You really have to define "chosen" here. The Jewish people were "chosen" by God to reveal His Law to, an to have the Tanakh-primised Christ come out of. But as of the time Christ came, the "chosen" are those who have believed that Jesus is the promised Messiah and who have kept His commandments (it's a different topic as to what these are and what defines the keeping):

  "Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he
  gave the right to become children of God" (John 1:12), "'Abraham is
  our father,' they answered. 'If you were Abraham's children,' said
  Jesus, 'then you would do what Abraham did" (John 8:39).

Jesus Christ said that those who keep the Law, besides His commandments, and teaches others so (at least the parts of the Law that were not directly abolished by the New Testament like having to sacrifice animals for atonement from sins - Christ became the ultimate sacrifice once and for all time, see Hebrews 10:12), would be called the greatest in heaven, while those who don't and teach others so, would be called the least in Heaven:

  "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the
  smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means
  disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore
  anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches
  others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but
  whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in
  the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:18-19).

The reason many Jewish people are blinded as to the coming of Christ is because it is written in the prophets that it would eventually be so, see Isaiah 53:3:

  "He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and
  familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was
  despised, and we held him in low esteem".


Does the Pope Francis' moto proprio Spiritus Domini mean that pastors cannot limit servers to only boys?

Does the Pope Francis' Motu Proprio Spiritus Domini mean that pastors cannot limit servers to only young men?
Yes
That seems to be the gist of the document, but episcopal conferences will make their own legislative decisions on this matter.
This question concerns the Ordinary Form of the Mass only. If Pope Francis removed the word "vir" (man) from the code of canon law, them it means women can be acolytes and lectors. We can all see where this is going....
Girls have been allowed to be servers at the altar for a number of years already.
Pope Francis’ document, I believe elevates the possibility of women becoming officially instituted as acolytes and/or as instituted lectors by the local ordinaries (bishop). It is unclear if his intention is for permanent offices or simply on a yearly bases. Whether it is for one parish or the entire diocese.
Up until the 1990s girls did not serve at Mass. They have never been permitted in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. The Extraordinary Form of the Mass has retained it traditional norms governing the sacraments. Female servers are not permitted.

The Holy See provided two clarifications in the 1990s. On 30 June 1992, the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts issued an authentic interpretation of that canon declaring that service at the altar is one of the "other functions" open to lay persons in general.[16] On 15 March 1994, the Congregation for Divine Worship affirmed that both men and women may serve at the altar, that each bishop has the discretion to determine who may serve, and that "it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar".
On 10 January 2021, Pope Francis ordered a modification to canon law and related norms to state explicitly that all baptized persons can be admitted to the instituted ministries of lector and acolyte. Where women and girls already had the ability to exercise these functions "by temporary designation", he indicated their eligibility for these roles "on a stable basis". - Female altar servers

Seminarians are generally instituted lectors and then acolytes for about a year as a steppingstone towards priestly ordination! Doubt this will change.

Accepting these recommendations, a doctrinal development has taken place in recent years which has highlighted how certain ministries instituted by the Church are based on the common condition of being baptised and the regal priesthood received in the Sacrament of Baptism; they are essentially distinct from the ordained ministry received in the Sacrament of Orders. A consolidated practice in the Latin Church has also confirmed, in fact, that these lay ministries, since they are based on the Sacrament of Baptism, may be entrusted to all suitable faithful, whether male or female, in accordance with what is already implicitly provided for by Canon 230 § 2.
Consequently, after having heard the opinion of the competent Dicasteries, I have decided to modify canon 230 § 1 of the Code of Canon Law. I therefore decree that canon 230 § 1 of the Code of Canon Law shall in future have the following wording:
“Lay persons of suitable age and with the gifts determined by decree of the Episcopal Conference may be permanently assigned, by means of the established liturgical rite, to the ministries of lectors and acolytes; however, the conferment of such a role does not entitle them to support or remuneration from the Church”. - APOSTOLIC LETTER ISSUED "MOTU PROPRIO" SPIRITUS DOMINI ((10 January 2021)

Generally speaking MC’s are priests, when the bishop is present at the cathedral! For the rest anyone’s guess is good.
The Master of Ceremonies is not necessarily a lector or an acolyte. They are distinct roles.
The Master of Ceremonies in parishes is technically not a Master of Ceremonies. They are called such in general terms, but in actuality they are not. In general, the MC may correct any person involved in the execution of a liturgical rite, including the celebrant himself. This is not done at the parish level by a so called MC.

Master of ceremonies
Definition
A male cleric who supervises and directs the proceedings in any formal observance of a religious rite. He has complete authority within the limits of his office, especially guiding the actions of the celebrant and his assistants according to the rubrics of the Sacred Liturgy. In general the person who directs the proceedings of any observance where specific procedure is required.

What is an instituted acolyte?

Acolyte
Definition
A ministry to which a person is specially appointed by the Church to assist the deacon and to minister to the priest. His duty is to attend to the service of the altar and to assist as needed in the celebration of the Mass. He may also distribute Holy Communion as an auxiliary minister at the Eucharistic liturgy and to the sick. An acolyte may be entrusted with publicly exposing the Blessed Sacrament for adoration but not with giving benediction. He may also, to the extent needed, take care of instructing other faithful who by appointment assist the priest or deacon by carrying the missal, cross, candles, and similar functions. The ministry of acolyte is reserved to men and conferred by the bishop of the diocese or, in clerical institutes of religious, by the major superior, according to liturgical rites composed for the purpose by the Church. Women may be delegated to perform some of the functions of an acolyte.

What is an instituted Lector?

Lector
Definition
One of the ministries adapted to present day needs in the Latin Church, otherwise known as reader. He functions partially as the subdeacon did previously. He is appointed to read the word of God in the liturgical assembly. Accordingly he reads the lesson from Sacred Scripture, except the Gospel, in the Mass and in other sacred celebrations; recites the psalms between the readings in absence of the psalmist; presents the intentions for general intercessions when the deacon or cantor is absent; and may also direct the congregation in the singing. If necessary he also assumes the responsibility of instructing any of the faithful called upon to read the Scriptures in any liturgical celebration.


In Catholic understanding, did Paul speak/write ex cathedra while Peter was serving as Pope?

Ex cathedra means from the chair literally. It refers to the power of the reigning Pope to speak infallibly on doctrinal or moral issues. And although, in my understanding, the power of speaking "from the chair" in general is not a concept necessarily new to Catholicism (think of any leader speaking officially from their official seat), in Catholicism it refers specifically to the Pope's authority to make infallible proclamations.

Regarding the letters of Paul, John, and James, we believe that they're inspired writings. But, they're authoritative, per se -- at least not in the same manner of the authority granted by speaking ex cathedra. They're authoritative, if at all, in an unordinary manner. That is, their authority doesn't flow from a natural seat of authority, but from a supernatural infusion of God's grace. I think it's also accurate to say that their authority within the Church flowed from Peter. Their words were binding on Christians only to the extent than Peter bound them.

The authority of speaking ex cathedra, though infused with grace, is an ordinary authority. That is, it is in the nature of the office of Pope to be able to speak ex cathedra. The ability isn't absent until God inspires the Pope to speak ex cathedra; it's always there, regardless of whether the Pope actually is speaking ex cathedra (which is almost never).


How will Jesus be recognized at the time of "Second Coming"?

Scripturally speaking, Jesus isn't going to return quietly.  Several passages refer to what is going to happen when he returns.

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17:

  For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are
  alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede
  those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from
  heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with
  the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise
  first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together
  with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will
  always be with the Lord.

Matthew 16:17 echoes this (emphasis mine):

  For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of
  his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he
  has done.

1 Thessalonians 1:7-8 also speaks of what will happen when Christ returns:

  ...when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in
  flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on
  those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

Also, Matthew 24:31:

  And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they
  will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to
  the other.

In 1 Corinthians 15:52, when Christ returns, the dead will be raised:

  in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the
  trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we
  shall be changed.

I don't believe it'll be a matter of us believing it's him or not.  In other words, when Christ returns, I think it'll be one of those things where, for the lack of a better phrase, "you'll just know."  His return will be accompanied by angels, dead people coming to life, the sound of a loud trumpet, and he will be coming in on the clouds in glorified form.

In other words, Christ's return will be a big deal.  You won't have to wonder.

Addendum

I had a couple of questions in the comments.  The first one was concerning whether Christ's second return was going to be a secret event as it is portrayed in the movies.  I'm assuming this is referring to, mainly, the popular Left Behind series.  The Left Behind series portrays the end times from a dispensationalist, pre-trib rapture, millennial perspective.  My understanding of the end times is amillennial.  Therefore, I do not believe in a "rapture" that will take the Christians off of the earth, leaving the non-Christians on the earth for seven years to sort it all out.  Though I was raised in that tradition, I found it to be overly complicated, and too recent of a development (John Darby, 1800s) for comfort.

The amillennialist viewpoint would make for a terrible movie.  In a nutshell, it can be summed up by the following: One day, Jesus is going to come back, punish those who rejected him, reward those who are his, and establish his kingdom.  The viewpoint also approaches revelation from a completely different perspective, which, unfortunately, typically requires a significant amount of deprogramming from the dispensational millennial viewpoint, if the student is coming from that perspective, and that level of detail would be outside the scope of this answer.  I'd recommend More Than Conquerors by William Hendrickson.  For an excellent audio resource, I'd recommend Randy Pope's "The Rest of the Story" series, available on podcast.

As for why we should look for the man with the sword, Revelation 19:11-16 details a glorified view of Jesus with a sword coming out of his mouth.  Whether that is literal or not, we can't be sure, but what we can be sure of, is that when Christ comes, he will look like no man we've ever seen, and it will drive everyone to their knees, some in terror because they've rejected Christ, and some in joy because they know they are his.

  Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting
  on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and
  makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many
  diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He
  is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is
  called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine
  linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his
  mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and
  he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of
  the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his
  thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.


Why do Mormons use the term "elder" for their missionaries?

The term "Elder" actually has two (related) meanings among Latter-Day Saints: first, it's an office in the Priesthood, which all worthy male members can attain.  It doesn't imply any leadership, just certain duties, responsibilities, and privileges associated with being an Elder in the Priesthood.  All male missionaries must be found worthy to be ordained an Elder before leaving on their mission.

But not all members who have been ordained an Elder go by the title of "Elder".  That's used for people who are dedicated full-time to the ministry.  As the Latter-Day Saints have a lay clergy, this is a fairly small group.  It obviously includes the missionaries, and General Authorities of the Church (the Apostles and Seventies who preside over the Church as a whole) are also referred to as "Elder [last name]."

As for a missionary's authority in the Church, they have no inherent position of leadership as part of their calling, though missionaries assigned to areas where the Church is still small may find themselves called to serve in the leadership of the local branch while they're there.  But their primary calling is to teach the Gospel, not to administer in the affairs of the Church.


Does a Christian have to believe in Hell?

If you consider the words of Christ as authoritative for describing Christianity, I'd say "Ya." (See Matt. 5:22, 29, 30, 10:28, 18:9, 23:15, 33, etc.)

But of course, you can call yourself a Christian and believe whatever you want.  There don't seem to be any "Christianity police" regulating what people associate with the faith.

Of course, it is also possible to be a Christian and be ignorant of the doctrine of hell, which doesn't necessarily preclude you from being a Christian. (That actually seems to be the norm.)


According to Reformed Theology, are Catholics Christians?

I'm going to attempt to answer this in a way that is truthful, and accurate, but maybe not exactly what you're looking for.

Please be very mindful of where I say "assuming this definition, then..."  On those statements, I am intentionally using that assumption as a logical starting point for assumptions. I am not saying I hold those views, or that I condone or deny them.  I am trying very hard to avoid the mines in this minefield

MacArthur's views are not uncommon. The Catholic Church still teaches doctrines that many Evangelical denominations hold to be un-Scriptural, in error, or even according to some views, outright blasphemy. (Note I didn't say "the Catholic Church teaches wrong things" I said "some denominations teach...)

However, it is one thing to say that the Catholic Church teaches things that are "wrong", and quite another to make a blanket statement that Catholics aren't Christians.

Even if you accept the Reformed/evangelical statement that a Christian is defined as someone who has repented of their sins and put their faith in Christ for salvation, and has this been "born again", you still couldn't make the statement that Catholics are not Christians.

According to reformed theology, salvation is an individual thing. Denomination makes no difference. Again assuming the MacAurthur definition of "Christian", the most you can say is "due to the fact that the Church teaches erroneous statements about what it takes to be saved, it's less likely for a Catholic to be saved."


Unfortunately, the Genesis narrative is pretty sketchy about Adam and Eve after they were cast out of Eden, focusing more on their descendants.  We do know, however, that Cain and Abel both offered sacrifices to God.  It's reasonable to suppose that they were taught to do so by their parents, indicating a general attitude of piety.  Whether or not they actually repented and obtained forgiveness is left unclear.

I do remember reading the Apocrypha one time, and one of the books (I can't find it right now, does anyone have the reference?) contains a list of Old Testament characters and commentary on them, and it refers to Adam as "the greatest of all," alongside the great prophets and patriarchs.  While the Apocrypha is not generally considered canonical or authoritative, it's informative at least...


Was Abraham justified by faith alone or works also?

It's easy for a person to say that they have faith. It's another to prove it. Abraham had faith, and he proved it through his obedience.
As you may be familiar, there are two kinds of faith:

Dead Faith.
Perfect Faith.

Dead faith is defined as faith without works.

James 2:17 & 14

17Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.14What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?(Holy Bible: New King James Version. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982.)

James tells us that such faith cannot save a person. Hence, what a person requires for salvation is true faith or perfect faith.
Perfect faith is defined as faith coupled with works.

James 2:22

22Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?(Holy Bible: New King James Version. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982.)

In such a way, we can determine if a person has faith by their works. Faith and works are both needed. One who believes also works.
However, with the changing of the priest comes the changing of the law.

Luke 16:16

16"The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.(Holy Bible: New King James Version. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982.)

Heb. 7:12

12For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.(Holy Bible: New King James Version. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982.)

In the Christian Era, those who believe are no longer justified by the Law of Moses.

Acts 13:39

39and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.(Holy Bible: New King James Version. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982.)

Rom. 3:28

28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.(Holy Bible: New King James Version. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982.)

What is observed by those who believe is now the Law of Christ.

John 8:31

31Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.(Holy Bible: New King James Version. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982.)

Gal. 6:2

2Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.(Holy Bible: New King James Version. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982.)

This is now the work that must be coupled with faith.

This is the viewpoint of the Church of Christ.


How does dispensationalism reconcile Romans 11?

all Israel will be saved

The phrase above lends itself to several possibilities.

Every descendant of Jacob will eventually end up in heaven.
All those of Israel who were "blinded" will be saved.
Israel is a metaphor for all those of faith who are Abraham's children.
The Israel that will be saved is the faithful remnant that remains at the end of the tribulation.

I favor the remnant view in that I see the time element of the fulfillment of the new covenant.

Rom 11:26-27  And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:   For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Jerimiah 31:33  But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Daniel 9:27  And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Matthew 24:15-16  When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)   Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Revelation 12:14  And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

Rom 9:27  Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:


What is the source of this quote testifying Mary's assumption?

According to Shoemaker's Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption pp. 68-69, it's from the Euthymiac History:

  Perhaps the most famous of these traditions is a brief work known as the Euthymiac History. This legend was interpolated into the second of John of Damascus’ homilies on the Dormition* at an early point in their transmission, where it is identified as a quotation from ‘the third book of the Euthymiac History, chapter 40’. Its inclusion in these, ‘the most celebrated of all the ancient homilies for the feast of the Dormition’, ensured that it was the most widely circulated of the late apostle traditions.150 The Euthymiac History, as quoted in John’s homily, describes an incident that is supposed to have occurred during the events of the council of Chalcedon. While Juvenal[, the Patriarch of Jerusalem,] and the other bishops of Palestine were present for the council, the imperial couple, Pulcheria and Marcian, enquired about the relics of the Virgin Mary, asking that Mary’s remains be sent to the imperial capital, in order to protect it. In response, Juvenal briefly narrates the events of Mary’s Dormition, explaining why there are actually no bodily relics to be had. There is, however, he tells them, another kind of relic that he could send. Three days after Mary’s burial, Juvenal explains, the apostle Thomas finally reached Jerusalem, and, having missed the events of Mary’s Dormition, he requested that the tomb be reopened, so that he might pay his respects (not out of doubt, I might emphasize). When the apostles opened the tomb, they were startled to find no body, but instead only Mary’s funeral robe. Juvenal then concludes by referencing the passage from Ps.-Dionysius’ The Divine Names discussed above, after which the imperial couple requests that Juvenal send them the garment. When Juvenal returns home to Jerusalem, he fulfils their request, and Marcian and Pulcheria enshrined the robe in the church of Blachernae, the Constantinopolitan church that housed this famous relic. It is difficult to date this tradition, and we do not know whether it arose sometime before or after the Islamic conquest. We know only that the legend developed sometime between 550 and 750, making it a potential witness to the earliest development of the Dormition traditions.

*St. John Damascene's homily is referenced in Pope Pius XII's 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption, Munificentissimus Deus, §§21-22.


What problems, if any, do Mormons have with the Apostles' Creed?

Latter-day Saints reject the doctrines of the Trinity as taught by most Christian churches today. These creeds were canonized in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. and do not reflect the thinking or beliefs of the New Testament church.1

That said there isn't too much with the Apostles Creed(in bold) that LDS beliefs differ from.

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

The LDS believe:

Under the direction of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ created the heavens and the earth2

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,

The LDS believe Jesus to be the Only Begotten Son of God and that we, mankind, are all children of God.3

who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.

The LDS believe he went to Spirit Paradise(only some of the dead) to start missionary work to those in Spirit Prison.4

On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,

The biggest point of disagreement. The LDS believe:

After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances. Because of this widespread apostasy, the Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth. This apostasy lasted until Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 and initiated the restoration of the fulness of the gospel.5

the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

1 https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/03/comparing-lds-beliefs-with-first-century-christianity?lang=eng
2 https://www.lds.org/topics/creation?lang=eng
3 https://www.google.com/search?q=lds+child+of+god&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS754US754&oq=lds+child+of+g&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l4.2879j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 and https://www.lds.org/ensign/2010/12/jesus-christ-is-the-only-begotten-son-of-god?lang=eng
4 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/138.12,18-21?lang=eng#p12
5 https://www.lds.org/topics/apostasy?lang=eng


Were John Baptist and Jesus really related?

According to the Bible, Elizabeth (mother of John the Baptist) and Mary (mother of Jesus) were related.  Luke 1:5 says that Zechariah belonged to the priestly division of Abijah and his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron.  Luke 1:36 says that Elizabeth was a relative of Mary.   Here is an extract from an article that explains how this is possible - https://www.gotquestions.org/Mary-lineage.html

An argument sometimes put forward by those who deny the credentials of Christ is that, if Mary was Elizabeth’s “cousin,” then Mary must also have been a Levite. Some translations, such as the KJV, do state that Mary was the “cousin” of Elizabeth (Luke 1:36). However, the English word cousin does not have to imply a close relation, and other versions of the Bible translate the word as “relative” (NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, BSB).

Even if Elizabeth and Mary were close relatives, it was still possible for them to be of different tribes, as women were identified with their father’s tribe, not their mother’s. Elizabeth’s father was a Levite, making her a Levite by birth, but her mother may have been of Judah. Conversely, Mary’s mother may have been a Levite and kin to Elizabeth’s family, while Mary’s father was of Judah. Luke’s genealogy shows that Heli, whom we assume to be Mary’s father, was a direct descendant of Judah, not Levi. In addition, the angel Gabriel affirmed Jesus’ Judean lineage, telling Mary that “he will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David” (Luke 1:32, NLT).  David was of the tribe of Judah.

The Bible does not say if Elizabeth was Mary’s cousin, aunt or other relation.  We do know, however, that Elizabeth was getting on in years when she became pregnant while Mary was a young woman.  Regardless of how Mary and Elizabeth were related, Jesus is a descendant of David and Judah:

Hebrews 7:14: For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah....

Revelation 5:5: And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”


According to Fredrick A. Larson, this so-called 'Star of Bethlehem' is actually the planet Jupiter. He produced a video documentary called (appropriately enough) "The Star of Bethlehem" that can be found on YouTube (link) and his website. In this video documentary, Rick Larson lays out a detailed case for the Star of Bethlehem being Jupiter, which includes the following points:

These "wise men" were almost certainly astrologers.
"In the east" likely meant that the "star" rose in the east, like all stars do.
Jupiter, the King Planet, entered retrograde motion around Regulus, the King Star, crowning it.
Jupiter then coincided with Venus, resulting in the brightest star that had ever been seen.
Jupter entered retrograde motion again and appeared to stop over Bethlehem.

Larson then goes on to point out a great number of other significant astronomical events that occurred throughout Jesus' life, but they are not directly related to the Star of Bethlehem, so I won't talk about them here. The main difficulty with this is the fact that most historians place Herod's death in 4 B.C. whereas Larson's explanation depends on Herod's death being in 1 B.C. Larson does reference recent scholarship that support 1 B.C. as being the year of Herod's death.

The Wikipedia article on the subject has a section about astrological events that might be the Star of Bethlehem, and all of the suggestions in that section include Jupiter. Therefore, it's a safe bet to say that Jupiter is the most likely candidate for being the Star of Bethlehem.


Was the Nicene Creed accepted under duress?

The Nicene Creed is a long-standing tradition in Christianity, and "defines the mainstream definition of Christianity for most Christians".  It has been independently accepted by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran (pdf link), and plenty of Protestant churches.

Joshua Christian seems to have presented a fanciful (or at least misleading) view of the formation of the Nicene Creed.  I could find no other sources that back up his story.  Here is the account of the Creed's creation, as I understand it.

Sometime before 325 AD, around 1800 Christian bishops (every bishop Constantine knew existed) were invited to convene in Nicea.  We have no way of knowing with 100% certainty how many bishops actually showed up, but the traditional number is 318.  Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318; Eustathius of Antioch estimated 270.

Please note, this is only a count of bishops.  Each bishop was allowed (and encouraged) to bring deacons, priests, or other traveling companions.  Only the bishops had voting rights.  Therefore, it is entirely possible that there were 2030 total people in attendance, with only 318 votes cast.  Only 318 votes could be cast, because only that number of people had voting authority.

Addressing Constantine's supposed power over the council: I will concede the point that Constantine wanted a Creed to be developed in order to "forge a 'unified' church".  That seems likely, by the fact that he arranged for the council to meet.  However, I disagree that Constantine cared that this particular Creed pass.  At this time, Constantine was not even Christian (he was baptized 12 years later, in 337 AD)!  It would make sense for him to go along with whatever Creed naturally came about during this council.

As further proof that Constantine's meddling was not the theological backing of the Nicene Creed, there was a Second Ecumenical Council that met in 381 AD (40+ years after Constantine died) and confirmed the Nicene Creed.  It should be noted that the Second Ecumenical Council did not have overlapping members with the First Ecumenical Council, as it was held 56 years later.

Addressing the Arians.  Arianism was, indeed, a major topic for the Council of Nicea.  The debate centered on whether Jesus co-existed eternally with God the Father and the Holy Spirit (a trinitarian view) or whether Jesus was created by God the Father at some point prior to the creation of the universe (a non-trinitarian view).  Arius, a priest in the Alexandrian diocese, claimed that Jesus was "born" and was, therefore, different in essence from God the Father.

Initially, 22 of the 318 bishops came out in support of Arianism.  However, after the writings of Arius were read in the council, and after hearing arguments from many of the other bishops, 19 of the 22 Arians came to believe in a trinitarian view of the Godhead.  Arguments that swayed toward the trinitarian view included John 10:30, where Jesus says "I and the Father are one" and John 1:1, which says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."  Each side of the debate had ample time to make a case: the debate lasted for over two months!

In the end, the majority of the 318 bishops agreed upon the trinitarian view presented in the Nicene Creed.  Arius was exiled, along with Theonas and Secundus, to Illyricum.  None of those three were bishops, so they did not have voting authority in the council.

Three bishops, Theognis of Nicaea, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Maris of Chalcedon, remained believing the Arian view of the Godhead.  They chose to sign the Nicene Creed anyway, out of deference to Constantine.

In the end, all 318 bishops in attendance signed the Nicene Creed.  Out of those, only 3 bishops chose to sign without fully believing the Creed themselves.  There were only three people exiled (and those, only to another province in Rome).

Joshua Christian misses the forest for the trees.  He is correct that there was political and religious pressure.  He far overstates that effect on the Creed as a whole.


How does Ravi Zacharias reconcile prayer with free will?

Ravi Zacharias sort of assumes (but I don't think ever tries to prove) that God is sovereign, and in that sovereignty has decided to give us wills of our own.
To begin the chapter "Does Prayer Make Any Difference?" in Zacharias' book Has Christianity Failed You? Zacharias states that

Christianity does not promise that you will have every question fully answered to your satisfaction before you die, but the answers it gives are consistently consistent. There may be paradoxes within Christian teaching and belief, but they are not irreconcilable.

Though he is speaking from the context of sorrow and unanswered prayer he does touch a bit on how our wills related to God's in prayer:

Through Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane we learn the most important thing about prayer -- that it is ultimately a conversational relationship in which God does for you what you cannot do for yourself. It is not trying to persuade God to rethink his will but the means through which God reshapes you into a person who desires his will and is content to receive it, regardless of what it entails.
This is not fatalism. It is not defeat. It is not confusion. It is not a cop-out. It is sometimes easier to resist God's will than to have faith and confidence in God and in his specific purpose for each one of us.

In The Grand Weaver (excerpt here), he retells a story written by Arnold Fine, of high school sweethearts, separated by a parent, that re-meet in their old age. The story ends with "How good the work of the Lord is", but Zacharias notes that there are three wills in play in addition to God's; "the work of a sovereign God leaves all of us overwhelmed at the way God weaves the threads."
Zacharias makes no attempt to fit the free will vs. determinism argument into a logical framework that makes perfect sense and fits in a shiny box1 -- in whatever way God may work in and through people, he does it in a way that does not override their freedom. In his book Walking from East to West, he says that God works "from the shadows", nudging, pushing, and guiding, rather than forcing and dominating.

1 Like many apologists, Zacharias tends to avoid internal theological debates, preferring to focus on presenting or defending the common beliefs of [a subset of] Christianity.


What kind of worship does God look for, for Salvation?

Here are some scriptures that will help:

1 Corinthians 15:1-2  KJV

  Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

1 Timothy 4:14-16  KJV

  Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.  Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

Ezekiel 33:12-19  KJV

  Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his [righteousness] in the day that he sinneth. When I shall say to the righteous, [that] he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it. Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right;  [If] the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die. None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live. Yet the children of thy people say, The way of the Lord is not equal: but as for them, their way is not equal. When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby. But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby.

This what I use:

John 15:6

  If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast [them] into the fire, and they are burned.

And in order to Abide in Christ I remind myself of what Salvation really is; and how I gained it in the first
place.

1.  By first acknowledging my sin, to that end I remember what Jesus said about that in the Lord's prayer.

   a. Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.

        1. So to start I ask god to forgive anyone who has irked me that day and forgive them in my heart. that
         also makes me sleep better at night.

    2.  Only after I have forgiven them do I ask God to forgive me for what I have done wrong.

    3.  I have to  make a concentrated effort each day to act exactly the way Jesus did.

    a. By that I mean try to love others as Jesus did and that means that I just do not expect them to be or do as
    I think they should but accept them as if had.

    b. It seems to me that to be like Jesus means that I should reject the things which are ungodly and support
    those things which are.

     c. This is the big one, I need to do all I can to exhibit Jesus to the world and People around me, and to
     honor God in all my actions.

As far as just what Scriptures will help you to live a life pleasing to God I can only say all of them, and in order to do that I have to study my Bible every day, and ask the Holy Spirit to give me understanding.

Oh and by the way Jesus said that not even a accent mark of the Scripture would eve pass away, so all of the Old Testament is still in effect only that Jesus fulfilled all of the law.


Are there any surviving hymns from the Valdensian movement?

I contacted the Valdensian Seminary in Rome and got this reply, from Lothar Vogel, professor of Church History:

  Dear Mr. Gunther,

  I thank you very much for your kind request and for your interest in
  Waldensian history.

  I can tell you that there are no sources concerning medieval
  Waldensian hymns or liturgies linked to Eucharistiv celebrations. At
  the latest from 14th century on the liturgical pratise was factually
  limited to confession, and the Waldensians participated at the
  sacramental practice of the "great church" (baptism, eucharist).

The answer is, thus, "no".


Are there other denominations that believe in pre-human existence?

There are no other common Christian denominations that believe in a pre-mortal existence of man.

There are instances of individual Christians with this belief.
Clementine, quoting Peter, said in Clementine Recognitions:

Last of all He made man whose real nature, however, is older and for whose sake all this was created.

Origen of Alexandria (ca. 200 AD) believed in a pre-mortal existance. He used it primarily to explain the disparities of mortal circumstances. Otherwise, according Origen, God would be a respecter of persons to give such varying circumstances of birth.
English poet William Wordsworth wrote in Intimations of Immortality that we forget our previous life when we are born.

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!

And various other Christians have said something similar to "we come from God", though typically this means God put us here, not that we had a pre-life in the presence of God.

FYI, Biblical references besides Jeremiah 1:5 commonly quoted in support of this belief are men rejoicing at the creation of the Earth:

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Job 38:1-7

and the inquery referencing a blind man's own pre-mortal righteousness

And his disciples asked him, saying Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
John 9:2

(Of course, there are alternative interpretations of these verses.)


How have Christians dealt with "I prayed my way to moral behavior"?

Q1: I understand Wesleyan perfectionism to be rather more amiable than often assumed. The theory is not that a Christian shall attain to an utter and persistent inerrancy. It is that a moment of pure faith in God is possible and in that moment, for as long as it lasts, there is nothing in which that Christian is morally at fault: past sins are forgiven or otherwise remitted (e.g. resolved in themselves by that pure faith) and momentarily the faith precludes sin, since "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" and thus sin could only proceed from a faithlessness of which the Christian in that moment is not guilty. There are forms of perfectionism which hold a view closer to the one I think you are viewing, but I don't take Wesleyan perfectionism to be one of them.

Q2: This question is partially nullified by my answer above. Nonetheless, I question the aim and motive of such an attempt at attaining, you might say, "perfection by prayer". That we might excuse ourselves of our sins by the consolation that we can merely pray ourselves into a moral perfection and thus not really need to develop the character to will with God against those sins? I imagine the Jesus we see in the Gospels would take issue with that! Why would God give us a will, and then go to lengths to ensure that we exercise that will and grow into alignment in that will with his own will, if in the end the solution is a momentary disavowal of that will, after which we never have to make any conscious effort to continue willing God's will? It seems like the daydream of one who desires to abdicate the moral responsibility God explicitly created him to have (God is the one who created our wills -- and called them good). So, so far as I believe I have understood God in my life, his project in me is to get me to continue to grow in trust of him (to have utter faith in him), that I might be freed to will according to his will, instead of being constrained by my fears to oppose his will and affect my own salvation or immortality (whether literally or symbolically).

Q3: If I understand the concept of "pray to moral behavior" as you mean it, it seems so foreign to the view of moral development in the Jewish mind and the emphasis on obedience in the words of Jesus in the Gospels that I question whether the theory could even be taken seriously enough by the Biblical authors to be addressed directly. What I would expect to find in Scripture, then, would be an assumed understanding that such a method of moral development (if it could be called that) could not possibly fit the nature of God, nor the evident nature of humanity.

Having said that, I would make clear that I hold prayer to be one of the fundamentals of Christian life and moral development, for several reasons, not the least of which being that it is an exercise in several essential things: 1) thinking of God personally; 2) trusting God personally; 3) prioritizing one's thinking in light of matters of eternal significance; 4) thinking of and empathizing with other people than ourselves (even if only God); 5) seeing ourselves with a measure of objectivity (that is, from God's perspective); 6) seeking security and truth outside ourselves; 7) admitting we don't have all the answers and are not sufficient for ourselves (that is, humility); 8) patience; 9) reflection and self-assessment; 10) listening (depending on the case) to the Spirit, to reason, and/or to the consciences God gave us and which may be trying to win our attention.

Furthermore, I believe prayer affects God in some way. Jesus certainly seemed to believe so, as did his brother. Now, I think the common apprehension here is due to our limitation: we think of God so one-dimensionally, as if God existed according to the precise same relation to time that we do. It is not clear that our past is the same, conceptually, as God's past. It may indeed be a category error to even posit such a thing as 'God's past' or 'God's future'. Herein lies the possibility for God both to be responsive to our prayers and to be 'the same yesterday, today, and forever': God exists, as nearly as we can express in human language, ever-presently. Our past, our present, and our future are all concurrent to God. It may be that God heard your prayer in your 2004 when he was forming the foundations of the world and simultaneously was speaking as the Lamb before John and passing before Moses and watching a sunrise in the autumn in Maine in days before European settlers reached the Americas. So God's actions, taken as a whole, are responsive to his own creation, from his perspective, but from our perspective it is equally true to say that he always intended, say, to ensure that a certain person didn't die in a certain storm in 1997. So it must be said that God always intended it, but it must also be said that he always intended it because he heard our prayers from before the foundation of the world. Thus God is both changeless (he would never have done otherwise than he has done) and open (God may respond especially, to any -- or, as it may be, every -- choice of humanity, and no doubt every honest prayer).

And lest someone claim that this seems to threaten his sovereignty, I would call to their attention that if indeed God chose sovereignly to give the power of volition to his creatures, then it follows as a matter of course that he sovereignly wills that they will (else why conceive of giving us wills?). Thus the idea that we have wills, and that he may honor those wills to any extent of his pleasing (even fully), does not in itself threaten God's sovereignty. He can, if he wants, give us wills, and give our wills space to will, to some extent, and himself respond to those wills actively.


This was a controversy in the early 1800s and provoked William Huntington to write one of the most spiritual books I ever read (outside of scripture) 'The Soul of Christ' wherein he states :

... divinity is not made, nor created ; much less created out of earth (p5)

where Huntington counters the error of a 'divine soul' saying that no such thing exists and that it is a contradiction in terms.

... if Christ hath not a human soul, every scripture which declares him to be man is absolutely false.

God is the 'Father of spirits' (Heb 12:9). His [Christ's] body was made of the woman's substance. his soul was made by God. His flesh was of the virgin, his human spirit of the Almighty.

Huntington further quotes Jesus himself, saying,

Now is my soul troubled [John 12:27 KJV]

My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death ... [Matt 26:38 KJV]

WH also quotes from the prophets and the prophetic psalms :

thou wilt not leave my soul in hell [Psalm 16:10 KJV]

When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin [Isaiah 53:12 KJV]

I recommend the whole of this very short book, twenty-eight pages. But I have no link, as yet to it. If I find one, I will add it, in due course.


Does anyone know where CS Lewis said (or maybe implied) the following...?

I've read several of Lewis's works (Narnia series, Great Divorce, Mere Christianity, pieces of a  few others), and I'm not aware of any of his writings that suggest what that author describes.

Certainly, Lewis had some very interesting views about what life will be like after we die (or after the return of Christ). In The Last Battle, "heaven" is depicted as a place that is ever increasing in meaning and depth - like an onion, which you can peel layer by layer, and each layer is deeper than the previous, except that each new layer is bigger than the one before.

In The Great Divorce, he develops the idea that realness depends on our proximity to God. Thus, people closest to God (ie, in heaven) are most real, but those furthest are the least real (ie, in hell).

But, although those ideas are certainly very imaginative and abstract, I don't think he ever suggested that heaven would be so unlike our current existence that even things like thinking and acting become conflated.

As I understand, Lewis's goal was to portray the idea of eternity as something that is infinitely good, in a broad sense - it is infinitely "real," infinitely large, and has as its infinite climax the enjoyment of God himself. It would take a finite being an eternity to fully explore such a place, and I think that was his point. The idea is that there will always be more to see, more to explore, more to enjoy (thus, the "layers" from The Last Battle). And not only is there always more in the sense of joy, but also in the sense of substance, thus the portrayal of people becoming more "real" in The Great Divorce.

But, I don't think it would accurate to say that Lewis's views meant that one abstract concept (such as language) would some how transform into a concrete concept (like a person), like that quote suggests. Lewis did use abstract concepts in bizarre ways, but not because he was trying to communicate that heaven is a strange place where concepts are in some perpetual state of moving back and forth between abstract and concrete. (Imagine the absurdity of suggesting that a person would be a language, even though the article suggests the converse - language will be a person. And if language is a person, what language would I use to speak with him?)

Lewis was simply trying to use creative examples to make his point: heaven is a place that is so good (in the broadest sense possible) that it will take us finite creatures an eternity to explore (or, in other words, we will never run out of new and better experiences).


If I steal money, what does the forgiveness of Jesus cover?

True repentance involves repairing damages done (where possible). In this case, it would mean returning the money.

  Leviticus 6:2-7 (KJV)

  2 If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour;

  3 Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein:

  4 Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found,

  5 Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering.

  6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest:

  7 And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein.

If you don't return the money then you haven't truly repented.

Notice Numbers 5:7 even suggests you should return more than you take.

  Then they shall confess their sin which they have done: and he shall recompense his trespass with the principal thereof, and add unto it the fifth part thereof, and give it unto him against whom he hath trespassed.

See also Ezekiel 33:15, Luke 19:8.


Why did St. Monica defer St. Augustine's baptism?

Theology of Baptism in the North African Early Church
Although infant baptism was practiced in the early church prior to Augustine (b. AD 354), there seemed to be a movement against infant baptism at least in North Africa which may have started as early as from the period of Tertullian (Carthage, d. AD 220).
The following quote is from a 2000 MA Theological Studies Thesis "Tertullian and the Catechumenate: An Inquiry into Tertullian's Justification for the North African Catechumenate in the Early Third Century" for George Fox Evangelical Seminary by Loren Kerns (I added formatting):

In conclusion, the answer to the thesis question, why did the Christians in third century North Africa believe that it was important for converts to wait, comes in several parts. This paper will seek to demonstrate that from Tertullian's viewpoint, the existence of the catechumenate was justified on the basis of a matrix of theological and pastoral concerns.

First, his theological understanding of baptism as a bilateral covenant between God and humanity, and his view of repentance as necessary in order for baptism to be efficacious, required pre-baptismal preparation.
Second, the implicit pastoral concerns arising out of a desire to ensure genuine repentance prompted Tertullian to counsel deferring baptism.
Third, the post-baptismal commitments implied by his theology of baptism resulted in a desire to postpone baptism for the catechumens until they were ready to live it out.

Finally, the urgent and zealous flavor of his pastoral concerns for the catechumens were deeply shaped by the hostile environment facing North African Christians, bolstering a call to greater commitment.

From the Thesis's conclusion (emphasis mine):

Tertullian's vision for the catechumenate hinged on his emphasis of human responsibility.  Sin was the sole result of human rebellion, and the will was the culprit. Although the Fall had obscured the image of God in humanity, Tertullian contended that it had not destroyed the will's freedom. Adam had chosen to rebel against God in Paradise, and now it was his responsibility to return to God. Thus, repentance, sorrow for sin, fasting, separation from all idolatry, and embracing the Church with its creeds and discipline were necessary to merit the grace of baptism. He knew nothing of the Augustinian ideas of predestination, total depravity and irresistible grace. Grace really depended on human response, and the catechumenate sought to ensure that it happened.

For more on the early church belief of baptism as regenerative sacrament, the logic of postponing baptism (for infant, as well as for adult), and possible connection of the postponement to 1) the Novatian Controversy (who denied penance to mortal sinners) and/or 2) the severity of penance for post-baptismal mortal sinners, see the blog article Does Tertullian Reject Infant Baptism? by
Joe Heschmeyer.
Monica, Augustine's infant catechumen & boyhood illness, Baptism
The following quote is from Augnet's page on Augustine's childhood:

Infant Baptism
Monica instructed Augustine in the Christian religion and taught him how to pray. As a child, blessed salt was placed on his tongue. He thus formally became a catechumen, i.e., he was enrolled in the process of baptismal preparation. Once while still of school age, he became dangerously ill. He desired baptism and his mother prepared everything for the ceremony. Then suddenly he grew better, and his baptism was put off.
His baptism was deferred lest he should stain his baptismal innocence by falling into sin before reaching maturity (which is exactly what happened). This was an example of the practice of that era to defer baptism for fear that the recipient would fall into sin before coming fully to realise the great importance of the Sacrament. As a bishop in his later years, Augustine denounced this custom of deferring Baptism as being very ill advised. He preached strongly against it.

A Wycliffe College course notes page "Augustine's Life: An Outline" has this about when Monica almost had Augustine baptized when he became gravely ill as a boy (emphasis mine):

Although Monica, his mother, had tried to raise Augustine to be a Christian, enrolling him as a catechumen as a child, Augustine himself did not seem to have any natural interest or inclination in that direction. As a boy, he became gravely ill, whereupon his mother arranged for him to be baptized. When he recovered, though, his baptism was put off. Baptism was a rite popularly believed best administered at the point of death so that one might not thereafter fall from the state of grace into which he/she was baptized. For this reason, namely Monica's concern that Augustine's sins would be more grievous after his baptism than without it, the act went undone. ...

Conclusion
If Tertullian's theology of baptism and/or the severity of penance for post-baptismal mortal sin continued to Monica's day in the North African Early Church, it's not surprising that:

Monica didn't baptize Augustine when he was a baby (AD 354) but she was determined to raise Augustine in the faith as though he was already a catechumen (from your quote: "In his infancy she had ranked him among the catechumens").
When the 7 year old Augustine became gravely ill it made sense to prepare baptism as part of the last rite, but because the North African church apparently believed baptism should better follow a rigorous and mature faith, this preparation was undone after Augustine recovered from the illness.

Another possible explanation that is sometimes mentioned was that Patricius, Augustine's pagan father, forbid it.  As for why St. Monica married a pagan, it was an arranged marriage and if she was married around AD 350 we should remember that it was mere decades from the Edict of Milan (AD 313) before which Christianity was still illegal and had just endured one of the worst persecutions that ran for about 10 years thus limiting the supply of eligible bachelors, which possibly made the church more relaxed in allowing mixed marriages.  Regardless, St. Monica's piety was demonstrated by her endurance to practice her faith and her solicitude (and later success) for the conversion of both her son and her husband.


Can God replace his covenent with Abraham?

We know that Paul refers to this passage in a spiritual type as circumcising the heart.

Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Paul has not created a new understanding of circumcision of the heart, but is following the same idea presented in centuries before from the Old Testament.

Deut 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.
Deut 17:11 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.
Jer 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart,

Thus "covenant of circumcision" is not understood as of the foreskin, but of the heart.  And at the same time, it remains an eternal covenant, as found in the seed Jesus Christ.

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Of course, not all understood the spiritual and the seed, rather than the physical.

Acts 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

This misunderstanding eventually led to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15).
So, the covenant of circumcision understood as referring to Jesus Christ and of the heart is an eternal covenant.


If the second person of the triune god bears witness of himself, why is it not true?

First, lets look at the setting of the entire passage. Jesus was talking to Jewish leaders, and they were accusing him for his claims of equality with God (John 5: 17- 23). This verse has to be looked in a historical and cultural context. In the Jewish law, the testimony of a witness is not received in his own case, so these leaders would render his claim, although true, to be null in court. So Jesus is adhering to their principles: you needed to have other witnesses (Deut. 19:15). Even Jesus advocates for this in Matthew 18:16.
However, its obviously true because there are other witnesses. He has the Father (John 5: 32) (John 5: 37), the witness of his cousin John the Baptist (John 5:33), the witness of his own works (John 5:36) and of the Scriptures and Moses (John 5: 39, John 5:45).

Edited on permission: It has far more to do with His audience than His nature. He goes on in the following verses to illustrate how He has satisfied the Jewish legal requirements of witnesses. Take note as well that ascribing actions to one of Christ's natures or the other can quickly evolve into Nestorianism. If that is your position, that's fine. But you should be aware that it is not consistent with the vast majority of historic Christianity. - @brandimus (local source)

My answer is heavily influenced by "The Robertson's Word Pictures of The New Testament and a user to this site by the name of @brandimus. Another analytic source you can use is "John Gill's Exposition of The Whole Bible, in which you can read more in depth on why Christ said this.

https://www.studylight.org/commentary/john/5-31.html


How is Gods judgement of man fair when he judges them without considering their deeds?

Comparing the representative democracy of America with the kingdom of God is an unparalleled category error.  The entire reason American jurisprudence holds a person innocent until proven guilty is because we assume that we are not privy, at the outset, to all of the pertinent facts.  You may accept this or not but the Scripture declares that God knows the end from the beginning.  God is not awaiting the disclosure of temporal evidence in order to render righteous judgement.

Regarding the specific passages that OP has pointed to, there's a lot going on here that needs to be weighed into the discussion.  Primarily, the entire context of chapters 9-11 of Romans has to do with God's sovereign choice of a nation; an entire people group, therefore it is somewhat out of context to reduce what is being said merely to God's judgement of an individual.

  I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. - Romans 9:1-5

Even though individual names are mentioned in the passage it is very common for names to represent entire nations.  Israel, in fact, is what Jacob's name was changed to and the Scriptures are replete with examples of the entire nation being referred to by both names.  The same is true of Esau.  The exact passage from Genesis that Paul refers to in this text is very clear that this is exactly what is going on:

  And the LORD said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger.” - Genesis 25:23

It is critical, then, to keep a tight grip on this context as one investigates what Paul is saying.  It is clear in Scripture that God did not select Israel to be His chosen people because of any intrinsic quality that they had.

  It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.  - Deuteronomy 7:7

In fact, it is also clear in Scripture that God's mercy is continually extended towards His people despite their behavior

  “For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed. From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from my statutes and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you, says the LORD of hosts. - Malachi 3:6-7

Secondly, it is noteworthy that the passages quoted by the OP have much to do with sovereign choice and mercy.  There is no mention of judgement in the strictest sense.  What we see is Paul asking a rhetorical question about whether it is unjust of God to sovereignly dispense mercy and compassion.  The implication that the flip side (judgement or condemnation) are also in view is not faulty because mercy is always, only given where condemnation is due; mercy is undeserved.  Paul's point is that, where perfect justice is represented (remember that Paul has already demonstrated that the whole world is guilty before God), it is not unjust for God to show mercy wherever He will.  However, it is faulty to assume that God's withholding of mercy is unfair or unfounded.  Mercy deserved is no mercy at all, it is payment.

This is why Paul brings Pharaoh into the conversation.  Pharaoh is named as the representative head of Egypt, which nation was raised up by God in order to rescue His people from famine and strengthen them in number and to enslave that same people so that God could demonstrate His power and favor toward Israel in delivering them in miraculous fashion from the power of Pharaoh (Egypt).  God hardened Pharaoh's heart and Pharaoh also hardened his own heart but the salient point is that Pharaoh and indeed all of Egypt were wicked and idolatrous.  To suppose that God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart, as regarding the release of the enslaved Israelites, was unjust is to completely disregard the baseline condition of enmity towards God which characterized Pharaoh's heart to begin with.

Finally, assuming that a finite, created being can ever comprehend justice on a Divine, omniscient scale and thus rightly use that scale to accurately measure the infinite Creator is the highest hubris.  A dog can put it's head out the window and enjoy a car ride but it will never understand the internal combustion engine nor critique it's design or operation.

  But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? - Romans 9:20-21

Two different vessels made of the same lump of clay.  The vessels have different uses as the Potter sees fit but the formative lump is the same ruined, sinful clay.  The giving or withholding of mercy has nothing to do with justice.


How do trinitarians interpret John 8:58?

Trinitarians do not teach that God the Son existed eternally in two natures, but that in the incarnation the divine nature assumed a human nature, and that these two cannot now be separated. This is clear in the Chalcedonian Definition, which distinguishes between the Godhead ("before the ages") and the Manhood ("the last days"):

  before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood

That the Son of God assumed (and did not have from eternity past) human nature is also clear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  Taking up St. John's expression, "The Word became flesh", The Church calls "Incarnation" the fact that the Son of God assumed a human nature in order to accomplish our salvation in it. (§461)

Similar points are made in Protestant catechisms, like the Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q22.

Turning now to treatments of John 8:58 in particular, we see Methodist Adam Clarke approvingly quoting Calmet (a Catholic), saying:

  The following is a literal translation of Calmet's note on this passage: "I am from all eternity. I have existed before all ages. You consider in me only the person who speaks to you, and who has appeared to you within a particular time. But besides this human nature, which ye think ye know, there is in me a Divine and eternal nature. Both, united, subsist together in my person. Abraham knew how to distinguish them. He adored me as his God; and desired me as his Savior. He has seen me in my eternity, and he predicted my coming into the world." (source)

Similarly, Albert Barnes (Reformed) explains how John 8:58 should be understood to teach that only Christ's divine nature pre-existed the incarnation:

  The objection of the Jews was that he was not 50 years old, and could not, therefore, have seen Abraham. Jesus replied to that that he existed before Abraham. As in his human nature he was not yet 50 years old, and could not, as a man, have existed before Abraham, this declaration must be referred to another nature; and the passage proves that, while he was a man, he was also endowed with another nature existing before Abraham, and to which he applied the term (familiar to the Jews as expressive of the existence of God) I AM; and this declaration corresponds to the affirmation of John (John 1:1), that he was in the beginning with God, and was God. (source)


How, as a spiritual person do you differentiate your Intuition from Holy Spirit's guidance?

Our thoughts can easily deceive us even to think what we believe is the will of God or the speaking of the Holy Spirit.

  2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
  12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Until we come to a full knowledge and unity in the faith of Christ, we are apt to be deceived.

  Ephesians 4:12-14 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
  13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
  14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

If we hold onto our idols, whatever it be whether the authority of scribes, false teachers, or our own sinful desires, God will answer us according to our folly.

  Ezekiel 14:3-6 Son of man, these men have set up their idols in their heart, and put the stumblingblock of their iniquity before their face: should I be enquired of at all by them?
  4 Therefore speak unto them, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Every man of the house of Israel that setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to the prophet; I the Lord will answer him that cometh according to the multitude of his idols;
  5 That I may take the house of Israel in their own heart, because they are all estranged from me through their idols.
  6 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God; Repent, and turn yourselves from your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations.

John's letters are written as an assurance for those people who think and act according to the Holy Spirit, telling us what it is to be a perfect man of God.

Excerpts:

  1 John 2:3-5 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
  4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
  5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

  1 John 2:9 He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.

  1 John 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

  1 John 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
  27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Until then, let us take consolation in the counsel of James:

  James 1:2-4 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;
  3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
  4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.


Is it hypocritical for Paul to circumcise Timothy in Act 16:3?

The answer is perhaps best given in 1 Corinthians 9:20-23 (emphasis added):

  To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

Paul understood, as did Peter (See Acts 10 and Cornelius), that they were no longer bound by the Jewish law. Peter saw that he should no longer call unclean what God considered clean. This specifically included pork and unclean animals.

So, before God, Timothy did not need to be circumcised. However, if your target audience involves Jews, to whom the "uncircumcised" were deplorable, then it is appropriate to be circumcised for the sake of the hearers. Paul said that he became as Jew to win the Jews.  He became weak to win the weak, etc.

Hudson Taylor followed this example as a missionary in China as he donned the clothing and hair style of the Chinese, thereby identifying with them culturally.

So, again, it is appropriate to not offend those with whom you wish to share the gospel, so that what is unimportant does not become an unnecessary stumbling block to your hearers.


In the Catholic Church, can archbishops excommunicate people?

About this, Wikipedia states:

Excommunication is either a jure (by law) or ab homine (by judicial act of man, i.e. by a judge). The first is provided by the law itself, which declares that whosoever shall have been guilty of a definite crime will incur the penalty of excommunication. The second is inflicted by an ecclesiastical prelate, either when he issues a serious order under pain of excommunication or imposes this penalty by judicial sentence and after a trial.
Excommunication is an act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the rules of which it follows. Hence the general principle: whoever has proper jurisdiction can excommunicate, but only his own subjects. Therefore, whether excommunications be a jure (by the law) or ab homine (under form of sentence or precept), they may come from the pope, from the bishop for his diocese; and from regular prelates for religious orders. But a parish priest cannot inflict this penalty. The subjects of these various authorities are those who come under their jurisdiction chiefly on account of domicile or quasi-domicile in their territory; then by reason of the offense committed while on such territory; and finally by reason of personal right, as in the case of regulars. As to excommunications ab homine, absolution from them is reserved by law to the ordinary who has imposed them.

So, yes, an archbishop can excommunicate. Notice however that they do so under the authority given to them by the Pope. The code of Canon Law, number 1442 states:

The Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge for the entire Catholic world; he renders judicial decisions personally, through the ordinary tribunals of the Apostolic See, or through judges he has delegated.


No
"Omnibenevolence" is a big word and taking you at your word, is God benevolent to all people?  No.

As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. (Romans 9:13; Malachi 1:2-3)

Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; and my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless. (Ex 22:22-24)

If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy... (1 Cor 3:17)

And Jesus ... cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and ... would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple. (Mark 11:15-16)

Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost. (Acts 5:1-11)

When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word.  (Matt 8:16)

There are a great many examples of God acting unkindly toward others.  When he flooded the earth leaving only Noah and his family, it was not an act of ultimate charity or forgiveness.
Some may try to explain that by definition God acts in the best interests of all, that the individual's choices to wickedness leave no room for "better" than what God can judge for them.
But, then God ceases to be God.  He certainly has no need of justification or rationalization from mortals.

For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (Romans 9:15)

But...
Paul makes an important point:

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. (Romans 9:14)

That God does not act with omnibenevolence is truth.  That God always acts with righteousness is also truth.
If this answer doesn't sit well, then I ask for another word than "omnibenevolence" or a more suitable (and more accredited) definition than "unlimited or infinite benevolence."  From Wikipedia we discover:

Omnibenevolence (from Latin omni- meaning "all", bene- meaning "good" and volens meaning "willing") is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "unlimited or infinite benevolence". Some philosophers have argued that it is impossible, or at least improbable, for a deity to exhibit such a property alongside omniscience and omnipotence, as a result of the problem of evil. However, some philosophers, such as Alvin Plantinga, argue the plausibility of co-existence. The word is primarily used as a technical term within academic literature on the philosophy of religion, mainly in context of the problem of evil and theodical responses to such. Although even in said contexts the phrases "perfect goodness" or "moral perfection" are often preferred because of the difficulties in defining what exactly constitutes "infinite benevolence". (emphasis mine)


Not Tithing Is Stealing? (Baptist perspective)

Tithing [or more generally "giving"] is as noted in another reply "encouraged" by most Baptists. It is interesting that in some of the earliest Baptist confessions tithe is not mentioned as an ordinance.  In fact any reference to money in regards to the church is incidental:

The 1644 London Confession, http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/h.htm Article 38:

  That the due maintenance of the officers aforesaid, should be the free and voluntary communication of the Church, that according to Christ's ordinance, >
  they that preach the Gospel, should live on the Gospel and not by constraint to be compelled from the people by a forced law.

and The 1646 http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/1646lbc.htm :

  The ministers of Christ ought to have whatsoever they shall need, supplied freely by the church, that according to Christ's ordinance they that preach the Gospel should live of the gospel by the law of Christ. 1 Cor. 9:7,14; Gal. 6:8; Phil. 4:15,16; 2 Cor. 10:4; 1 Tim. 1:2; Ps. 110:3.

More recent Baptist declarations seem to have no clear statement of tithe, but do speak of due stewardship.

Southern Baptist 2000 Faith and Message XIII:

  Stewardship
  God is the source of all blessings, temporal and spiritual; all that we have and are we owe to Him. Christians have a spiritual debtorship to the whole world, a holy trusteeship in the gospel, and a binding stewardship in their possessions. They are therefore under obligation to serve Him with their time, talents, and material possessions; and should recognize all these as entrusted to them to use for the glory of God and for helping others. According to the Scriptures, Christians should contribute of their means cheerfully, regularly, systematically, proportionately, and liberally for the advancement of the Redeemer's cause on earth.

It seems it is a matter of stewardship, not "tithe." "To give as you have been prospered."


Why does the Catholic church have so many Masses throughout the week?

It is because of what Mass is to the catholic church. Mass is the Single most important commandment given by Christ to do until the end of times (Do this in remembrance of me
Lk 22 / 1 Cor 11).

  "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us" (Sacrosanctum Concilium 47).

The mass is so important to the catholic church, that no-day passes without a Mass said at-least in one place in the world. This is not scientific, but it is folklore that there are three Masses being said every second in the world. (It is jokingly said that many Kings, dictators wanted to destroy the Catholic church. they tried different ways and failed. But all they have to do was to stop them from celebrating Mass.)

For the practicing Catholic, which Mass service is most important?

By the word important, if you mean the importance of the Mass itself, then for Catholics all mass is the same Calvary sacrifice, no one mass is greater than the other.

By the word important, if you mean the importance of participating in the Mass. Then important Mass would be Mass on Sundays and other Days of Obligation. There are specific ranks assigned to certain days. But this does not make the Mass more important (in the sense others are less important) in anyway. But it is important in the sense that they have to attend it.

Where would Bible Study and devotionals fit in?

First part of every Mass always starts with Readings from the bible. This is called the Liturgy of the Word. (Priests are required to read prayers from the bible three times a day. This is called divine office. Along with the Mass, divine office is the only public prayer of the Catholic Church)

On an ordinary day three passages are read. These passages are from:

Old testament or non gospel new testament. This is made into two separate passages on On Sundays and great feast-days (Solemnities)
Psalms (Some times, very rarely, other canticles from the bible too)
Gospel

After this during Liturgy of the Eucharist, all prayers said is based on biblical verses. So, in a way Mass is bible in action.

Do children worship with the parents, or do they have their own little worship area/classroom setting where they learn about God and stuff?

Mass is the primary form of worship in the Catholic church. There is a provision for a children mass where special prayers are said for them But worship is not to be done in a classroom setting. But almost as a norm Children always attend Mass with their parents. It is always recommended to do so. In-fact certain age children have a specific role in Mass called alter servers. Usually in parishes children (not toddlers) perform this role.

There is only one Mass for all. But there are separate Catechisms class (usually after Sunday mass) for Children.