans held Rediculum in deep consideration. At the moment we still do not know with precision where exactly the sanctuary was; however an error by some authors of 17th century caused many commonly to think still today that the temple of Rediculum was the sepulchre also said to be of Annia Regilla, toward the inner side of the Caffarella park.
The presence of the Apostle Peter in this area, where he is supposed to have lived, should however find a confirmation in an epigraph in the catacombs of Saint Sebastian, that recites "Domus Petri" (house of Peter) and in an epigram by Pope Damasus I (366-384), in honor of Peter and Paul, in which we can read: "You that are looking for the names of Peter and Paul, You must know that the saints have lived here".
The two footprints on a marble slab at the center of the church (copy of a relief conserved in the near basilica of San Sebastiano) would be the miraculous sign left by Jesus: it is actually a draft of an "ex voto" paid for the good outcome of a travel, what would confirm the supposition that some connection might link the two temples.
The real name of the church, very little known, indeed, is Chiesa di Santa Maria in Palmis, where palmis stands for the soles of Jesus.
It has to be noted that the Roman Catholic Church admits the legend, after Pope Innocent III declared the fact was true; his decree is included in the Decretali di Gregorio IX book IV, tit. 17, cap. Per Venerabilem.
There was an inscription above the front door on the façade, saying: "Stop your walking, traveller, and enter this sacred temple in which you will find the footprint of our Lord Jesus Christ when He met with St. Peter who escaped from the prison. An elemosina for the wax and the oil is recommended in order to free some spirits from Purgatory". Pope Gregory XVI found it so inappropriate (effectively being a sort of advertising) that he ordered its removal in 1845.
In 1983 Pope John Paul II defined the church "a place that has a special importance in the history of Rome and in the history of the Church".

About the foot prints of Our Lord and the in Palmis of the title change:

The church of the “Domine Quo Vadis” is one of the first churches located on the Via Appia Antica, about 800 meters beyond Porta San Sebastiano. The Church has medieval origins, but was rebuilt in 1600. It takes its name from the oral tradition according to which the apostle Peter, fleeing from the city to avoid martyrdom, meets Jesus to whom he addresses the following words “Domine quo vadis (Lord, where are you going)?” And the Lord replied “Venio Romam iterum crucifigi (I am coming to Rome to be crucified again)”. Peter, aware of the rebuke, turns back to face his destiny and Jesus disappears but, in disappearing, he leaves the impressions of his footprints on the road.
As evidence of the incident, within the Church there is a stone with the imprints “of His holy feet”,  left by Jesus precisely on the site where the Church now stands. The stone is actually a copy: the original is in fact preserved in the Basilica of San Sebastiano. The second name with which the church is known: Santa Maria “in Palmis” derives from this episode. - “DOMINE QUO VADIS” - SANTA MARIA “IN PALMIS”

In the Early Church only Martyrs were honoured as saints. For this reason the original title of All Saints Day was Sancta Maria ad Martyres. This is in a sense reflected in the title of Sancta Maria ad Palmis.


Did Luther ever acknowledge that his Catechism would require textual changes as language evolves?

Whether Luther expected language to evolve in the future is not clear. The introduction of printing, and the political situation, had led to increased standardisation of different German dialects, although it was Luther's Bible that really came to define the German language. The trend in his time, to which he contributed more than anyone else, was towards a common German language.

In any case it was of fundamental importance to Luther that the Bible be in a language understood by the mothers in the home  the children in the street, and the man in the market place. Henry Zecher wrote:

  Luther, a relentless perfectionist who might spend a month searching out a single word, talked at length with old Germans in the different regions. To better understand the sacrificial rituals in the Mosaic law, he had the town butcher cut up sheep so he could study their entrails. When he ran into the precious stones in the "new Jerusalem" that were unfamiliar to him, he had similar gems from the elector's collection brought for him to study.

Luther said sometimes translating the prophets into German was like asking a nightingale give up its glorious melody and instead to sing like a cuckoo. He felt the poetry of Job suffered more from his translation than Job had from his comforters.  He didn't claim to have a perfect translation, and made amendments as late as 1545, the year before his death.

This being so, it seems almost inconceivable that Luther would have forbidden any alteration to the text of his catechism if changes in the German language rendered them necessary.

So, what could Luther mean by saying in the preface to the Small Catechism:

  "do not change a single syllable"

as quoted by the OP?.

The following paragraph is from the same preface, and sheds light on Luther's meaning:

  So adopt whatever form you wish, and then stick with it at all times. If, however, you happen to be preaching to some sophisticated, learned audience, then you certainly may demonstrate your skill with words by turning phrases as colourfully and masterfully as you can. But with young persons keep to a single, fixed, and permanent form and wording, and teach them first of all the Ten Commandments, the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, etc., according to the text, word for word, so that they can repeat it after you and commit it to memory.

Luther was not saying that a particular form, his or otherwise, must be used. He urged pastors to adopt whatever form they wished and then stick to the same form when educating the young. By using the same form year after year they would be able to memorise and learn.

He was not advocating that every future generation of German children be taught using the exact same words, for ever unchangeable. He was merely suggesting  that having started to teach a group of children using a particular form of
words it makes sense to keep on using that same form of words, until they have learned them. Introducing a new version before they have learned the old version will merely make it harder to learn.

There is nothing to say that their younger brothers and sisters, even, must learn the same exact words.


How does praying the rosary becomes a spiritual sword that can slay the dragon?

To appreciate and grasp the wisdom behind the words of Fr. Calloway about the Holy Rosary as a “spiritual sword” we must bear in mind that were talking about spiritual warfare,as St.Paul said in Ephesians 6:12;

  For we are not fighting against flesh and blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.

And we can see further St. Paul was talking about a combatant warrior equipped for battle in the following verse:

  Therefore, put on every piece of God’s armor so you will be able to resist the enemy in the time of evil. Then after the battle you will still be standing firm. Stand your ground, putting on the belt of truth and the body armor of God’s righteousness. For shoes, put on the peace that comes from the Good News so that you will be fully prepared.In addition to all of these, hold up the shield of faith to stop the fiery arrows of the devil.Put on salvation as your helmet, and take the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
  (Ephesians 6:13-17)

But the most important thing about the passages is, every believer was given a sword. What is the “spiritual sword”, the WORD is the sword of the SPIRIT.(Ephesians 6:12-17).

Biblical verses describing the Word of God as a double-edge sword;

  "For the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews4:12)

Now let us read the Bishop of Nigeria who had the vision of the Sword turning into the Rosary beads;

  Then Bishop Doeme recounted what happened one evening toward the end of October 2014.
  "I was in my chapel having private prayer, saying the Rosary before the Blessed Sacrament exposed. Then the Lord appeared to me, standing to the right of the altar. It was a vision, not physical. He appeared as Jesus the Good Shepherd, and he was holding a sword with both hands. At this, I became jittery. I said, ‘Lord, what is it?’ He didn’t say anything; he just began to approach me, then reached down and gave me the sword, which turned into a Rosary.”
  National Catholic Register

Now taking the statement of Fr. Calloway “The Rosary according to Fr. Calloway is the Spiritual Sword of Mary.”

The spiritual sword belongs to Mary. To understand this fully let’s examine Ephesians 6:17:

  Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

St. Paul said the sword belong to the Holy Spirit and the sword is the Word of God.

Now, Fr. Calloway said the sword belongs to Mary, but St.Paul said the sword belongs to the Holy Spirit.

To reconcile this, the Word of God/Incarnate Word is Jesus himself, as we can see from the vision of Bishop Doeme Jesus is the one handing over the sword that turns into rosary beads.

To grasp this mystery of the Word of God as the Sword of the Holy Spirit, the bible gives us the answer “At the Annunciation”

  ...Let be it done unto me according to thy WORD.
  (Luke 1:38)

Blessed Virgin Mary bore the Incarnate WORD in her womb, gave birth to the Logos/WORD, nourished and formed the humanity of the Incarnate WORD for 30 years and accompanied the Incarnate WORD for 3 years of His ministry. From "womb to tomb". "Mary kept all these WORDs, pondering them in Her Heart" (Luke 2:19).

How about the Holy Spirit?

  The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. (Luke 1:35)

The Will of God the Father decreed for man's salvation is, the Woman must bear the Incarnate Word and the Holy Spirit will overshadow her.The Most Holy Trinity was embraced by Mary’s FIAT (The WILL, the WORD & the Holy Spirit). The Most Holy Trinity is inseparable (St. Vincent Ferrer). As Book of Kings exclaims, "the highest heavens cannot contained God whom you carried in your womb"

But what is the purpose, why would the Blessed Virgin Mary need a spiritual sword? It’s because after the fall of man God made a holy decree, Mary’s role does not stop in just bearing the Incarnate Word but her role is to be the Leader of an Army that will battle the old serpent and She/Woman and her offspring will crush the proud head of the serpent.

  I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.(Genesis 3:15)

The important question is how can a believer turn the holy rosary into a “spiritual sword”?

Like the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Will of the FaTher must first be embraced, and the Word of Jesus Christ must be pondered in our heart and lastly the Holy Spirit must dwelt in our soul as we are the Temple of the Holy Spirit.
One must lived a Trinitarian Faith like the Blessed Virgin Mary embraced.

  ...and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. (John 1:14)

The WORD must be incarnated in every believer own flesh, as St.Paul said,

  "it's no longer I who lives, but Jesus". (Galatians 2:20)

While Jesus showed  us the power of the Word of God to combat the lies of Satan in the temptation at the desert, it doesn’t defeat the devil. Satan just fled unharmed. It’s a defensive stance only;

  "resist the devil and he will flee from you" (James 4:7)

In attacking and defeating the works of the enemy (Devil/Satan), we must use the Word of God as Jesus said “

  "...for this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil". (1 John 3:8)

Jesus must manifest in our lives, in our thoughts,words and actions just Mary the Perfect Disciple of Jesus who imitate Him thru a life of humility & obedience.

In conclusion, the whole life of Jesus Christ is the Sword that defeated the enemy the devil/Satan. Praying the Holy Rosary contemplating the face of Christ in the eyes of Mary her Mother (words of St.John Paul II) using the Rosary beads with the power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in the soul in the state of grace will not only makes the devil flee but will experience a humiliating defeat and unspeakable torments as testified by numerous Saints, Popes & exorcist in the above quoted passages.

Also, since the Word of God is the "spiritual sword" the Christian too had a sword in their hand the Bible. But in spiritual battle we cannot defeat the enemy by mere reading the text, mediation is the key to penetrates the spiritual realms as Fr. McDanielle said for the Rosary to be effective we must reach the heights of Contemplation. Catholics, by holding the holy Rosary, had the OT & NT in their hands. While Christians hold the Bible as their sword.

Let’s us remember after the Fall of Man, all the redeemed had only two choices given by God in Genesis 3:15. Either you belong to the Woman as her offspring in which Jesus became the firstborn and the rest of the elect must be spiritually born in her, or we belong to the old serpent as his offspring/cohorts according to St. Montfort's book (True Devotion to Mary).

Truly the Holy Rosary is the “spiritual sword” of every spiritual child of Mary ready & equipped to defeat and slay the dragon. As the agonizing Jesus at the foot of the cross said to all the redeemed;

  "Woman behold your son,..Son, behold your Mother". (John19:26-27)

NOTE : Satan and his demons have a superior intellect & memory, while most of us who prayed the holy rosary have difficulties in entering the state of meditation to ponder its mysteries, it is not the same with the demons. Satan and his demons At the Foot of the Cross had known the power of the Life of Jesus Christ, they now know that Jesus is truly God and truly Man.That's why satan and his demons hated the holy rosary. This link will open your eyes to the realities according to an Exorcist testimony:
The Virgin Mary and the Devil in exorcisms, very important. Revelation chap.12 implications (YouTube).


What is the significance of Jesus' baptism for a theology of baptism?

There is an excellent discussion of just this topic among the first parts of St. Nicholas Cabasilas' Our Life in Christ. Any discussion of Epiphany/Theophany also should address specifically this question.

Some thoughts along this line include the following:

In becoming baptized, as the other answers mention, Christ shows us a critical step on the way to salvation, viz. baptism by water and the Holy Spirit. In becoming baptized, Christ's holy body sanctified the water that now baptizes us into his death and resurrection.

Also, in baptism, Christ's divinity was made publicly manifest, by the full Godhead no less, and as a show against the prince of this world that the kingdom of God was now coming in subtle force. To further indicate how fully the kingdom was coming, Christ went out into the wilderness to meet Satan head-on. Now when we become baptized, we too spit on the works of Satan, and now on God's side we too meet Satan to drive him out, not to tolerate his works anymore in these last days.

This by no means exhausts the relationship between our baptism and Christ's. The above references should discuss this at length.


Why was it necessary for Mary to be a virgin?

It fulfilled prophecy

From the prophecy of
Isaiah 7:14 (NIV)

  Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

It provided us a sign so that we will know the Messiah

The Isaiah verse above illustrates that God gave us this gift of a virgin birth as a sign that Jesus was the Messiah.
It illuminates his sinless nature

Jesus is pure without sin.  The virgin birth illuminates this sinless nature.  Had he been born of a man, he would have been born fallen, like the rest of humanity, therefore carrying sin.
It allows for the Trinity

If Jesus had been born of a man, how could he be the "Son of God"?  He could be in the same sense that we all are "sons of God".  However, the virgin birth allows for the understanding that God himself came down to Earth to be the perfect sacrifice.

This opens up a whole realm of doctrine.  If he was just a man, how could his sacrifice been an atonement for everyone's sin?


Does divine simplicity imply that God is identical to his attributes?

Formulated in precisely this way (namely, that God’s essence is identical to His attributes), probably the best source is St. Thomas Aquinas.

For example, in his Summa theologiae, Ia, q. 3, a. 6, in which he asks the question, “Does God have any accidents?” Aquinas answers in the negative, and the first objection regards the Divine Attributes:

  [W]isdom, virtue, and the like, which are accidents in us, are attributes of God. Therefore in God there are accidents. [Note that this is an objection that Aquinas later refutes.]

Aquinas explains in the responsum that God cannot have any accidents for a variety of reasons: first, because the substance-accident composition is an actuality-and-potentiality pair which is impossible in God (who is the First Cause and thus Pure Act); second, because God’s Essence is identical with His Being, and hence unfettered and unlimited, which prevents anything extraneous from being “added” to it; finally, because God cannot not have “properties” that are distinct from Himself, since these would be “part” of Him and yet caused by Him, but there is nothing caused in God.

In response to the objection, he simply observes that wisdom, virtue, and similar attributes are not predicated of God and of man in exactly the same way. Although such attributes would be accidents in man, they are not so in God.

It follows that these attributes are identical with God. (We see this idea confirmed in other parts of the Summa, for example, Ia, q. 13, a. 4.)

This idea, however, was expressed earlier by the Fathers of the Church. For example, St. Augustine affirms it in his De Trinitate, V, 2:

  But other things that are called essences or substances admit of accidents, whereby a change, whether great or small, is produced in them. But there can be no accident of this kind in respect to God; and therefore He who is God is the only unchangeable substance or essence, to whom certainly being itself, whence comes the name of essence, most especially and most truly belongs.

However, this is not Augustine’s invention: it was the universal consensus of the Fathers, including Clement of Alexandria, Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, John Damascene, and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite.


Does LDS teaching hold to a multi-universe theory or an infinite universe theory in order to account for the doctrine of eternal progression?

The problem with this kind of question is that, at least within the context of Mormon Doctrine, there has never exactly been an authoritative treatise on any sort of relation to these concepts in our physical realm. I can, however, present the various theories laid forth by various 'philosophers,' so to speak, within Mormonism.

An interesting book I came across recently is entitled The Kolob Theorem by Lynn  M. Hilton. Hilton gives the hypothesis that Kolob (the star/planet on which God resides according to Mormonism) is at the center of the Milky Way, and that all subsequent other Galaxies are their own realms with their own respective Gods. Of course, the problem with this according to your numbers is obvious: There are only about 10^12 galaxies in the observable universe. I am not sure if Hilton addresses this in his book, perhaps he gives an explanation or perhaps believes in some kind of infinitum.

Another, and anecdotally more common, theory is that everything that is observable in our universe is the creation of only our God. The late Neil A Maxwell, an Apostle in the church, offered this:

  The Restoration’s revelations and translations accommodate a vast universe; thus it is no surprise to us that scientists’ latest estimate of the number of stars in the universe is approximately 70 sextillion—“more stars in the sky,” scientists say, “than there are grains of sand in every beach and desert on Earth”

The context of his sermon indicates belief in all that being of God, and thus lends credence to the former theory. I believe it is the more common one among adherents to Mormonism.

While it is possible to find various speculations and even contradictory statements from both members and church leaders regarding the exact nature of such doctrines, most Mormons simply believe in an absolute infinite, that is; that there is no end to the number of universes out there. Few ever formulate an opinion on how that is accomplished. I believe that it would be accurate to say that as a whole Mormonism accepts the notion of a multiverse, but because, as in many other things in Mormonism, the exact mechanics are not prescribed, it's best to conclude that there is simply no precise conclusion in Mormonism other than the infinite number of Gods, and thus an infinite universe or multiverse.


How often do missionaries report encounters with demonic activity while deployed to countries belonging to the 10/40 Window?
Here follows a map displaying the nations in the 10/40 Window:

I rather doubt there is sufficient data to make an accurate response to establish how often do missionaries report encounters with demonic activity while deployed to countries belonging to the 10/40 Window? Some missionaries simply do not report such things. In general, I believe that such occurrences are not uncommon in this region. I have read enough missionary lives to believe it to be true.
This region of the world was previously known to Christians as the "resistant belt", By missionaries trying to make headway into these countries.
As I have already stated not all missionaries report publicly their encounters with the demonic. Many a catholic missionary will inform their superiors and/or bishop, while others are quite at ease about talking about it publicly. I imagine this is somewhat true in other denominations as well.
Certainly some countries are more affected by the demonic then others. Once again data is lacking in this domain.
The lives of missionary life that I have read about or have had personal contact indicate that among the countries more affected are Tibet (China), Nigeria, Bhutan and Burkina Faso.
Brazil, Peru and Haiti are technically not part of the nations in the 10/40 Window, but have greater levels of demonic activity then most countries.
The amount of native religions that invoke evil through their pagan beliefs and witchcraft are an open recipe for possible demonic possession.
Father Giovanni Salerno, the founder of The Servants of the Poor In Peru freely recounts how the Devil often hindered his missionary activities, especially in the higher and more remote villages.

On Mission with God in the Andes - The Servants of the Poor of the Third World

Tibet has a phenomenal intense historical reputation for missionaries encounter the forces of evil amongst the native populations. The lives of the the German missionary Fr. Biet and his successor the Swiss Fr. Maurice Tornay bare this out.
Blessed Maurice Tornay was eventually martyr  by four armed lamas that burst from the bush in the Tothong forest which prompted the priest to speak with them: "Don't shoot! Let's talk!" but two shots rang out and Doci was shot dead. More shots killed the priest on 11 August 1949. His remains were buried though transferred in 1985. He was beatified on 16 May 1993, after Pope John Paul II confirmed that the late priest had been killed "in odium fidei" ('in hatred of the faith').
Often Fr. Biet would instruct catechumens for the reception for the grace of baptism. Many became possessed by the Devil just prior to baptism. But once the saving waters of baptism touched the individual, the Devil left for good.
Fr. Évariste Régis Huc, C.M. and Fr. Joseph Gabet, C. M. Made the historic voyage through Mongolia and Tibet from 1844-1846. Fr. Huc accounts of this were recorded in his book Remembrances of a Journey in Tartary, Tibet, and China during the Years 1844, 1845, and 1846. It is an eye opener to how both good and evil exists in Tibet. Possession was not rare.

Vajrayana and Tibetan Buddhism
Vajrayana Buddhism is a smaller sect and is practiced in Nepal, Bhutan, Mongolia, Tibet, and Inner Mongolia. It focuses more on the demonic realm and occult-like texts, called tantras.
You may have heard of Tibetan Buddhism, which incorporates elements of the Vajrayana and Mahayana sects. Prayer habits in these sects can be more ritualistic and robust.
In Vajrayana Buddhism, some worshipers meditate on tantras or on mandalas—spiritual, circular, and geometric patterns—that they believe will lead to out-of-body experiences.

I could go on about other countries, but these suffice to get my point across.


What is the reason that nuns always cover their hair?

The custom originates in Judaism, and different arguments are given for it. Married women, in particular, cover their hair in an act of modesty. They argue a woman's hair should be reserved for her husband (not so different from the customs in Islam).
Religiously it is also an act that separates one from the world.
Within Christianity there are additional scriptures and Church Fathers who reinforce such head coverings. Here's a line from Paul on the subject:

1 Corinthians 11:6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

He seems to quibble over this point a bit, but ultimately takes the stance of tradition on the matter:

1 Corinthians 11:13-16 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

The Church Father Tertullian, around 200 AD, wrote "On the Veiling of Virgins." In this writing he argues that not only should married women cover their heads, but that all women should do so. (for a translation, see here: On the Veiling of Virgins).
So the practice is rooted in a Jewish tradition and the wider mid-eastern culture. It has additionally been expounded on both in the Christian scriptures and the subsequent writings of Church Fathers.
As for men, Paul also makes the argument that men should NOT have their heads covered.

1 Corinthians 11:4  Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.
1 Corinthians 11:7 A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

This breaks a bit with modern and Orthodox Judaism, where men wear a covering in prayer (if not all the time!).
Despite the scriptural arguments, I rarely if ever see Protestant women wear head coverings. Ultimately it seems to come down to a given sects culture. In America most would not think it immodest to not cover one's hair.


Original number of angels and fallen angels

There is a passage in Revelation, chapter 12, verses 3 and 4, which may be the only passage to tell us the proportion of the angelic host to have fallen from their exalted state in heaven:

  "Then another sign appeared in heaven:  and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems.  And his tail swept away a third of the starts of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give, birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child."

There are other verses which speak of angels and a war in heaven, the result of which was their being cast out of heaven along with their leader, Satan (cf. vv. 8-9; 9:1; Dan. 8:10; Jude 6; 2 Pet. 2:4).  Moreover, other passages link metaphorically the "stars of heaven" (or simply "stars") with angelic beings (see Job 38:6,7; and Isa.14:12,13).

To attempt to come up with an even approximate number of angels who kept their abode in heaven is an exercise in futility.  True, Revelation 5:11 says there are 10,000 times 10,000 angels--besides living creatures and elders--around God's throne, though some versions (e.g., the NIV) describe the number of angels as "myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands."  Then thousand times ten thousand is a hundred million, but then thousands of thousands on top of the hundred million will still not give us an accurate count.

About all we can say about the number of angels is that there are a lot of them.  Who knows, there could (I repeat, could) be as many angels as there are stars, and the number of stars . . ., well, lets put it this way:  only God Himself knows not only how many there are, but He also has a name for each one (see Psalm 147:4; cf. Gen.1:16, where it says simply, "He also made the stars," as if it was no big deal!).


In Galatians 4:19, what is the meaning of "Christ formed in you"?

This may seem simplistic but you have already read the complex.  The meaning is simple.  Christ formed in us is exactly what it says.  First of all we initiate the salvation experience by surrendering to Christ and inviting Him into our heart to live and He is formed in us.  Additionally, as we grow in understanding, we become examples of Christianity and, essentially, Christ is formed in us once again.


What is the age at which Peter the Apostle died?

The Catholic Church does not know with any exactitude the real timeline of the Apostle Peter. So much of this question is simply based on tradition.

For the most part, it is believed that the Apostle St. Peter was born in Bethsaida (John 1:42, 44), about the year 1 AD.

  St. Peter's true and original name was Simon, sometimes occurring in the form Symeon. (Acts 15:14; 2 Peter 1:1). He was the son of Jona (Johannes) and was born in Bethsaida (John 1:42, 44), a town on Lake Genesareth, the position of which cannot be established with certainty, although it is usually sought at the northern end of the lake. The Apostle Andrew was his brother, and the Apostle Philip came from the same town. - St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles

As for how and when the Apostle St. Peter died, it is traditionally believed that he died between 64 and 67 AD and was crucified upside down at Rome. That makes St. Peter between 63 and 66 years old when he died. Historical documents are not more sure of anything more exact. One can read what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say on this subject. Some even claim he died in 55 AD.

Here is a traditional way of reading about St. Peter's death.

  Saints Peter and his older brother Andrew. Both were crucified as old men. Peter was, of course, our first pope, Christ’s Vicar, the head of the visible Church. Andrew was the first called by Christ to be an apostle. He was a disciple of Saint John the Baptist. Andrew was there when John pointed at Jesus on the banks of the River Jordan and said: “Behold the Lamb of God!” Andrew followed Christ after His holy baptism and innocently asked Him where He lived. Jesus innocently answered: “Come and see”. Saint Andrew preached the Faith in Asia Minor (Turkey) and in Scythia, east of Turkey (north of Iran). He also preached in Greece and Macedonia. He was crucified in Achaia at Patras in the year 61. Tied to an X-shaped cross after being scourged, he made the cross his pulpit and preached to the people for two days before he died. Peter was martyred under the Nero persecution in the year 67. Peter, too, was, as His Master, crucified by nails on Vatican hill. His wish to be crucified upside down, out of reverence for Jesus, and out of his profound humility, was granted. Saint Paul, the Apostle, was beheaded on the same day as Peter outside the walls of Rome. - How Did the Apostles Die?

Other Catholic websites will state that he died in the year 64 AD.


Prosperity Theology (aka "Health and Wealth Gospel") is primarily a perjorative term. Even many who in actuality are subscribing to a "Gospel" characterized by God finanicially and healthfully "blessing" people witha  strict moral code, they would be loathe to use the term.

Indeed, other than some Pentecostals and Charismatics, the general tenets of a Prosperity Theology would definitely have ben rejected by almost all of the Patristic Church Fathers, and the promulgation would have been considered a pre-Chalcedonian heresy which would be rejected by pretty much everybody.

This charge is specifically is why Evangelicals like John Piper would call out popular preachers like Joel Osteen or why Pope Francis would distance himself from the same. Evangelicals like Brian Zhand and liverals like Brian McLaren are in agreement that it is inconsistent with the call of Jesus.


What does the Bible tell us about how people knew right from wrong before the Law of Moses?

Firstly, understand that men and women are made in the image of God, who by His nature defines 'goodness'.  There was always a 'law' before it was written on tablets of stone and given to Moses: God sets the standard of righteousness by what remains in accord to His nature and unrighteousness by what constitutes rebellion against His nature. To the extent that our first parents were cognizant of God's nature and their own, they would have had some initial knowledge of good.  From what follows, it appears they would have been entirely ignorant of evil and the only sense of anything that could be wrong was when:

  16 ...the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” - Genesis 2:16-17 ESV (emphasis added)

So initially, the only 'knowledge' (non-experential so not full 'knowing') they had of wrong/evil was what God told them. Subsequently, they were able to discern what was right and particularly what was wrong themselves after bitter experience:

  4 ...the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths. - Genesis 3:4-7 ESV (emphasis added)

The serpent lied completely regarding the first part ("You will not surely die") but the second part was at least a half-truth ("You will be like God, knowing good and evil") - scripture affirms that their eyes were opened as per the name of the forbidden fruit - "the knowledge of good and evil".

With the multiplication of sin and corruption in the human race, we have become darkened in our understanding, so the faculty gained from Adam's rebellion has been imperfectly transmitted to subsequent generations, but it has still been passed on to some degree as per:

  14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them - Romans 2:14-15 ESV

A Gentile who does not have the (Mosaic) law is perfectly analagous to a patriarch (or matriarch) before the (Mosaic) law was given. The knowledge of right/good has been passed down to a degree (though quite imperfectly) as we are still image-bearers of God (though corrupted), the experential knowledge of wrong/evil has been passed down generationally only too adequately as mankind are inheritors of the original sin in their very nature as children of Adam and expert practitioners in what is wrong, however this latter knowledge is not of itself any use as a moral compass unless we sufficiently retain the knowledge of good that gradually passes from the earth with each generation that abounds in wickedness.

The (Mosaic) law was given to shine the light of God's righteousness in the hearts of those whose understanding had been darkened by generations of sinful rebellion and restore to a degree the knowledge of good - it was a stop-gap measure to restrain wickedness and school a people in their need for a new nature and a Saviour to purchase it for them, before a true (experiential) knowledge of good could be recovered through faith in Christ.

Disclaimer: I believe this perspective represents an orthodox Christian (those who would agree with the content of the early creeds - Apostle's, Nicene etc.) view, if you disagree, I would greatly appreciate your criticism as to where it may differ.


Was Paul advocating killing a man because of sexual immorality?

No.  Paul was advocating kicking him out of the Church, not killing him.

The fact that it means to kick the person out of the Church is clarified in verse 12: (Emphasis added.)

  12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are
  you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel
  the wicked person from among you.”

The way I understand it is this: The idea is to not turn a blind eye to sin, but to confront it and deal with it, particularly within the body of the Church.  To turn a blind eye to sin does nothing but encourage it.  To confront it and make it clear that it is not to be tolerated within the Church is better, because it forces the sinner to either acknowledge the sin and repent, or leave the Church, where they will not pollute it further.

A person cannot repent if they are put to death, so this clearly cannot be stating that we are to put the sinner to death.

There is a nice version of this verse here that clarifies the meaning of the original Greek word that is translated as "the flesh".  Due to language difference and cultural differences, the original meaning often gets lost in translation.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+5&version=NIV

Footnote below:

  1 Corinthians 5:5 In contexts like this, the Greek word for flesh
  (sarx) refers to the sinful state of human beings, often presented as
  a power in opposition to the Spirit.


What is the basis for the idea that God is highly involved in human lives?

Many Christians, and I am one of those; who believe that God knows everything, controls everything, and is everywhere simultaneously. This idea is commonly known as God being omniscient, omnipotent, and Omnipresent. To most of us that simply means that God is with his people at all times, that God knows everything and every circumstance that will take place right up until the end of time; and that he directs circumstances in order that things will happen exactly the way he wants them to right up until the end of days.

There are innumerable concepts as to how much control God uses to accomplish his goals. They range from superficial management, all the way to micro management.

Those who are prone to believe that God micro manages base that belief on:

  Matthew 10:29 through 31 NKJV  Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father's will. 30  But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31  Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.

However; to think that God micro manages everything, every incident, and all events; would appear to my simple mind to take away a free will.

There are however; some incidents in which it would appear that only holy intervention could have caused some result.

To this end I will cite this incident.

I have a close friend, who was diagnosed with terminal cancer. He was given only a few months of life by several doctors. After many prayer sessions, by both he and others in the church; he returned to the doctor who originally diagnosed him with the cancer. On that visit there was no sign of cancer left, and today 10 years later he is still praising God for that healing.

Although I cannot say that I know beyond a doubt that his healing was God's work, I do believe that there is no other explanation.

Christianity, is known as faith for a reason;

Faith according to Merriam Webster; is. Latin: to trust; Greek: to persuade, to draw towards any thing, to conciliate; to believe, to obey. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth.

I have abbreviated this definition because it was extremely long; however; it still contains the main idea which I want to convey. That idea is that faith and free will are almost the same thing as far as Christians are concerned. One can either choose to believe or not believe. Just as one can choose to believe or not believe things that are written in the history books are other similar publications. And the depth of that belief can have a wide range.

Hope this helps.


Is there any biblical justification for referring to God as Mother?

There is a significant distinction between calling God "mother" and the Bible identifying aspects of motherhood (and fatherhood) as reflecting the glory and character of God.

Both men and women reflect the glory and character of God in different ways, as men and women, fathers and mothers, teachers, judges, etc.

However, God is spirit (John 4:23) and not physical.  In the beginning, God created the physical universe, including genders.  Yet, He Himself was not biological, but is and was outside of creation.

When He entered into creation, He did enter into it as a Man.  In the Lord's prayer, God the Son instructs us to refer to God the Father as "Our Father" (Matthew 6:9-13).  Nowhere in Scripture are we instructed to refer to God as mother.

The example of Paul is of note as well.  He himself indicated that he cared for the Thessalonians like a mother cares for her children:

  But we were gentle[c] among you, like a nursing mother taking care of
  her own children.  1 Thessalonians 2:7 ESV

But no one used that as a basis for calling Paul "Mom".

This in no way disparages women, and both men and women reflect the glory of God.  Yet, God has chosen to reveal Himself in the masculine sense.  If we are devoted believers, we recognize that He is the One who has the right to define how we should refer to Him--not us.


There is a big difference between the KJV and all other English Bibles. The KJV was translated from the Byzantine Manuscript (also called the Majority or Syrian Text). We have about 5,000 manuscripts or fragments of text. It is a very reliable manuscript with very few changes recorded (none of the changes are major). The oldest fragments date back to somewhere around the 380's AD.

The KJV was translated by 47 of the top scholars in England, including Puritans and Anglican clergy.

The modern Bible Versions come from the other major Manuscript. It is called the Alexandrian Manuscript, from Alexandria, Egypt. We have only about 300 fragments of these, but they are even older than the Byzantine Manuscript. There are two versions of the Alexandrian Manuscript: the Vaticanus, found in the Vatican Library in 1481, and the Sinaiticus, found in the trash pile of a monastery near Mt Sinai in 1844. There are many errors, omissions and changes in both of these versions (which is why the Reformers of the 16th Century rejected the Vaticanus. They did not have the Sinaiticus available at that time, of course. However John Burgon, another Anglican clergyman, studied and rejected the Sinaiticus as well, because of the "carelessness" and "gross blunders"). These versions also had many missing texts that are found in the Byzantium version.

However, most - if not all - modern English Bible versions are translated from the Alexandrian, using a combination of the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus.

Why?

In the 1880's two Anglican scholars named Westcott & Hort published a new Greek New Testament using the Alexandrian Manuscripts on the grounds that it was older and therefore must be more reliable. They were concerned mostly with textual criticism. They did not believe that the Bible is special. Even today, most publishers tend to use the Alexandrian on the same grounds that it is older so it must be more reliable. They ignore the fact that the text is full of errors, changes and missing text and that some of those most brilliant scholars in earlier times rejected it.

Also any Catholic Bible will include the Apocrypha (Greek for Secret or Hidden) which was not accepted as authentic by the early church or by Protestants today. The Catholic Bibles keep the Apocrypha in the Bible in order to support their specific beliefs (such as Purgatory), rather than basing their beliefs on the traditional, ancient manuscripts. In other words, they have their beliefs and publish their version of the Bible to back up their beliefs, while Protestants have their Bible and base their beliefs on the Bible, or at least try to.

For more information please see my own webpage http://www.sarahhodgins.com/why-king-james-version-only.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_text-type


Was Jesus' resurrected body the same as his glorified body that he now has in heaven?

St. Thomas Aquinas addressed this pretty deeply, and as I suspected, his answer was yes, Our Lord's risen body was a glorified one.  Although it differed in glory in some way from His body in Heaven.

  I answer that, Christ's was a glorified body in His Resurrection, and this is evident from three reasons. First of all, because His Resurrection was the exemplar and the cause of ours, as is stated in 1 Corinthians 15:43. But in the resurrection the saints will have glorified bodies, as is written in the same place: "It is sown in dishonor, it shall rise in glory." Hence, since the cause is mightier than the effect, and the exemplar than the exemplate; much more glorious, then, was the body of Christ in His Resurrection. Secondly, because He merited the glory of His Resurrection by the lowliness of His Passion. Hence He said (John 12:27): "Now is My soul troubled," which refers to the Passion; and later He adds: "Father, glorify Thy name," whereby He asks for the glory of the Resurrection. Thirdly, because as stated above (Question 34, Article 4), Christ's soul was glorified from the instant of His conception by perfect fruition of the Godhead. But, as stated above (14, 1, ad 2), it was owing to the Divine economy that the glory did not pass from His soul to His body, in order that by the Passion He might accomplish the mystery of our redemption. Consequently, when this mystery of Christ's Passion and death was finished, straightway the soul communicated its glory to the risen body in the Resurrection; and so that body was made glorious.

[summa theologica part 3 question 54 article 3 ](
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4054.htm)

One good, convincing point St Thomas makes is that in no way could one consider Jesus' body given to corruption after His resurrection. He did as He chose. He came and went as He pleased. He appeared in the manner which He desired.


What is the Etymology of the Name of Jesus?

1. Question Restatement :

Is there textual / literary evidence that "Jesus" is a name derived from "Zeus"?
What is the Etymology of the Name, "Jesus"?

2. Answer - The Names Jesus and Zeus are not Related Etymologically :

The Greek Septuagint Translation of the Hebrew Old Testament is the clearest evidence that the name "Jesus" is absolutely a transliteration of the Hebrew name: "Joshua", from Hebrew Scripture.

3. The Name - "Zeus", in Greek :

Ζεύς | Zeus, Logeion Lexicon - is represented in Greek in many ways, but: "Ζεύς" is the most recognized, (but also written as "Διός | Dios"; and also as "θεός | Theos".  "Theos" is the same word used for "God", (the Father), in Scripture.

The spelling and morphology of the name: "Zeus" - is very different than: "Jesus".

  Autenrieth-Homer, Morphology of Zeus, (From Logeion) - Ζεύς (Διεύς, root διϝ), gen. Διός, dat. Διί, acc. Δία, voc. Ζεῦ, also gen. Ζηνός, dat. Ζηνί, acc. Ζῆν(α): Zeus (Diespiter, Juppiter; cf. Ζεῦ πάτερ, ... etc.

  Aeschin. 1:28 - Such a man, then, he forbids to speak. And right he is, by Zeus, say I!

  τοῦτον οὐκ ἐᾷ λέγειν. νὴ Δία καλῶς γε, ὡς ἔγωγέ φημι. διὰ τί; ὅτι εἴ τις, οὓς ἐξ ἴσου δεῖ τιμᾶν τοῖς θεοῖς

4. Historical Roots of the Name - "Jesus" :

In Greek, Jesus / Ἰησοῦς is actually a transliteration of one name - that has two forms :

Joshua | Yeshua | יֵשׁ֨וּעַ, appears as a later Hebrew/Aramaic name - and is itself another transliteration (or Aramaicism) of ...
"יְהוֹשׁ֫וּעַ | Yehoshua, in the older Hebrew texts;

The Hebrew name "יְהוֹשׁ֫וּעַ | Yehoshua" is considered to mean : "God Saves", (Strong's Concordance).

In Greek texts, Both יְהוֹשׁ֫וּעַ | Yehoshua and Joshua | Yeshua | יֵשׁ֨וּעַ are transliterated into Greek into the same exact way : Ἰησοῦς .

"Jesus" In Greek:

  NASB, Matthew 1:1 - The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham:

  Byz, Matthew 1:1 - βιβλος γενεσεως ιησου χριστου υιου δαυιδ υιου αβρααμ

Joshua | Jehoshua, the Son of Nun - Transliterated as Jesus:

  NASB, Numbers 13:12 - but Moses called Hoshea the son of Nun, Joshua.

  Septuagint, Numbers 13:16 - καὶ ἐπωνόμασεν Μωυσῆς τὸν Αυση υἱὸν Ναυη Ἰησοῦν

  Hebrew, Numbers 13:12 -  וַיִּקְרָ֥א מֹשֶׁ֛ה לְהֹושֵׁ֥עַ בִּן־ נ֖וּן יְהֹושֻֽׁעַ׃

And:

  NASB, Deuteronomy 3:21 - I commanded Joshua at that time, saying,

  Septuagint, Deuteronomy 3:21 - καὶ τῷ Ἰησοῖ ἐνετειλάμην

  Hebrew, Deuteronomy 3:21 - וְאֶת־ יְהֹושׁ֣וּעַ צִוֵּ֔יתִי בָּעֵ֥ת הַהִ֖וא לֵאמֹ֑ר

Yeshua Also Transliterated as Jesus - During and After the Babylonian Exile and Aramaic Influence :

  Chronicles was "probably composed between 400–250 BC, with the period 350–300 BC the most likely", (Wikipedia, Books of Chronicles).

  WEB, 2 Chronicles 31:15 - Under him were Eden, and Miniamin, and Jeshua

  Septuagint, 2 Chronicles 31:15 - διὰ χειρὸς Οδομ καὶ Βενιαμιν καὶ Ἰησοῦς

  Hebrew, 2 Chronicles 31:15 - וְעַל־ יָדֹ֡ו עֵ֣דֶן וּ֠מִנְיָמִן וְיֵשׁ֨וּעַ וּֽשְׁמַֽעְיָ֜הוּ

5. The Name - "Jesus", in Syriac :

The name : ܝܫܘܥ / "Ishu'", (Matthew 1:18, Peshitta) - is the Syriac/Aramaic transliteration.  The Syriac is very close to the later "Yeshua" Aramaicism  - and certainly not the older Hebrew : "Joshua | Yehoshua".

The New Testament implies that Jesus perhaps had two names : a Hebrew name, "Immanuel", (Matthew 1:23); and the Greek/Aramaic name : "Iesos" and "Yeshua".


Who were the main Protestant precursors?

No, Luther certainly should not be viewed as "responsible [for] the entire protestant reformation". Throughout previous centuries, various non-Catholic church groups held to some beliefs that came to be recognisable as Reformation theology and practice. However, that subject is so vast, it cannot possibly be covered here. I recommend you study the book "The Pilgrim Church" by E.H. Broadbent (Pickering Classic first published in 1931 through to 1985 at least.)

Prior to the reformation starting, Catholic scholar Erasmus (1467-1536) was a serious editor of Latin and Greek texts and produced an epoch-making edition of the Greek New Testament (the first ever printed and published, in 1516, the year before the Reformation began). The Romanists furiously blamed him for ‘letting Luther happen’. He was spoken of obliquely as "The egg that Luther hatched".

In 1505 Erasmus had published Valla’s work as ‘Adnotationes in Novum Testamentum’. Valla had earlier incurred displeasure in Rome by showing to be a mere fable the supposed MSS relating to a ‘Donation of Constantine’ bestowing temporal power with the Bishops of Rome. Valla declared that theologians must work from the grammatical sense for the meaning of the text, to which Erasmus agreed.

Erasmus next travelled a lot, searching for Greek NT MSS, and then managed to construct a single continuous text of the Greek NT through comparisons and collation of a few MSS.  His 1516 edition had his version of the Latin Vulgate NT, supported in a parallel column by his newly compiled text of the Greek NT. He used the Greek as a plumb line to vindicate his Latin differences. Many valid criticisms of his work were admitted to by Erasmus himself from the start. A fourth, improved edition was later produced.

Before Luther got going, Erasmus had produced his NT in its original Greek. Luther got the printed text in Wittenberg as he was lecturing on the 9th chapter of Romans. From Erasmus's accompanying translation he learned of the inaccuracy of the Vulgate rendering of 'do penance' instead of 'be penitent'.

Erasmus and Luther had much in common. Both insisted that the church of their day had relapsed into a Judaistic type of legalism condemned by the apostle Paul. Christianity, said Erasmus, has been made to consist not in loving one's neighbour but in abstaining from butter and cheese during Lent. What good are indulgences to those who do not mend their ways? Both men had a quarrel with the pope, Luther because the pontiffs imperilled the salvation of souls, Erasmus because they fostered external ceremonies and, at times, impeded free investigation.

Poor Erasmus ended up falling between two stools – the Romanists blamed him furiously for ‘letting Luther happen’. He was spoken of obliquely as "The egg that Luther hatched". But the Lutherans could not accept his not falling in with Luther.
Article by C.P. Hallihan in Issue No. 615, April-June 2016, Quarterly Record (Trinitarian Bible Society)

My material is a combination from that article and the book "Here I Stand - Martin Luther" by Roland Bainton (Lion Publishing 1978). As for your second question about Luther's antisemitism, that is also admitted to in Bainton's book.

  "He had earlier believed that contemporary Jews could not be blamed
  for the sins of their fathers, and sympathised with why they hated
  Catholicism so much; “We should use toward the Jews not the pope’s but
  Christ’s law of love.” Sadly, he came to change that view when his
  endeavour to proselytize some rabbis failed. A rumor that a Jew had
  been suborned by the papists to murder him was believed. Later, news
  came that in Moravia, Christians were being induced to Judaize. Then
  he came out with a vulgar blast in which he recommended that all Jews
  be deported to Palestine. Failing that, they should be forbidden to
  practice usury, should be compelled to earn their living on the land,
  their synagogues should be burned, and their books (including the
  Hebrew scriptures) should be taken from them. One paragraph reads,
  "Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever
  they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in
  which sheer self¬glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God
  and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them."

That tract is a shame and no excuse is offered. Quote from p379-380 of Bainton's book. Many Protestant groups today would offer no excuse for Luther's antisemitism either. We are far removed from Luther's era and popular attitudes in Europe back then. I hope this goes some way to answering your questions, the scope of which is vast.


What does the Bible say about God being a different type of being than man?

God is certainly higher than man. This passage from Isaiah spells it out quite clearly.

  Isaiah 55:8-9 (ESV)
   8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
     neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
   9  For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
     so are my ways higher than your ways
     and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Of course, being higher doesn't necessarily imply being different. But we have further proof in that God is omnipotent and omniscient.

  Genesis 17:1 (ESV)
  When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless,

  Matthew 6:4 (ESV)
   4 so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

  Acts 2:23 (ESV)
   23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

One might still nitpick that omnipotence and omniscience are attributes and don't require being a different type of being. The final point is that God was the first one (as He was before the world and there is only one God). But, one could argue, does the order of existence imply being a different type of being?

I think it's quite obvious that God is a different type of being than man.

But that's arguable—it depends on how the types of beings are defined, i.e. the chosen taxonomy. Similarly, men and natural satellites are quite different, but you could come up with a  classification that puts them into the same class.


How do Aquinas and Hooker differ in their doctrine on communion?

Aquinas taught transubstantiation -- the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist:

  Some men accordingly, not paying heed to these things, have contended that Christ's body and blood are not in this sacrament except as in a sign, a thing to be rejected as heretical, since it is contrary to Christ's words...

  He is invisibly under the species of this sacrament, wherever this sacrament is performed...

  Christ is not really present in the other sacraments, as in this [the Eucharist]; and therefore the substance of the matter remains in the other sacraments, but not in this...

  But here the substance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ...

  Summa Theologica

Richard Hooker taught more along the lines of a pneumatic presence of Christ -- the elements are more than mere symbols, but the change takes place not in the elements, but is rather an act of God in the life of the believer:

  Eucharist is the sacrament of continued growth in Christ.  The Eucharistic elements are the bread and wine while the words are "this is my body," "this is my blood."  These words signify that the life of the body of Christ, the human nature, is present and active as grace in the Eucharist.  This grace flows from the Deity of Christ into his human nature, and from there, by the presence of the person of the risen Christ in his human and divine natures, the one fully present, the other present "after a sort."  This grace is then conveyed, as effects, to the bodies and souls of those who receive the bread and wine in faith.

    The bread and cup are his body and blood because they are causes instrumental upon the receipt whereof the participation of his body and blood ensueth.  For that which produceth any certain effect is not vainly nor improperly said to be that very effect whereunto it tendeth.  Every cause is in the effect which groweth from it.  Our souls and bodies quickened to eternal life are effects the cause whereof is the Person of Christ, his body and blood are the true wellspring out of which this life floweth (V.lxvii.5).

  From this it follows that the change that takes place in Eucharist is not in the elements themselves, but rather, in the believer that receives the elements.  "The real presence of Christ's most blessed body and blood is not therefore to be sought for in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament" (V.lxvii.6)...

  Hooker cannot believe that the sacraments are bare memorials, or merely remembrances of Christ.  Hooker believed the sacraments actually conveyed effects whose cause was the risen Christ.

    For we take not baptism nor the eucharist for bare  resemblances or memorials of things absent, neither for naked signs and testimonies assuring us of grace received before, but (as they are indeed and in verity) for means effectual whereby God when we take the sacraments delivereth into our hands that grace available unto eternal life, which grace the sacraments represent or signify (V.lvii.5).

  Having rejected aspects of the Roman, Reformed, and Lutheran views, Hooker then observes that all parties agree on certain fundamental realities.  They agree on what God does in the Eucharist, though they disagree on how God does it.  The critical point, for Hooker, is what God does and not so much the how of God's action.

  (Robert Sanders, Richard Hooker on The Holy Eucharist)


Who would Cain be worried about slaying him in Gen 4:14? Up till this point, all that are mentioned are Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel

It is inappropriate to read the Bible and assume that just because something wasn't mentioned, it must not have been.  The Bible asserts that Adam lived about 900 years.  A LOT happened during those 900 or so years, and yet we have a whopping two chapters in Genesis that deal specifically with Adam.  But, let's look at what facts we have.

  Gen 4:14 (KJV) Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

The emphasized phrase doesn't make a lot of sense if "every one" referred only to Adam and Eve, who would appear (since no one else was listed) to be the only other people on the planet.  This is proven true a few verses later:

  Gen 4:17 (KJV) And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived....

So, there was at least one other person in the land: Cain's wife, presumably a daughter of Adam and Eve.  However, even that's an assumption because no information is given about birth rates, gestation time, or anything else about humanity at a time when they lived much, much longer than we do today.  We don't even know how much time passed between the expulsion from the Garden and the conception of Cain.  It could have been minutes, but it also could have been decades with a great number of people being born during that time.

Indeed, the only fact we do know is that 130 years passed until the birth of Seth (Gen 5:3).  Presumably Cain and Able were adults when the murder happened (not necessarily, there are so many assumptions here!), and if so, then Cain was born sometime between year 1 and year 100 (starting from the Expulsion).  In either case, that's a lot of time to bear other children (and we have at least one: Cain's wife).

So, be wary about assuming that just because a useful piece of information wasn't presented (like a complete family tree for Adam), that it doesn't exist.  Cain had a legitimate fear, which suggests there were enough people that he couldn't easily disappear in his travels.


What Bible passages do Jehovah’s Witnesses use to support their view on free will?

Anytime you want an official position of Jehovah's  Witnesses on a particular topic  use Google search  of your key words and add jw.org . I typed free will jw.org and numerous hits came up  that link you directly to Jehovah's Witnesses  official website.
The first one I think is a good fit to your question and I have included it below:

  What Does the Bible Say About Free Will? Is God in Control?

  God dignifies us with free will, the power to make decisions of our own rather than having God or fate predetermine what we do. Consider what the Bible teaches.

  God created humans in his image. (Genesis 1:26) Unlike animals, which act mainly on instinct, we resemble our Creator in our capacity to display such qualities as love and justice. And like our Creator, we have free will.
  To a great extent, we can determine our future. The Bible encourages us to “choose life . . . by listening to [God’s] voice,” that is, by choosing to obey his commands. (Deuteronomy 30:19, 20) This offer would be meaningless, even cruel, if we lacked free will. Instead of forcing us to do what he says, God warmly appeals to us: “O if only you would actually pay attention to my commandments! Then your peace would become just like a river.”—Isaiah 48:18.
  Our success or failure is not determined by fate. If we want to succeed at an endeavor, we must work hard. “All that your hand finds to do,” says the Bible, “do with your very power.”(Ecclesiastes 9:10) It also says: “The plans of the diligent one surely make for advantage.”—Proverbs 21:5.
  Free will is a precious gift from God, for it lets us love him with our “whole heart”—because we want to.—Matthew 22:37.

  Doesn’t God control all things?
  The Bible does teach that God is Almighty, that his power is not limited by anyone other than himself. (Job 37:23; Isaiah 40:26) However, he does not use his power to control everything. For example, the Bible says that God was “exercising self-control” toward ancient Babylon, an enemy of his people. (Isaiah 42:14) Similarly, for now, he chooses to tolerate those who misuse their free will to harm others. But God will not do so indefinitely.—Psalm 37:10. - JW .Org.

There are of course many more pages available on the subject if you wish to learn more about what Jehovah's Witnesses teach about free will vs predestination.


Making a vow and defaulting - is there forgiveness?

Short answer: yes, He can forgive if we make a vow and fall short. I'd specify that this is from [insert denomination] perspective, but I think this is agreed upon by all mainstream denominations.

Longer answer, with support:

Yes. Even to those that believe you can "lose your salvation", you can repent and confess it. To those that don't believe you can lose your salvation, the "yes" is even more obvious. We believe that He has forgiven all our sins, past, present, and future.

The central message of Christianity is that the reason we need  savior in the first place is that we fall short and cannot save ourselves. We can't possibly be "good enough".

Finally, 1 John teaches that we all sin. If we try to claim otherwise, we're liars, and that instead if trying to claim we have no sin, we should just confess it, and know that He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.

  1 John (KJV)

  5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare
  unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we
  say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie,
  and do not the truth: 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the
  light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus
  Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no
  sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess
  our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to
  cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10If we say that we have not
  sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

However, I'm with you on refusing to make vows to God. Scripture says it's better not to as well.

  Ecclesiastes 5:4-5 (KJV)

  4 When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no
  pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed. 5 Better is it that
  thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.

And, in general, we are to keep our word, so of it is in our power to fulfill our vow, we should. There in nothing in Scripture that relieves us of our responsibility to pay what we owe, if it is within our ability to do so. I'd question whether "repentance" is genuine if the person in question failed to do whatever it takes to try to make it right.


How does the Bible teach us to direct our prayers?

In Scripture we read in the Lord's Prayer that we should pray in this manner, "Our Father which art in heaven..." (Matthew 6:9) and in John 16 that we should pray in Jesus' name. We can also mention 1st Peter 1:17 in this context, "And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:" which assumes that prayer is offered to the Father. There is nothing else taught on this subject. However, both Stephen and John do make a short exclamatory sort of prayer to Jesus after seeing a vision of Jesus, namely in Acts 7:59 "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." and Revelation 22:20 "Even so, come, Lord Jesus." There are no prayers addressed to the Holy Ghost in scripture that I can see (correct me in the comments if you know of one).

  What is an overview of the practices of Christian denominations regarding the proper direction of prayer?

I don't think the difference in practice today breaks down by denomination so much as the different views on the Trinity.

In the church of Christ we pray only to the Father in Jesus' name (although I've heard some in public prayer throw in a "Jesus we love you"). But we aren't credal, so we don't accept or enforce any creed like the Athanasian Creed. We go by that motto "no creed but the Bible."  As a result there are different views on the Trinity held among us, but in the mainstream I'd say nobody is an Athanasian Trinitarian but only Subordinationist Trinitarians.  That is, rather than holding the Father and Son to be "coequal" (as in the Athanasian Creed) or that "in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another" (again, the Athanasian Creed) we acknowledge that the Father is greater than the Son and higher in order or hierarchy, as we read in 1st Corinthians 11:3 "the head of Christ is God," and as Christ says in John 14:28 "My Father is greater than I." Paul also says "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father" in 1 Corinthians 15:24, which shows a sort of hierarchical relationship between the Father and Son.  This is one obvious reason why the practice of praying to Jesus or the Holy Spirit has not gained much currency.

Strict Athanasian Trinitarians, however, who hold to that creed, because they believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be "coequal" and that there is no hierarchy in the Trinity, will have a much higher tendency to pray to each Person of the Trinity independently, especially since the creed says "we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord".  If you hold to that, you are likely to end up considering it unfair to pray to only one Person of the Trinity, and thus would pray to all three.

Now Oneness Pentecostals, being modalists (that is, believing that God is only one Person, namely Jesus Christ, and that he goes by the names of Father and Holy Ghost sometimes) will not see praying to Jesus or the Holy Ghost as at all different from praying to the Father, since in their mind, all three are one and the same person.


What is an overview of the schools of thought regarding the soteriological status of alien life forms?

The question is purely hypothetical, and would seem to fall under Paul's admonition in 1 Timothy 1:4 to avoid "...attention to fables..., which cause debates rather than godly edifying, which is in faith."

As of now--April 12, 2020--there is no evidence of life anywhere else in the universe.

There is an abundance of astro-biologists and other scientists that insist there "must be" extra-terrestrial life; however, I think intellectual honesty would conclude such a claim is a matter of faith.
Establishing whether there is alien life will be more difficult than examining whether they can be saved and go to heaven.

If such life exists; and, if that life is intelligent enough to comprehend the Gospel; and, if we can communicate back and forth with that life within a reasonable amount of time; then, your question will take on greater urgency and significance.


Who are the "extreme Anabaptists" who believed that regeneration makes people incapable of sin?

The belief you're interested in is Christian perfectionism. Perfectionism was held by a number of people during the Reformation era, and was especially widespread in the low countries. Advocates included Anabaptist Melchior Hoffman, the Reformed Sebastian Castellio, and the nondenominational Dirck Coornhert (Van Veen, 2004).

However, it's also worth considering the context for Calvinist claims of Anabaptist perfectionism. That name has been used as a derogatory epithet from the Reformation until the present.

  John Calvin's own frustrations with the Anabaptists
  had to do with the fact that the Anabaptists "out-Calvinisted" the
  Reformed community on at least two important points. The first was
  church discipline. The Calvinists were very critical of Catholics and
  Lutherans for their lack of attention to the role of discipline in the
  Christian community. The Anabaptists, however, took discipline even
  further than the Calvinists, insisting on very tight patterns of
  communal control. The Calvinists, obviously stung by this criticism,
  responded by labeling the Anabaptists as "perfectionist."

  -Mouw, R. J.
  (2000). Reflections on my encounter with the Anabaptist-Mennonite
  tradition. Mennonite Quarterly Review, 74(4), 571-577. summarizing Balke, 1981

As Mouw describes, Anabaptists can be understood as the extreme perfectionist end of a spectrum in terms of expectations for regeneration and personal transformation, so Berkhof may well be thinking of that spectrum without having any particular writer in mind.

While in this post I'm accepting that the label of perfectionism can be objectively applied to some writers, Perfectionism is usually a label applied by others while rejected by those to which it is applied (Augsburger, 1981).

  Often those Christians and groups of Christians who have honestly and
  earnestly sought to live a life of high dedication, obedience, and
  holiness have not only been misunderstood but also frivolously
  condemned as hypocrites or self-righteous. The attempt to strive
  toward perfection ("Be ye therefore perfect even as your heavenly
  Father is perfect") has often been erroneously labeled perfectionism.
  The Anabaptists and Mennonites have suffered under this charge from
  the beginning.

  -Harold S. Bender, Perfectionism, in Mennonite Encyclopedia.

To be thorough, you'll also want to look into early Christian debates about post-baptismal forgiveness of sins in early Christianity. Tertullian, was highly regarded among early Anabaptists, and they were surely influenced by his position.

For mainstream early Anabaptist authors perspectives on regeneration and quotes that could easily be interpreted as perfectionist, see especially Augsburger, 1981.

Further reading on early Anabaptist perfectionism

Augsburger, M. S. (1981). Concern for Holiness
in the Mennonite Tradition. The Asbury Journal, 36(4), 28-44. doi:10.7252/Journal.01.1981W.03
Balke, W. (1981). Calvin and the
Anabaptist radicals. Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans.
Hughes, R. T. (1986). Christian Primitivism as Perfectionism: From
Anabaptists to Pentecostals. In S. M. Burgess (Ed.). Reaching Beyond: Chapters in the History
of Perfectionism. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, p. 213-255.
Van Veen, M. G.
(2004). "No One Born of God Commits Sin": Coornhert's Perfectionism.
Dutch Review of Church History, 84, 338-357.


Biblical basis for non-practice of Kiss of Peace

I have actually seen some Protestant churches like Assembly of God practicing this Holy Kiss but not very often. It depends on the pastor of the church. There is no rule for practicing Holy Kiss in many Protestant churches whether it should be practiced or not. Some encourage it, some ignore it. An example of encouraging Greeting of any form in Assembly of God.

  Greeting is often regulated by cultural acceptance and practices.
  Today, we embrace/hug, shake hands, pat backs or give high fives.
  There are not too many practices, even a kiss on the forehead or
  cheek, that are frowned upon as long as they reflect a genuine and
  godly spirit.  Don’t miss out on opportunities to express your
  appreciation, thankfulness and love for others. (source)

Greeting each other by kissing is a Jewish custom. They kiss the cheek or mostly on forehead, depends on your relationship with the person but never on the mouth and not between opposite sex. (More information on Jewish Greeting)

In the New Testament also, we see an example of Jewish greeting by kissing, the famous kiss of betrayal called Kiss of Judas.

  While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was
  called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus
  to kiss him, but Jesus asked him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of
  Man with a kiss?”  (Luke 22:47-48, NIV)

Holy Kiss was indeed encouraged by the Apostles, who happened to be Jews, but it is not clear whether this Jewish custom should be continued by Christians or not. The most important message the Apostles left us is that Christians should love each other and greet whenever we meet.

  Whether or not the holy kiss should be a tradition we carry on today
  is not clear in Scripture. Whether or not our salutations to our
  brothers and sisters in Christ include the holy kiss, the important
  thing is that our greetings spring from real love and friendship, be
  characterized by sincerity, and represent true Christian fellowship.
  (source)


Did Martin Luther express his views on suicide?

It appears that Luther did in fact say something to that effect. In one of his Table Talks, Luther is recorded as saying:

  I don’t share the opinion that suicides are certainly to be damned.  My reason is that they do not wish to kill themselves but are overcome by the power of the devil. They are like a man who is murdered in the woods by a robber. However, this ought not be taught to the common people, lest Satan be given an opportunity to cause slaughter, and I recommend that the popular custom be strictly adhered to according to which it [the suicide’s corpse] is not carried over the threshold, etc. Such persons do not die by free choice or by law, but our Lord God will dispatch them as he executes a person through a robber. Magistrates should treat them quite strictly, although it is not plain that their souls are damned. However, they are examples by which our Lord God wishes to show that the devil is powerful and also that we should be diligent in prayer. But for these examples, we would not fear God. Hence he must teach us in this way.

I'm not sure what he means by "magistrates should treat them quite strictly", but there may have been legal consequences for the family of the suicide.

This is the only appearance of any discussion of suicide I can find, several years after Luther left the Catholic Church. I don't see any evidence that he made the sorts of statements while he was a monk.