Have the dietary prohibitions of Acts 15:20 been applied to Christians today?

There never were any dietary Laws enforced in the New Testament aside from polite rules derived from brotherly love and the desire for peace during the time of transition between the shadows of the Old Testament and the realities found in Christ.

Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.” (NIV Matthew 15:10-11)
I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. (NIV Romans 14:14-15)

The rule established in Acts 15:20 for new converts does not contradict the truth that no food is unclean in itself, even blood! as established by Acts 10:15, Romans 14:14, 1 Corinthians 8, etc. In Acts we simply find instructions being given to Gentiles to bring a noble death to specific matters that would enflame, outrage, shock their prejudices and cause discord among Jewish converts. In a sense many Jews would need to have been treated as 'weaker brothers' in the matter of blood and certain meats sacrificed to idols, etc. because after having learning to associate God's ceremonial displeasure with these activities, though not sinful in themselves, for so long, it would have been difficult for them to unravel these symbolic things from their consciences. This natural revulsion on things morally neutral would be hard to unlearn especially when they had learned to hate them so much and to distinguish themselves from Gentile sinners partly by these differences. This created a situation where new converts should 'become a Jew unto a Jew' on harmless abstinence, for any behavior otherwise would be inflammatory actions ruining the love of Christian fellowship. It would give occasion for scandal and all over nothing.
Paul adopts the same 'love principle' in advising believers to abstain from eating meats sacrificed to idols, if in so doing it harms a brother's faith. There is really nothing special here in Acts that contradicts Paul. What might make this decision in Acts appear strange is that real sins are joined up with neutral matters. The similarity is not in that they are all sins but that they all especially would bring discord, inflammatory reaction, provocation to anger and general destruction to the gospel taking shape within synagogues around the region.  In addition, in all these things the Romans and Greeks had no moral objection to and all had some role within their idolatries, especially those that had temple prostitutes. This rule maintained a peaceful atmosphere for the true liberty of the gospel to grow and allowed a natural and noble death of some of the harmless shadows and ceremonial symbols of the Old Testament in brotherly love.
Lastly, there is some Jewish history that proves this temporary kindness to weaker brothers was related to the Jewish expectations on Gentile converts before Christ based on the covenant God made with Noah.

Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. (NIV Genesis 9:3-4)

As this covenant with Noah is considered to have been made with all mankind, Jew and Gentile, the Jews called 'the seven Noachic commandments', which, according to them, were binding upon all Gentile proselytes. These were a prohibition

(1)  of idolatry,  (2)  of blasphemy,  (3)  of murder,  (4)  of incest,  (5)  of robbery and theft,  (6)  of eating blood and strangled animals, and  (7)  an injunction of obedience to magistrates. (Alfred Edersheim, Bible History Old Testament - Vol 1)

This further explains the theological footprint or Biblical context at this critical time of history.  All the more reason for Gentiles to gain respect of outsiders and Jewish brethren at a time of incomprehensible changes and upheaval of religion and not force a shock on the community unnecessarily.
Given the situation then, looking for creeds or canons about an old shadow of the realities found in Christ is not to be expected and if one turned up most Christians would simply reject it as being opposed to the arguments in the scriptures.


Did John Wesley plagiarize Matthew Henry...?

John Wesley himself explains in the preface to his notes that he very highly regarded Matthew Henry's commentary and that much of his notes were abridgements of Henry's Work.
Addressing those who owned a copy he wrote:

. I do not advise these, much to trouble themselves about any other exposition than Mr Henry's: this is sufficient, thro' the assistance of the Blessed Spirit, to make private Christians wise unto salvation, and (the Lord applying his word) thoroughly furnished unto every good work.

However there were, according to Wesley, two great problems with Henry's work, both a consequence of its size.

. But then it is manifest on the other hand, every one cannot have this exposition. It is too large a purchase: there are thousands who would rejoice to have it; but it bears too high a price. They have not Six Guineas (the London price) in the world, perhaps from one year's end to another. And if they sometimes have, yet they have it not to spare; they need it for other occasions. How much so ever therefore they desire so valuable a work, they must content themselves to go without it.
But suppose they have money enough to purchase, yet they have not time enough to read it: the size is as insurmountable an objection as the price itself. It is not possible for men who have their daily bread to earn by the sweat of their brows, who generally are confined to their work, from six in the morning 'till six in the evening, to find leisure for reading over six folios, each containing seven or eight hundred pages. These therefore have need of some other exposition than Mr Henry's. As excellent as it is in its kind, it is not for their purpose; seeing they have neither money to make the purchase, nor time to read it over.

Firstly, the size of  Henry's tomes, given the cost of printing, meant that it was beyond the ability of most people to afford. Secondly, if they could obtain a copy, they would not have time to read it.
So Wesley was quite open about his notes being, on many passages (but by no means all), mere abbreviations of Henry's.


The 9th commandment (Ex 20:16) is about being a false witness (perjury) which implicates others to be judged guilty in a court setting.  The commandment does not prohibit all types of lying.  Being a false witness is a much more specific type of lying that is harmful to another person.  It is especially pernicious because it causes an innocent person to suffer great harm.
The obvious example you cited is lying to protect someone, for example lying to a villain in order protect someone hiding in your house.  The Bible provided at least 2 examples where the LORD in fact rewarded them for lying in order to protect others:

The midwives who protected the Hebrew babies: Ex 1:19
Rahab in protecting the two Israelite spies: Joshua 2:5

The core of Christian morality is love.  Therefore, a helpful frame to evaluate when it is morally acceptable to lie is whether in NOT lying we will be unloving.  Lying should be done as a last resort, after every other option has been considered (including not saying anything).  Or to put it in a positive and precise terms, ask yourself

In this particular circumstances where I am forced to say something about X, should I fib or even blatantly lie in order to promote X's well being while causing the least harm to everything else, including my own reputation?

For more resources:

gotquestions.org article Is it ever right to lie?
wikipedia article Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour for how various denominations (and also Judaism) interpret and expand the applications of this commandment.
The book Just Deceivers: An Exploration of the Motif of Deception in the Books of Samuel (recommended by @curiousdannii).


Where is the Holy Spirit in Jesus life before baptism in the river Jordan happen?

This answer is from Trinitarian perspective shared by the 3 mainstream branches of Christianity: Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant.

This article succinctly shows how Jesus in His human nature needed the Holy Spirit power especially at critical junctures of His mission on earth.  The anointing at the Jordan river's baptism signified God the Father revealing Jesus to be Messiah and the Holy Spirit empowering Jesus in His human nature for the role.  See another article discussing the relationship of Jesus with the Holy Spirit.

Jesus as human being was conceived by the Holy Spirit, so the human nature Jesus already had the Holy Spirit since birth.  The anointing at baptism didn't imply that the Holy Spirit was not yet given by the Father, but more of empowerment, probably similar to how we as believers can, sometime after baptism, be given spiritual gifts for ministering to the body of Christ.  Jesus did not sin before baptism, so technically He didn't need to be baptized.  The baptism was the occasion chosen by God the Father for the unveiling.

About your comment:

  Your link cited Jesus said "the Spirit of the Lord is now upon me". Does it mean before baptism the Holy Spirit was not yet present?

the context was Jesus preaching at the synagogue in his hometown, Nazareth: Luke 4:14-30.  This was after his baptism / annointing.  Jesus was announcing the fulfillment of Isaiah 61:1-2.  He was referring to the empowerment mentioned above.  It is safe to assume that throughout the many villages and cities he visited before his crucifixion, he made similar announcement because people needed to know the good news of the coming Kingdom of God and Jesus taught them how to respond (i.e. by repenting, believing, and then living according to the ethics of the Kingdom).


Who were the Black Canons on the Augustinian Priory of Inchmahome in Scotland?

"Black Canons" is another name for Augustinian canons regular. They are "black" because of their habit, according to the OED:

  black canon n. [from the colour of the habit worn; compare post-classical Latin canon niger (c 1220)] now chiefly hist. a canon regular of St Augustine (see note at canon n.2 1).

Canons regular are

  Priests who are bound by religious vows and who live in community under a distinctive rule. Originating in the eleventh century, in connection with the reform movement of Pope Gregory VII, they have mainly adopted the Rule of St. Augustine.

A "canon" (Greek: κανών = "rule") is a priest who lives communally with other priests (although the exact meaning has changed throughout history), and "regular" means they follow a rule (Latin: regula) or conduct of life. The Church approves 4 main religious rules properly so-called:

St. Benedict's,
St. Basil's,
St. Augustine's (which the Dominicans also use), and
St. Francis of Assisi's.

Other religious orders use sign language, too, to foster an atmosphere of silence (cf. St. Benedict's Rule ch. 38: "should anything be wanted, let it be asked for rather by a sign than by a word.")

Rising in the middle of the night is normal for all orders' monks; the midnight prayers are called matins, which means "morning" (cf. St. Benedict's Rule ch. 8 or Ps. 118:62: "I rose at midnight to give praise to thee.").

What you quote of St. Augustine comes from ch. 3, ¶2 of his Rule. St. Benedict's Rule ch. 38 is similar; he prescribes a weekly reader, who reads aloud for the other monks while they eat: "[Spiritual] Reading must not be wanting at the table of the brethren when they are eating."


Did Dante's Divine Comedy describe or define Christian views on the afterlife?

The geography of the afterlife is not a topic where the church had "doctrine" as such, though there have always been a variety of traditions and stories about this sort of thing. Dante's scheme does reflect an underlying theology, so I'll tackle this from a theological perspective. The layouts of Hell, Purgatory and Heaven are all in some sense "orthodox" in that they are drawn from recognized classifications of sin and virtue. Dante does not claim that this is how things literally are in those realms - especially when we get to Heaven, and the entire scheme is reinterpreted several times, as he grows in understanding. The moral truth is what counts.

There are some specific areas where Dante does things which are novel, and sometimes opposed to actual doctrine.

The vestibule of Hell, an antechamber where the lukewarm, who were neither good nor bad, are stuck forever - this is new. If this area counts as "basically Hell anyway" then it's fine, since all souls are meant to be destined one way or the other. I think the lower levels of ante-Purgatory are also original to Dante, though I'm not sure about that.
Saladin is placed among the righteous pagans, whereas as a Muslim he "ought" to be classed as at least a heretic or schismatic. Mohammed, for example, is placed in the eighth circle of Hell. This indicates some leniency from Dante about whether someone  who is aware of Christianity, but does not convert, attracts the maximum penalty.
Really bad people in the ninth circle (Inferno 33) are said to have descended to Hell while still alive, and their bodies are now possessed by demons. This is completely unorthodox, since standard Catholicism/Christianity holds that one can repent even in the moment of death.
The garden of Eden, or Earthly Paradise, is situated at the summit of Purgatory, which itself is a huge mountain directly on the other side of the world from Jerusalem. This is not completely new - Bede thought Purgatory might be a mountain, and the Eden-Purgatory association was also previously suggested, due to the common image of fire (the flaming sword of Genesis 3:24) and the restoration to primal innocence. The combination of this ideas is new, and Dante gave them a higher profile.

Contemporary doctrinal criticism of Dante was more about his politics, which were perceived as anti-Papal and anti-clerical. His idea of the division of responsibility between Pope and Emperor - a prototype for modern separation of church and state - was arguably heretical, even as late as 1864 and the Syllabus of Errors.


According to Jehovah’s Witnesses what does the name Immanuel mean in light of their belief that Jesus is a created being and not God?

The name Im·manʹu·el means "With Us Is God", and Jehovahs Witneses (JWs) believe that is the translation of that name it-1 pp. 1187-1189.
Not necessarily everyone with that name is a god, but we also consider the meaning of the name to be true in the case of Jesus. Jesus is a God, but we do not consider him to be equal or the same as Jehovah or Yahweh. (To avoid any confusion about where Lord refers to Jesus and where it refers to Jehovah i will use the ASV here.)

Isaiah 43:10-11 10 Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant
whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand
that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there
be after me. 11I, even I, am Jehovah; and besides me there is no
saviour. (ASV)

We believe that the titles mentioned in Isaiah 9:6: “His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace" all apply to Jesus. Note that it was not written almighty God, and note that a prince is typically defined as a son of the king.
The "mighty" god in Isaiah 9:6 is a translation of 'El Gib·bohr' not of 'El Shad·dai' (Almighty). We there fore do not consider the word mighty, or the combination 'mighty god' to have the necessity to be uniquely used for Jehovah God, although it can also be used for Jehovah God. More information about what JW's believe about the difference between mighty and Almighty can be read in it-1 pp. 77-79


Why do many Christians talk about "believing in Jesus" rather than "believing in God"?

All three words of "believe in Jesus" are important.

Believe. Belief as it is used here is more than intellectual assent to a proposition or recognition of a historical fact. The scope of the meaning of belief that is here intended includes trust and obedience. James says that "faith without works is dead". This is an active belief.

  17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by
  action, is dead.

  18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

  Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my
  deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons
  believe that—and shudder.

  20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds
  is useless? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for
  what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see
  that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith
  was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled
  that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as
  righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a
  person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
  (James 2:17-24)

Jesus. Among the most central beliefs in orthodox Christianity is that Jesus is God come to us in the flesh, the incarnation. Some religions propose a belief in God but deny that God has a son or deny that God can take on human form. The Apostle John made this the essential test for discerning whether a spirit or message is from God. You must acknowledge the incarnation.

  1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to
  see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone
  out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God:
  Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh
  is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not
  from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard
  is coming and even now is already in the world. (1 John 4:1-3)

(NOTE: All churches that accept the Nicene creed (or at least the Apostle's creed) believe in a physical incarnation. Many heretical groups denied this or parts of this, such as those that believed in Docetism, Ebionism, Arianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Monophysitism, and Monothelitism. Some modern denominations also do not accept this, so would not be considered orthodox. See https://mbcpathway.com/2018/08/31/incarnational-heresies/)

in. This is the hardest of the three words. As a new believer, I had a hard time unerstanding this preposition as it applied to statements in the Bible. In has to do with abiding in Christ.

  1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off
  every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does
  bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You
  are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain
  in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it
  must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain
  in me.

  5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in
  you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If
  you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and
  withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.
  7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you
  wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory,
  that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples. (John
  15:1-8)

You must also take into this the meaning of Jesus' name. From Matthew 1:21 we have:

"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”

A person must believe that it is through this belief, this faith in Jesus, that they are saved, not through any other cause, especially human effort and religious ritual. One passage that drives this home:

  “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.
  20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ
  lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the
  Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set
  aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through
  the law, Christ died for nothing!” (Galatians 2:19-21)

Righteousness through the law, as Paul above speaks, means following religious, moral rules so well on your own that you earn God's acceptance. It can't be done, though many religions say it can.

(There is a debate between Protestants and Catholics as to whether personal acts of righteousness in obedience to Christ are part of this saving faith or follow as a consequence from it. That is another question, covered a lot on this site.)

Origin of the Phrase

I am unable to determine the origin of the phrase. However, it may be related to the Apostle's creed, where it begins the second section:

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

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
      who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
      and born of the virgin Mary.
      He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
      was crucified, died, and was buried;
      he descended to hell.
      The third day he rose again from the dead.
      He ascended to heaven
      and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
      From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
      the holy catholic* church,
      the communion of saints,
      the forgiveness of sins,
      the resurrection of the body,
      and the life everlasting. Amen.


Can a Catholic hold the position that some homosexual priests should be punished by the death penalty?

In his Book of Gomorrah, the Doctor of the Church St. Peter Damian

notes the severe penalties historically attached to such offenses in the Scriptures as well as the canons of Church councils, and argues that such penalties should be even stronger for members of the clergy, who are to be held to a higher standard than the laity. The strongest punishments in the Church’s historic legislation are reserved for those who abuse children and adolescents. They are to be “publicly beaten” and humiliated, “bound in iron chains, worn down with six months of imprisonment, and three days every week to fast on barley bread at sundown,” and confined to a monastery in perpetuity under constant guard.

The Book of Gomorrah: St. Peter Damian's Struggle Against Ecclesiastical Corruption, introduction by translator Hoffman
St. Peter Damian writes in ch. 6 of his Book of Gomorrah that such priests are worthy of death (cf. Rom. 1:32):

May idle prelates of clerics and priests hear! May they hear, and although they might be secure from personal guilt, may they fear themselves to be participants in the guilt of others! Undoubtedly, those who turn a blind eye to the sins of their subjects that they are obligated to correct, also grant to their subjects a license to sin through their ill-considered silence. May they hear, I say, and wisely understand, that all are uniformly worthy of death, indeed, “not only they that do them, but they also who consent to them that do them.”

But, as Hoffman notes (fn. 179),

Damian is not, as some hostile commentators have claimed, recommending the death penalty for sodomy. He is quoting part of Romans 1:29–32, in which the St. Paul lists a large number of sins, including pride, disobedience to parents, dissoluteness, contumely, avarice, sodomy, and others, and concludes that “they who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.” The reference is to the gravity of the sin, not a recommendation for capital punishment by the state.

St. Thomas, commentating on Rom. 1:32, seems to agree it is a spiritual (not corporal) death, because he cites Rom. 6:23: "The wages of sin is death."
However, Pope St. Pius V's 1 April 1566 constitution Cum primum treats clerical sodomites similarly to incorrigible heretics:

§. 11. Si quis crimen nefandum contra naturam, propter quod ira Dei venit in filios diffidentiæ, perpetraverit, Curiæ sæculari puniendus tradatur, & si clericus fuerit, omnibus ordinibus degradatus simili pœnæ subiciatur.
[Engl. transl.:] §. 11. If someone commits that nefarious crime against nature that caused divine wrath to be unleashed against the children of iniquity, he will be given over to the secular arm for punishment [of death?*]; and if he is a cleric, he will be subject to the same punishment after having been stripped of all his degrees [of ecclesiastical dignity].

*I don't know what the secular punishment for sodomy was at the time, but, like with heretics, it doesn't seem the Church is opposed to capital punishment of clerical sodomites.
What he says is reminiscent of St. Thomas saying that excommunicated, obstinate, incorrigible heretics should be delivered "to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death".


If Satan fell because of sin, then was there sin in heaven at that point?

Sin is not in the atmosphere of a place, but in the person who disobeys God. Places don't disobey God, do they, so heaven itself does not have sin. It appears that you are thinking that sin is spread into the atmosphere like germs, and cause people to start thinking sinful things.

Sinners can entice others to sin by their actions and words. In Revelation 12, Satan is thrown out of heaven "and his angels," which implies that other angels have either fallen on their own, or were influenced by Satan.

However, Satan is still under the rule of God and is called back to heaven now and then, as we see in Job 1 and 2. So heaven at times is inhabited by sinning creatures.


What is the full meaning of Mathew 24:36-51 from a view of Methodists or Baptist

I can only answer from the perspective of the Baptist. That particular passage is considered a warning from the Lord that his second coming will be swift, and that this is the only pre event warning we will get. He points out that life will continue normally, and that we will be totally unaware that the spectacular event of his return is about to happen.

The passage about the unfaithful servant is also a warning that we cannot wait until the end to be a good Christian. He warns us that people will be selected to go to Heaven while someone of similar circumstance will be left behind.

He warns us that we are human and that if we knew exactly when he would return, we would wait until the last moments to become acceptable to go to Heaven, as this is the nature of mankind. So he says for us to be wary and expect that there may not be a next minute to repent. He also warns us that his return will be timed to occur at a time when we least expect it. Who would have been looking for his return during the attack on the World trade center, or another earth shaking event.

The final part of the passage you quoted is the most revealing of all in that he is telling us that he has given us the things that God wants us to do while here on Earth, and it will be good if he returns to find us giving our best efforts to live a life doing those things. He also tells that if he returns and finds us doing things contrary to his teachings he will utterly destroy us.

Although this is an abbreviated synopsis of the meaning of Matthew chapter 24 I hope it is sufficient to let you know how we as Baptists regard the lesson about Jesus return.


Location of Jesus' tomb identified by Helena, mother of Constantine?

The entry for Helena in a 1911 Dictionary of Christian Christian Biography and Literature to the end of the sixth century [etc] includes a review of "the evidence of the ancient authorities" regarding the story of her finding the true cross. The given summaries of 15 works attributed to authors writing from 333 to 595AD incidentally include several mentions of the tomb. That selection of ancient authorities may serve as a reading list for your research.

While the authors of the Dictionary conclude that "no detailed story [of the cross] is found until nearly 70 years after the event, and then in the West only", mentions of accepted knowledge of the site of the tomb begin with the first source reviewed.

(The link refers to clean-looking OCR. The same site offers b&w page scans. If you care about pages images, archive.org has much better scans from a few different copies of the print book.)


What is the difference between the Eastern and Western views of the one essence/substance of the Godhead?

The divine energy of Eastern Orthodox theology defines the divine 'essence' as an abstract definition of what 'God is', while the 'energy' is the ‘working-energy’ of what God does.  The western theological meaning of ‘essence’ includes ‘working energy’ in the definition already. For anybody familiar with programming terms, Eastern Orthodox sort of splits God into a class (essence) and eternally substantiated object of that class (energy) both class and object are eternal and uncreated.

For some reason the eastern Monk Gregory Palamas (1296–1359) came up with a distinction between God’s Essence and God’s energy.  The Essence-Energy distinction was a theological framework used by Palamas to explain how creation can participate in the experience of God, without becoming God. The idea in simple form is that ‘the manifestation of God’ or ‘the experience of God’ must be separated out from the non-experience-able essence of God; otherwise we are left with a Pantheistic view. This Pantheistic view would be seen as Neo-Platonic--Aristotelian. Something the western view is accused of being.

From the Western standpoint, this distinction was never needed as Western theologians simply used current handy Greek terms to explain the problem away in accordance with Christian concepts of God. The use of these terms does not automatically make the western view of God to be like Plato’s or Aristotle’s just because words have been borrowed. More specifically Thomas Aquinas used concepts such as Aristotle’s distinction between ‘Potentiality versus Actuality’ as well as ‘Actus Purus’, to show that to the Christian view of God automatically avoided Pantheism.

The idiots guide (i.e. my own) to Aristotle’s view of what ‘essence’ is and how it was borrowed and modified under a Christian lens is pretty simple. There is a kind of ‘essence’ beyond the particular embodiment, for example, if there is something called human, then Frank is only an example of, human essence, In addition if Frank is to really be a real human (his potential) he needs to become one actually through an chain of events (working-energy). Applying these terms to God necessarily means that God can’t have any such division of potential versus actualization of potential.  God is perfect he can’t become actualized and so his essence and working-energy is within the same incomprehensible perfection of his singular being.

To apply this concept to the eastern proposal, a division of essence and energy is rejected. Since God can’t have potential that is not actualized, and actualization implies working-energy, the idea of a separating energy from essence is incongruous to God’s perfection. Manifestations of his presence in time and space are not based on any separation within his own perfections and this does not allow for any kind of Pantheistic view by default.

I have oversimplified all the lengthy philosophical terms a bit, but I think you get the western idea from this. Hopefully you also sense the somewhat nauseous headache one obtains splicing these terms and how needless they are when approaching the more simple faith of those in the New Testament.

So what am I saying, well both camps seem to just use different terms to try and say the same thing. They both resorted to the overly intellectual use of philosophical distinctions, which was probably partly required as a reaction to on the multitude of heresies over the Trinity, etc., which the church suffered at that time faced. However if Palamas meant that the uncreated energies were truly ontologically distinct from God;s essence ,as are the three persons of the Trinity, then Palamas is less innocent that it would appear under my western view.  Some scholars say he did make this true distinction and other say he did not.

For a more complicated review these two articles basically throw in all the controverted points:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality#Potentiality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence-Energies_distinction


What is the Biblical basis for the concept that demons have an odor?

It appears that there is no explicit reference in the bible to point to anything that suggests that demons have any odor.
However, I really wanted to make sense of this (strange for me) phenomenon, so I put some thought into how to understand this.
How do you detect if something has an odor?
You smell it... stating the obvious.
How do you smell something (like coffee)?
With your nose... again stating the obvious
So, how do you smell things in the spiritual realm like demons?
With a spiritual nose or some equivalent.
Spiritual senses
The only spiritual sense that is dominantly shown in the bible is spiritual sight.
2 Kings 6:14-17 (KJV)

Therefore sent he thither horses, and chariots, and a great host: and they came by night, and compassed the city about.
And when the servant of the man of God was risen early, and gone forth, behold, an host compassed the city both with horses and chariots. And his servant said unto him, Alas, my master! how shall we do?
And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them.
And Elisha prayed, and said, Lord, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the Lord opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

Taking 2 Corinthians 4:18 (KJV) literally:

While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

It appears from these passages that the ability to see spiritual beings is supported explicitly (for those whom God has given the ability). We can call this spiritual sight.
From spiritual eyes (sight) I would guess that it's not such a far reach to claim that other spiritual senses can exist like

spiritual ears (hear)
spiritual nose (smell)
spiritual mouth (taste)

This makes user19940's answer more complete; if something is "unclean" you can typically smell it (the way I check whether my clothes are clean :P); and if you can smell the spiritual realm then you could be able to smell spiritual beings like unclean spirits like demons (again if God gives you the ability).
This is a bit of a (weird) stretch answer I know, but I hope you found it at least as an interesting view point.


Is the Pope limited in his authority over the Order of Malta?

Canon Law and secular law are separate concepts. According to New Advent:

  Contrasted with the imperial or Caesarian law (jus caesareum), canon law is sometimes styled pontifical law (jus pontificium), often also it is termed sacred law (jus sacrum), and sometimes even Divine law (jus divinum: c. 2, De privil.), as it concerns holy things, and has for its object the wellbeing of souls in the society divinely established by Jesus Christ.

Source : "Canon Law", New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia

According to Canon 331 of the current Code of Canon Law on vatican.va:

  Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Source: Canon 331, Code of Canon Law

The jurisdiction being spoken of here is Ecclesiastical, not Civil. The Pope has the power to excommunicate officers of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM), order them to do penance, grant special dispensations to them to have married priests, or otherwise exercise his ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The SMOM is sovereign from a civil sense - it is its own "Caesar" as much as the US is (or the Republic of Ireland, or Italy, or Poland, etc.).

Caesaropapism, where the Pope and Caesar are the same person, applied to the historical Papal States. It seems to apply today in the jurisdiction of the Vatican City state itself, but in no other place. With reference to the SMOM (or the USA, or Ireland, etc.), the Pope is the Pope and Caesar is the civil authorities.


Does the Bible give us any indication of why God created such a vast universe with so much stuff in it?

I think any question that contains "why does this need to be so" is fundamentally flawed. The truth is nothing needs to be how it is. God could choose do it anyway He wanted to, and He choose to do it this way.

Now, We can speculate as to why He wants it that way, but short of scriptural support it's just speculation.

That said, Yes i think the Bible does give us some hints and here is some scripture as to the reasons the heavens are so big:

  Psalm 19 1-4 "The heavens declare the glory of God;
      the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

  2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
      night after night they reveal knowledge.

  3 They have no speech, they use no words;
      no sound is heard from them.

  4 Yet their voice[b] goes out into all the earth,
      their words to the ends of the world."

Romans 1:20

  "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

So we can infer from these passages that tell us the universe is there to teach us about the nature of our Creator, that it's vastness is most likely to demonstrate the vastness of God Himself, Who is infinite and above, and beyond that which He created.


Does the Catholic Church allow a professor in a Catholic university to support an idea which is seemingly contrary to Catholic teaching?

Following the commandment "Going therefore, teach ye all nations" (cf. Matthew 28:19 Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version), part of the mission of the Church generally is to educate—not only in religion, but in other areas—and in service of this mission many universities around the world are specifically recognized as Catholic universities. Canon law governs the naming of such universities, and puts certain requirements on some of the teachers:

  The Church has the right to erect and direct universities, which contribute to a more profound human culture, the fuller development of the human person, and the fulfillment of the teaching function of the Church.

  (Code of Canon Law, Canon 807)

  The authority competent according to the statutes [that is, the statutes or governing documents of the university] has the duty to make provision so that teachers are appointed in Catholic universities who besides their scientific and pedagogical qualifications are outstanding in integrity of doctrine and probity of life and that they are removed from their function when they lack these requirements; the manner of proceeding defined in the statutes is to be observed.

  The conferences of bishops and diocesan bishops concerned have the duty and right of being watchful so that the principles of Catholic doctrine are observed faithfully in these same universities.

  (Canon 810; emphasis added)

  Those who teach theological disciplines in any institutes of higher studies whatsoever must have a mandate from the competent ecclesiastical authority.

  (Canon 812)

Most importantly, perhaps:

  The following are obliged personally to make a profession of faith according to the formula approved by the Apostolic See: ... teachers in any universities whatsoever who teach disciplines pertaining to faith or morals, when they begin their function;

(Canon 833)

This will certainly affect teachers of theology at Catholic universities.

The "profession of faith" is specifically laid out in a 1998 document published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

  I, [name], with firm faith believe and profess each and everything that is contained in the Symbol of faith [that is, the Creed], namely:

  I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God,
   born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

  With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.

  I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.

  Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.

It is therefore apparent that at least professors of theology who teach things which disagree with the Magisterium of the Church may be—indeed, must be—prohibited from teaching their subject at a Catholic university.

Canon law does not specify any teachers at Catholic universities who must take this profession of faith other than those dealing with "faith and morals", generally applied to theology alone; nor am I familiar with instances in which teachers other than teachers of theology have been removed from their teaching functions for a failure of "integrity of doctrine" or "probity of life".

Note: A comment on this question brings up the subject of the teaching of Hans Küng, who in 1979 was prohibited from teaching theology by a decree of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, stating:

  The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the aforesaid document of 1975 refrained at the time from further action regarding the above-mentioned opinions of Professor Küng, presuming that he himself would abandon them. But since this presumption no longer exists, this sacred congregation by reason of its duty is constrained to declare that Professor Hans Küng, in his writings, has departed from the integral truth of Catholic faith, and therefore he can no longer be considered a Catholic theologian nor function as such in a teaching role.

This is one example of the process which can be used.


The next verse, Luke 8:26, places the event:

  They sailed to the region of the Gerasenes, which is across the lake
  from Galilee.

Galilee is on the west side of the Sea of Galilee, which means that the Gerasenes were likely on the east side.


When does the obligation to attend Mass begin?

[UPDATED, substantially revised, and corrected]

The short answer is that the obligation to attend Sunday Mass begins when children reach the age of reason, age seven at the earliest.

Children become subject to Canon Law as soon as they are baptized: Canon 96 of the Code of Canon Law [CIC] says,

  By baptism one is incorporated into the Church of Christ and is constituted a person in it with the duties and rights which are proper to Christians in keeping with their condition, insofar as they are in ecclesiastical communion and unless a legitimately issued sanction stands in the way.

However, merely ecclesiastical laws do not bind until the subject reaches the age of reason:

  Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age (Can. 11).

The obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and holy days is, in fact, an ecclesiastical law, found in Canon 1247:

  On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass.

Therefore, insofar as the child’s obligation is concerned, it cannot begin until the subject is seven years of age, and never applies if he is does not have the use of reason (e.g., the severely mentally handicapped).

Having said that, children still have certain rights as baptized Catholics that parents have the obligation to respect.

For example, all the Christian faithful (including children) have a right to be educated in the Faith:

  Since they are called by baptism to lead a life in keeping with the teaching of the gospel, the Christian faithful have the right to a Christian education by which they are to be instructed properly to strive for the maturity of the human person and at the same time to know and live the mystery of salvation. (Can. 217).

Moreover, parents have a duty to impart that education to their children:

  Therefore, it is for Christian parents particularly to take care of the Christian education of their children according to the doctrine handed on by the Church (Can. 226).

Since, starting at age seven, children will be obliged to live out their faith by attending Mass, they should be already used to attending Mass before that obligation begins.

Therefore, parents do have leeway regarding whether to bring very young children to Mass—which can be logistically difficult—but the goal should be to bring them to Mass as soon as that is feasible.

(Naturally, the obligation to be at home with young children constitutes one of the “grave” causes that can excuse someone from going to Mass, along with illness, the obligation to take care of the ill, etc.)

Source: “Are there any guidelines from the Church regarding bringing children to Mass?” from Catholic Answers. (Thanks to svidgen for pointing this out.)


Isn't reincarnation affirmed by the Bible?

Faulty Premise #1: John the Baptist was a reincarnation of Elijah

When Jesus asked Peter who people said he was, he answered that some people thought that Jesus was Elijah come back. Peter knew better and said Jesus was the Christ. In any event, John the Baptist himself directly denied the claim (see John 1:19-21).

What Jesus more likely was saying in Matthew 11 is that John the Baptist was a prophet in the tradition of Elijah. Elijah was the greatest of the prophets (even if his disciple Elisha inherited a double portion of his spirit). All of the prophets that followed came in the name and spirit of Elijah, in the same way that some of Paul's letters apparently were created after his death. They were in the spirit and tradition even if not the actual man.

Note also Elijah never died - he was taken up into heaven, and people thought he would return. As such, no Elijah was not being thought to have reincarnated- only returned.  Elijah's return was long a part of Jewish custom. Even today, during a Passover sedar, a chair is left empty for Elijah. But again, since he did not die, Jews look for his return, not his reincarnation.

Faulty Premise #2: The Jewish world view has  any concept of reincarnation at all

The most basic rule of hermeneutics suggests that a text cannot mean what it could not mean to the original audience.  If the Jews had no concept of reincarnation, then any interpretation that says it does has a very, very high bar to clear.

In his book The Gift of the Jews, Thomas Cahill advances the thesis that the primary distinctive philosophy of the Jews was precisely that history was not circular.  Their linear idea of a human life was a departure from others and was an explicit rejection of reincarnation.  As such, a text would need to be exceedingly explicit to a culture that rejected circular life patterns, and the obscure interpretation above (especially in light of the more obvious intepretation) simply doesn't hold water.

Furthermore, the book of Hebrews - written to the people into which both Jesus and John the Baptist were born - explicitly reject reincarnation.  As the writer points out in 9:27,

  It is appointed unto a man once to die and then the judgement.

Here we do have an explicit rejection of reincarnation by the followers of Jesus.  There is one death. There is one judgement.  Hence, in any Christian worldview, you don't come back.


What is the biblical basis for the position that embryonic stem cell research is immoral/sinful?

This article gives a pretty good summary of the foundations, though I'm not going to endorse the argument it makes.

"Embryonic stem-cell studies are controversial because they involve the destruction of human embryos," the New York Times explained in a May 6 article reporting on the shifting politics of stem-cell research.
It's not complicated. An embryo used in stem-cell research (and fertility treatments) is three to five days past conception. It consists of a few dozen cells that together are too small to be seen without a microscope.

Those Christians who believe that life begins at the moment of conception, and that a cell cluster five days past conception is the equivalent of a human being, equate the use of embryonic stem cells with murder. Use of adult stem cells does not kill the donor.
There are other questions that address the biblical foundation for "life begins at conception".


Biblical or Historical Devil Worshipper?

Since we are dealing with the 14th century and a fictional novel, it would be best to use a fictional
character. At least this way it remains fictional.

Why not take a medieval legend to your advantage.

It seems to me the legendary personage of Cartaphilus. Although legend says he is of Jewish origin, you could make him a Roman soldier guarding the door of Pilate, which makes more sense in an historical setting.

  The Wandering Jew is a mythical immortal man whose legend began to spread in Europe in the 13th century. The original legend concerns a Jew who taunted Jesus on the way to the Crucifixion and was then cursed to walk the earth until the Second Coming. The exact nature of the wanderer's indiscretion varies in different versions of the tale, as do aspects of his character; sometimes he is said to be a shoemaker or other tradesman, while sometimes he is the doorman at the estate of Pontius Pilate.

  Name

  The earliest extant manuscript with the legend is the Flores Historiarum by Roger of Wendover, where it appears in the part for the year 1228, under the title Of the Jew Joseph who is still alive awaiting the last coming of Christ.

  At least from the 17th century the name Ahasver has been given to the Wandering Jew, apparently adapted from Ahasuerus 'Xerxes,' the Persian king in the Book of Esther, who was not a Jew, and whose very name among medieval Jews was an exemplum of a fool. This name may have been chosen because the Book of Esther describes the Jews as a persecuted people, scattered across every province of Ahasuerus' vast empire, similar to the later Jewish diaspora in countries whose state and/or majority religions were forms of Christianity.

  A variety of names have since been given to the Wandering Jew, including Matathias, Buttadeus, Paul Marrane, and Isaac Laquedem which is a name for him in France and the Low Countries, in popular legend as well as in a novel by Dumas.

  Where German or Russian are spoken, the emphasis has been on the perpetual character of his punishment, and thus he is known there as Ewiger Jude and vechny zhid (вечный жид), the "Eternal Jew". In French and other Latin languages, the usage has been to refer to the wanderings, as in French "le Juif errant", in Spanish "el judío errante" [circular reference] or in Italian "l'ebreo errante" [circular reference] and this has been followed in English from the Middle Ages, as the Wandering Jew. In Finnish he is known as Jerusalemin suutari (Shoemaker of Jerusalem), implying he was a cobbler by his trade.

  Medieval legend

  Some scholars have identified components of the legend of the Eternal Jew in Teutonic legends of the Eternal Hunter, some features of which are derived from Odin mythology.

  "In some areas the farmers arranged the rows in their fields in such a way that on Sundays the Eternal Jew might find a resting place. Elsewhere they assumed that he could rest only upon a plough or that he had to be on the go all year and was allowed a respite only on Christmas."

  A variant of the Wandering Jew legend is recorded in the Flores Historiarum by Roger of Wendover around the year 1228. An Armenian archbishop, then visiting England, was asked by the monks of St Albans Abbey about the celebrated Joseph of Arimathea, who had spoken to Jesus, and was reported to be still alive. The archbishop answered that he had himself seen such a man in Armenia, and that his name was Cartaphilus’ a Jewish shoemaker, who, when Jesus stopped for a second to rest while carrying his cross, hit him, and told him "Go on quicker, Jesus! Go on quicker! Why dost Thou loiter?", to which Jesus, "with a stern countenance", is said to have replied: "I shall stand and rest, but thou shalt go on till the last day." The Armenian bishop also reported that Cartaphilus had since converted to Christianity and spent his wandering days proselytizing and leading a hermit's life.

  Matthew Paris included this passage from Roger of Wendover in his own history; and other Armenians appeared in 1252 at the Abbey of St Albans, repeating the same story, which was regarded there as a great proof of the truth of the Christian religion. The same Armenian told the story at Tournai in 1243, according to the Chronicles of Phillip Mouskes, (chapter ii. 491, Brussels, 1839). After that, Guido Bonatti writes people saw the Wandering Jew in Forlì (Italy), in the 13th century; other people saw him in Vienna and elsewhere.

  There were claims of sightings of the Wandering Jew throughout Europe, since at least 1542 in Hamburg up to 1868 in Harts Corners, New Jersey. Joseph Jacobs, writing in the 11th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica (1911), commented "It is difficult to tell in any one of these cases how far the story is an entire fiction and how far some ingenious impostor took advantage of the existence of the myth". It has been alleged by an 1881 writer, who however cites no instances, that the supposed presence of the Wandering Jew has occasionally been used as a pretext for incursions by Gentiles into Jewish quarters during the late Middle Ages, when the legend was accepted as fact.

  Another legend about Jews, the so-called "Red Jews", was similarly common in Central Europe in the Middle Ages. - Wandering Jew (Wikipedia)

Seeing the the Russian legend calls him Judas, who may wish to go with Judas Iscariot whom the Lord said it would have been better that he had never been born! After all it is fiction. Be like Dan Brown and make up your own legendary person.

You might consider Herod the Great and his son, Herod Antipas. The Great was the one who ordered the killing of Jewish infants around year 0, and his son Antipas is the one who ordered the beheading of John the Baptist.

Then again you might wish to choose one of the Luciferians of this time period also. Simply make up a character and give him a believable sounding name.

  In the 13th century, a group of people called Luciferians attracted papal attention for Devil worship, and this time there can be little doubt that this is exactly what was going on. The Pope sent Conrad of Marburg, a gentleman described as a "sadistic fanatic who had been spiritual director of St. Elizabeth of Thuringia and had delighted in beating and humiliating her," to Germany in order to squash the heresy taking place there. These Luciferians believed that Lucifer and his host of demons had been unfairly expelled from heaven. Some day, they claimed, he would return and overthrow the Christian God at which time he would reign forever. They did everything they could to offend God, since their reward would be everlasting paradise with Lucifer. At least half a dozen contemporary sources give details of the Luciferians, and confessions by those accused were not made under torture.

  Elements in the story of the Luciferians show further progress toward the conception of Devil worship that has been handed down to us through history. Initiates were made to kiss a toad, or sometimes a duck or goose, in either of two distasteful areas. New members also kissed a pale man who was icy cold, and in this instant they were supposed to have lost their Christian faith. There was a large feast with a huge black cat present, and those worthy of the honor kissed the cat's rear end. The candles were then extinguished, and a massive orgy ensued. After they were through with that portion of the ceremony, a man appeared from a dark comer whose bottom half was like a cat. He was given a piece of the initiate's clothing, and before he disappeared, he commended the leader of the group for his service.

  There are two opinions stemming from this story concerning the Luciferians. The first is this: "This account of an initiation carries a certain conviction and it could have been stage-managed without too much difficulty." The second is: "Where a source contains untrustworthy or demonstrably false statements it should be treated with skepticism throughout; and that is the case with all the sources that tell of a Luciferian doctrine." That seems to be a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. The entire thesis behind the book that includes the latter statement is that witchcraft probably never existed in medieval times except for inside of the imaginations of hysterical Christians. That, according to a modem Pagan and expert in the field of witchcraft is because the author has a limited conception of what is possible in reality." She gives as as example that author's opinion that all accounts of ceremonial orgies are false, and counters with the assertion that "Orgiastic practices were a part of religious rites in many cultures of the ancient world, and are fairly widespread today." The deductive reasoning behind this being that if there were orgies in early rites, as well as in present day rites, there were most probably also orgies in medieval ceremonies, especially in light of the profuse reports of their occurrence.

  Now that the Luciferians have been established with some credibility as genuine devil worshippers, we can see that there is some reason for the steadily increasing alarm with which the Church met cases of heresy.

  These examples of Devil worship provide a background for what would occur in Europe over the next several hundred years. Two reasons for this second outbreak are the circulation of accounts of previous heresies involving Devil worship, and the assault on Europe by the Black Death. Since the plague was seen by many as God's punishment for their sins, it follows that people would be very interested in discovering any kind of behavior that would anger Him. With the widespread availability of theologically based discourses on how to root out possession, such as the Malleus Maleficarum (c. 1494), it was now possible for these people to be discovered and dealt with. Although the Malleus was written somewhat late to serve as an example for plague-inspired heretic elimination discourses, it is the best example of the way in which Christian authorities viewed their duties in relation to this manner of heresy.

  The examples of the Paulicians, Catharists, Waldensians, and the others show how the concept of Devil worship in the Christian world grew and spread. With each new heresy, elements such as the osculum infame Devil in the form of an animal, and the ritual orgy became part of the legend, and possibly practice, of Devil worship. It is almost impossible to ascertain at this late date exactly what did happen in the Devil worship rites of the Middle ages. These people did not keep records, possibly in the interest of preserving their sacred rituals, but more probably for fear of persecution. - Devil Worship in the Middle Ages

More information can be gleaned here.


What are demons according to the Catholic Church?

According to the Catholic Church, demons are simply fallen angels: i.e., angels who have sinned gravely against God and are now living the eternal consequences of their separation from Him.

Angels

Angels are creatures that, like us, are persons (that is, they are capable of intellectual knowledge and free acts of love). However, unlike us, they are not limited by corporeity—that is, they are pure spirits and have no bodies. In the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC),

  As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will: they are personal and immortal creatures, surpassing in perfection all visible creatures, as the splendor of their glory bears witness (No. 330).

According to nature, therefore, angels are much mightier and more noble beings than we are.

The fallen angels, also called demons

Like us, angels are submitted to a kind of trial, in which they may choose to serve God for all eternity and enjoy the Beatific Vision, or else they may refuse to serve Him and be forever deprived of His presence. Those angels who chose the latter course are the “fallen angels,” also known as “demons.” As the Catechism puts it,

  Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels. [The reference is to 2 Pet. 2:4.] This “fall” consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter's words to our first parents: “You will be like God.” [Gen. 3:5] The devil “has sinned from the beginning” [1 Jn. 3:8]; he is “a liar and the father of lies” [Jn. 8:44] (No. 392).

The Devil, or Satan, is simply the chief of these rebellious angels:

  Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy. Scripture and the Church’s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called “Satan” or the “devil”. The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: “The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing” [Lateran Council IV (1215): DS 800] (No. 391).


From a Catholic perspective, why did Jesus address Martha in Luke 10:41 by repeating her name?

Yes, indeed, the repetition of her name does have significance; Jesus utters no word in vain.

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Catena Aurea (Golden Chain) of the Fathers' commentaries on the Gospels, reports what St. Augustine wrote commentating on Luke 10:38-42:

  AUG. Martha was as well engaged in ministering to the bodily wants or wishes of our Lord, as of one who was mortal, but He who was clothed in mortal flesh, in the beginning was the Word. Behold then what Mary heard, The Word was made flesh. Behold then Him to whom Martha ministered. The one was laboring, the other at rest. But yet Martha, when much troubled in her occupation and business of serving, interrupted our Lord, and complained of her sister. For it follows, And said, Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? For Mary was absorbed in the sweetness of our Lord’s words; Martha was as preparing a feast for our Lord, in whose feast Mary was now rejoicing. While then she was listening with delight to those sweet words, and was feeding on them with the deepest affection, our Lord was interrupted by her sister. What must we suppose was her alarm, lest the Lord should say to her, “Rise, and help your sister?” Our Lord therefore, who was not at a loss, for He had shown He was the Lord, answered as follows, And Jesus answered and said to her, Martha, Martha. The repetition of the name is a mark of love, or perhaps of drawing the attention, that she should listen more earnestly. When twice called, she hears, You are troubled about many things. that is, you art busied about many things. For man wishes to meet with something when he is serving, and can not; and thus between seeking what is wanting and preparing what is at hand, the mind is distracted. For if Martha had been sufficient of herself, she would not have required the aid of her sister. There are many, there are diverse things, which are carnal, temporal, but one is preferred to many. For one is not from many, but many from one. Hence it follows, But one thing is needful. Mary wished to be occupied about one, according to that, It is good for me to cling close to the Lord. The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, are one. To this one he does not bring us, unless we being many have one heart.


Was God living in darkness before the creation of light?

I believe the consensus interpretation of the Fathers to be:

The "light" that is continually attributed to God's nature is its own concept, which we commonly speak of using "optical" language. God has never been without it. Its absence is spiritual darkness.
The "light" of Genesis 1:3 refers principally to the creation of certain spiritual things - heaven, the angels, etc.
Secondarily, this "light" is some sort of primordial energy, which may include the kind of light that we experience in everyday life, but isn't limited to that. (This is not necessarily cleanly distinguishable from the spiritual light of the previous bullet point, though; we with our scientific knowledge want to say that light is just a simple matter of physics, but the Bible was not written in the time of Maxwell.)

In the Bible, light is associated above all with God, as in your quotation from 1 John. This light illuminates us, so that being "in darkness" means being dissociated from God (in a state of sin, deprivation, etc.) and being "in light" is the opposite. Some more examples from the New Testament (NRSV) are John 1 (or actually pretty much anywhere in John):

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.

Ephesians 5:

  For once you were darkness, but now in the Lord you are light. Live as children of light— for the fruit of the light is found in all that is good and right and true. Try to find out what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what such people do secretly; but everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that becomes visible is light.

and 1 Thessalonians 5:

  But you, beloved, are not in darkness, for that day to surprise you like a thief; for you are all children of light and children of the day; we are not of the night or of darkness.

Moreover, heaven, the angels, and the saints are all described in terms of light, for example in the Revelation. It would appear that 1 John 1:5, "God is light", should be talking about this kind of light, as opposed to the electromagnetic phenomenon that resembles it. This interpretation is supported by the writings of the Fathers. For example, Augustine reads the creation of light in Genesis 1 as mainly referring to the creation of the heavenly realm and its angels (City of God 11.7, 9):

  Under the name of light the holy city was signified, composed of holy angels and blessed spirits. [...] When God said, Let there be light, and there was light, if we are justified in understanding in this light the creation of the angels, then certainly they were created partakers of the eternal light which is the unchangeable Wisdom of God, by which all things were made, and whom we call the only-begotten Son of God; so that they, being illumined by the Light that created them, might themselves become light and be called Day, in participation of that unchangeable Light and Day which is the Word of God, by whom both themselves and all else were made.

Similar remarks can be found in Basil's Homilies on the Hexaemeron, Chrysostom's Homilies on Genesis, and so on. Ambrose, in Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.13(79), has a particularly relevant comment: "Think not, then, that there was ever a moment of time when God was without wisdom, any more than that there was ever a time when light was without radiance." God could certainly not have been living in spiritual darkness. The heavenly city, created under the name of "light", should be understood as reflecting the glory of God's eternal "light". (The optical metaphor of reflection is very common in these writings.)

It is true that Augustine (et al.) also see in Genesis 1:3 the creation of "ordinary" light, though they are at a loss to explain exactly what it means for light to exist without some light-giving body (only created in verses 14-19). Augustine says: "What kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was, and yet must unhesitatingly believe it." (11.7). Basil  suggests that the light here created was, at least, a special sort of light of indescribable beauty (2.7). In contemporary speculation, and certainly up to the scholastic period, the light meant some kind of abstract energy, not limited to what we perceive as visible light. It is primordial light, analogous to the primordial, unformed, chaotic matter of Genesis 1:2; writers of this period were strongly influenced by Plato's Timaeus and its account of the progressive formation of all things from "raw" substance, the ylem.


What version of the bible do Greek speaking Christians use?

The language has certainly changed. As such, translations into modern Greek are used.
Today's Greek Bible is often used, and translations by the Hellenic Bible Society have the Blessing and Approval of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Holy Synod of the Greek Church and the Patriarchates. There are other translations of the Bible into modern Greek, and it must be noted that the underlying manuscript(s) used vary just as they do in English translations, but perhaps more so because of Greek Orthodox distinctions. Going beyond this into the realm of what every Christian group in Greece prefers is too broad. Given that Eastern Orthodoxy is the predominant Greek religion, I've stuck to this.
The history of translating the Bible into modern Greek is fascinating and filled with lots of controversy, but such a review is beyond the scope of this answer. I refer you to this Wikipedia article for some additional context, but it is quite biased and often unsourced. The Greek version has a list of translations.
The type of Greek used in Divine Liturgy varies by jurisdiction and local conventions. Increasingly, Greek Orthodox churches use the predominant language of the country where services are held. Where Divine Liturgy is in Greek, it is often a mixture of modern and biblical (Koine) Greek (similar to how English-speaking churches retain some archaic English phrases in their liturgies).


Does the Bible give any reason as to why its content is sometimes difficult to interpret?

Yes, absolutely
First understand these premises, earthly wisdom and Godly wisdom.

James 3:14-15  (NIV)
14 But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts,
do not boast about it or deny the truth. 15 Such “wisdom” does not
come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic.
James 3:17 (NIV)
17 But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then
peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit,
impartial and sincere.

This is the answer to your question
Isaiah was commissioned by God to go and rebuke a wicked people and deliver this curse to them.

Isaiah 6:9-10 NIV
9 He said, “Go and tell this people:
“‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but
never perceiving.’  10 Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they
might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand
with their hearts, and turn and be healed.”

Wicked people and the wisdom of this world
God has purposely shut off the understanding of His word to the common man. Because of that mans wickedness he will never know the truth about God. But if that man turns from his wickedness, repents, and has faith in Jesus Christ, then God will open the flood gates of wisdom so that you may understand His word.

Ephesians 4:18
They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life
of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening
of their hearts.

Children of God
God promises a wealth of understanding when He gives you the Holy Spirit.

Ephesians 1:8
that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding,
Isaiah 11:2
The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him— the Spirit of wisdom and of
understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of might, the Spirit of the
knowledge and fear of the LORD—
Colossians 1:9
... We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge
of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit
gives,


Election, Gods Sovereignty and Is Cain Saved?

Marc,

You are not alone in your struggles with the doctrine of predestination.  Many others (including myself) wrestle with these profound doctrines.

In your particular case where God is speaking to Cain, some light may be shed by observing that God is speaking here of "acceptance" which might also be translated "honored."  However, God is not telling Cain that he will be shown to be elected if he behaves righteously.  I know this seems like splitting hairs, but bear with me.

The Hebrew word used in Gen 4:6 is "seet" which can be elevation in the skin (like a scab or boil -- Lev 13) or elevation in prominence (see Job 13:11, 41:25).  God is telling Cain that if he does well, he will be honore.  Thus, we can see honor is a consequence of right behavior.  But, that does not mean election is the consequence.  If you do a word-study on "seet" you will find it never refers to "election" in any usage in the Bible.

"Election" is frequently in the Old Testament translated from "bahar" (to choose) or "yada" (to know).  In my brief reading, "bahar" seems to be time-based (e.g., Num 16:5-7, Deut 17:15, Is 42:1) and may be conditional (e.g., 1 Sam 16:7, 1Ch 28:10 and 1Ch 22:8).  However, God's "yada" of individuals seems often to have a timeless quality (implying fore-knowledge) and seems unconditional (e.g. Gen 18:19, Exo 33:12, Ps 37:18, Ps 139:4, Is 37:28).

Now in your question, you also speak of "mold[ing] for destruction" which goes beyond your cited source for election.  This is actually the doctrine of double-predestination.  Double-predestination is a logical conclusion if we take the doctrine of God's sovereignty to it's ultimate end, and I've seen people try to force that on many Calvinistic theologies.  Some Calvinists embrace it (including the original Calvinist: John Calvin), and some do not.  Per Wikipedia no Reformed (i.e., Calvinistic) tradition confesses Double Predestination.

Personally, I have wrestled with Double Predestination, but I find that while it appears a logically inescapable consequent, it also seems to go beyond Scripture.  The best biblical support for this doctrine (that I have seen) is Romans 10, but there are several issues with a Double Predestination interpretation of this passage (first and foremost, it is talking about the salvation of the Jews and not their damnation, also it is talking about whole nations and not individuals (except pharaoh who is the token for Egypt)).  Since I also believe that our logical systems are a second-hand observation of God's character (via creation), I find that I must submit first to the revelation of the God in the Bible.  If the Bible doesn't admit it as an inescapable conclusion, neither can I.

If you would like a deeper discussion Biblical discussion on the topic and the Hebrew words, I suggest you might want to ask the question on the Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange.


Which church father first taught the perpetual virginity of Mary?

As with many doctrines in the first few hundred years of the church, they tended not to be explicitly defined until heretics arose forcing the church to define doctrine.

This is why history is scarce on people speaking of this doctrine until the Antidicomarites show up in the mid to late 300s.

With that said, here's the records we have:

~100 AD: Ignatius of Antioch
~150 AD: Polycarp (disciple of John the Apostle)
~160 AD: Justin Martyr
~200 AD: Irenaeus

  In the year AD 383, Jerome writes that Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus all “held these same views” of Mary’s perpetual virginity and “wrote volumes replete with wisdom” (in his The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary: Against Helvidius, section 19).
  No writings from these 4 men survived that unambiguously identifies their belief in this doctrine, but we assume Jerome had access to some of their many works that did not survive until the modern day.

248 AD: Origen

  "Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus" [Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John (Book I), Section 6]

Then as the Antidicomarites show up, we see an explosion in references to the doctrine (after the council of Nicea in 325 AD, as your source noted):

354 AD: Hilary of Poitiers

  "If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary's sons and not those taken from Joseph's former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, 'Woman, behold your son,' and to John, 'Behold your mother' [John 19:26-27], as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" [Hilary's Commentary on Matthew 1:4]

360 AD: Athanasius

  Identifies Mary as "Mary Ever-Virgin" in his Discourse 2 Against the Arians, Section 70

373 AD: Ephrem

  "Because there are those who dare to say that Mary cohabited with Joseph after she bore the Redeemer, we reply, 'How would it have been possible for her who was the home of the indwelling of the Spirit, whom the divine power overshadowed, that she be joined by a mortal being, and gave birth filled with birthpangs, in the image of the primeval curse?'" [Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron]

~375 AD: Basil of Caesarea

  "...the lovers of Christ do not allow themselves to hear that the Mother of God ceased at a given moment to be a virgin..." [Basil’s Homily: On the holy generation of Christ 5; PG 31, 1468 B]

375 AD: Epiphanius

  "For I have heard from someone that certain persons are venturing to say that [Mary] had marital relations after the Savior’s birth. And I am not surprised. The ignorance of persons who do not know the sacred scriptures well and have not consulted histories, always turn them to one thing after another, and distracts anyone who wants to track down something about the truth out of his own head.” [The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: De fide. Books II and III, page 620, 7.1]

383 AD: Jerome

  In his The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary: Against Helvidius he gives a long, full biblical defense of Mary's perpetual virginity, noted in earlier sections in this answer.

386 AD: Didymus the Blind

  "Mary... remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" [Didymus's The Trinity 3:4]

388 AD: Ambrose of Milan

  Identified prophecy of Ezekiel 44:2 as proof of Mary's perpetual virginity in his De Institutione Virginum 8.52

401 AD: Augustine

  "A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?" [Augustine, Sermons 186:1]

And so on, this wiki continues the belief through to the modern era including the reformers.


What is the rationale for not making the Sign of the Cross after receiving Communion?

What is the rationalle for not making the Sign of the Cross after receiving Communion?

Let us start with the liturgical Rite of Pope Pius V. In the Extraordinary Rite of the Mass the priest sign the recipients of Holy Communion immediately before receiving the Sacred Host which by the way was always received while kneeling. The Faithful never signed themselves in the Old Rite.

As the priest places a Host directly from the chalice into the mouth of each communicant, he prays for life everlasting.

Holding the Sacred Host in his right hand, the priest makes the sign of the cross with it and says:

Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. Amen.

The following YouTube video explains how a priest performs these sacred actions in very clear detail (1:42:00 and following): The Latin Mass Explained and Demonstrated for Priests

We can notice two things here. The priest made the sign of the cross just before the recipient received the Sacred Host and he did not bless himself afterwards.

Why?

The priest as the minister of Holy Communion blessed us with the Sacred Host as we made our communion and now that we have received Our Lord with that same Sacred host there remains no real reason to bless ourselves since we have God residing within us. We have in a sense become a living tabernacle and dwelling place for the infinite  majesty of God's presence for the duration of time that the Host remains within us. This is Catholic teaching that is universally accepted mystery of faith.

There is no need to bless ourselves at communion because we truly have Jesus within us?

The rubrics found in the General Instruction Of The Roman Missal (Vatican source) for the Mass of Paul VI do not call for the faithful to cross themselves after receiving Communion. If a person wants to do it, as a personal act of piety, there is nothing that stops him, however. However this is not a tradition liturgical expression of faith. I myself have never heard of any priest insisting or teaching that we should make the sign of the cross at communion time.

Many priests may teach this as a pious act of Catholic piety, but it is in no way a traditional act of Catholic piety.

The Church simply asks that we receive Communion reverently, either by slightly bowing before receiving (if we receive standing up) or by kneeling (which is always an option). Communicants should respond with “Amen” when the minister says, “The Body of Christ” or “The Blood of Christ.”


Is the Gloria primarily a song of repentance, contrition and forgiveness or of praise?

The Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani is the document which instructs the pastors and the faithful on the correct way to celebrate the Eucharist. In its paragraph 53, it mentions the Gloria:

  The Gloria

  The Gloria is a very ancient and venerable hymn in which the Church, gathered together in the Holy Spirit, glorifies and entreats God the Father and the Lamb. The text of this hymn may not be replaced by any other text. The Gloria is intoned by the priest or, if appropriate, by a cantor or by the choir; but it is sung either by everyone together, or by the people alternately with the choir, or by the choir alone. If not sung, it is to be recited either by all together or by two parts of the congregation responding one to the other.

  It is sung or said on Sundays outside the Seasons of Advent and Lent, on solemnities and feasts, and at special celebrations of a more solemn character.

Therefore, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, which edited this text, makes it explicit here that it is a hymn of glorification and entreating the Father and the Son. This identity as a hymn of primarily praise also explains why it is omitted in Advent and Lent, which are more penitential seasons. Finally, the "proper" name for the Gloria, Major Doxology, points to it being a hymn of saying (λογία logia) glory (δόξα doxa) to God.


How was Jesus the Seed of David if Jesus is God who created Man (Adam), and David is the seed of Adam?

"How is Jesus the Messiah, the seed of David"? Simple: Jesus is the human aspect of the offspring of David. Before that, Jesus was spirit.

Jesus created all things, including humanity, as one of the persons of the Godhead before He was flesh and blood. It was only after Mary gave birth to Him that Jesus became flesh and blood. So this is not a circle.

To clarify your points:

As the Son of God in spirit form, Jesus created all things (John 1:1-3).
The Messianic prophecies foretold of Jesus the Son of God as coming in the flesh, as the offspring of a woman. So Jesus, the Word, became flesh (John 1:14).


From what biblical basis can it be argued 'God heals damaged emotions or physiological problems through the Bible'?

Here are a few verses that might shed some light on the question (sorry, being a new user, I can only give you links for context for the first two due to SPAM protection on stackexchange):

The book of Psalms, Chapter 27, Verse 1

"The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the LORD is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?"

The book of Psalms, Chapter 56, Verses 3-4

"What time I am afraid, I will trust in thee.  In God I will praise his word, in God I have put my trust; I will not fear what flesh can do unto me."

The book of Isaiah, Chapter 41, Verse 10

"Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness."

The book of Isaiah, Chapter 41, Verse 13

"For I the LORD thy God will hold thy right hand, saying unto thee, Fear not; I will help thee."

The book of Psalms, Chapter 34, Verse 17-19

"The righteous cry, and the LORD heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles.
The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.
Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the LORD delivereth him out of them all."

The book of Psalms, Chapter 94, Verse 18-19

"When I said, My foot slippeth; thy mercy, O LORD, held me up.
In the multitude of my thoughts within me thy comforts delight my soul."

The book of Proverbs, Chapter 18, Verse 1

"The name of the LORD is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe."

The book of Isaiah, Chapter 40, Verse 31

"But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint."

Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 15, Verse 4

"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope."

Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 15, Verse 13

"Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost."

The way in which positive emotions seem to be created and negative ones eliminated seems to be mainly through the belief that one is doing God's will, and that it is the way to salvation.


Where did the claim that "the Bible we have today is unreliable because of retranslation" come from?

At the risk of being overly pedantic, we need to understand what Pastor Litke means by "reliable" and perhaps what he even means by "the Bible".

The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines "rely" as (1) "trust fully; have faith in" and (2) "be dependent on".  But these definitions suppose an object:  to trust fully for what?  to depend on for what?  Do we expect, for example, that the Gospel accounts convey the literal meaning of what Jesus is purported to have said, or simply the sense of what he said?  Do we expect that the creation account(s) are scientifically accurate or in some sense allegorical?

In the article you linked, Pastor Litke seems to define "reliability" as the extent to which the true meaning of a particular verse or phrase is conveyed.  Paraphrases, he writes for example, are "less reliable, because you only know what the person doing the paraphrase thought a particular verb or phrase means."  He defines a paraphrase as:

  a less literal rendering of the Bible – restating the text to give the
  original sense but not attempting to literally translate each term in
  the original language.

He contrasts "paraphrases" with what he refers to as "translations":

  a rendering of the Bible in a language different than the one in which
  it was written ... intended to be as literal as possible and still be
  easily read

"Translations" of this sort, he maintains, are more "reliable" than paraphrases.

The following is an interesting example to consider in the context of Pastor Litke's argument.

The Greek text (Textus Receptus) of John 5:27-28 reads:

  και εξουσιαν εδωκεν αυτω και κρισιν ποιειν οτι υιος ανθρωπου εστιν μη
  θαυμαζετε τουτο οτι ερχεται ωρα εν η παντες οι εν τοις μνημειοις
  ακουσονται της φωνης αυτου

The 1900 revision to the King James Version reads:

  And [the Father] hath given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. Marvel not at this

According to Pastor Litke's definition of reliability, this translation is reliable in the sense it conveys the literal meaning of the each phrase:

και εξουσιαν εδωκεν αυτω και κρισιν ποιειν literally means "and authority gave to him also judgment to execute"
οτι υιος ανθρωπου εστιν literally means "because son of man he is"
μη θαυμαζετε τουτο literally means "marvel not at this"

But, since the original manuscripts had no punctuation, these same words can be arranged to form a different set of phrases altogether:

  He hath given Him authority to execute judgment also.  That He is
  the Son of Man, marvel not at this

According to Pastor Litke's criteria, this also would be a "reliable" translation, since it conveys the literal meaning of the underlying phrases.

Theologically, however, there is a great gulf between these two different translations.  The ambiguity in the Greek was understood and addressed in antiquity by Byzantine Church Fathers, but seems to have been lost in most English translations.  Nor is it an ambiguity that can be addressed through a mechanical appeal to dictionaries, concordances and lexicons.  John Chrysostom recognized the pitfall in reading the verse incorrectly and highlit the problem in his 39th Homily on the Gospel According to John:

  That He is the Son of Man, marvel not at this

  Paul of Samosata rendereth it not so; but how? “Hath given Him
  authority to execute judgment, ‘because’ He is the Son of Man.” Now
  the passage thus read is inconsequent, for He did not receive judgment
  “because” He was man, (since then what hindered all men from being
  judges,) but because He is the Son of that Ineffable Essence,
  therefore is He Judge. So we must read, “That He is the Son of Man,
  marvel not at this.” For when what He said seemed to the hearers
  inconsistent, and they deemed Him nothing more than mere man, while
  His words were greater than suited man, yea, or even angel, and were
  proper to God only, to solve this objection He addeth,

  Marvel not [that He is the Son of Man] for the hour is coming in the which they that are in the tombs shall hear His voice and shall go
  forth, they that have done good to the resurrection of life, and they
  that have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

As a result, I would say that Pastor Litke is correct in his assertion that the King James Version and the other translations he cites are "reliable", but only in the narrow sense he suggests.

There is also a somewhat insipid issue regarding what "the Bible" actually is.  Why, for example, is the Gospel according to John in any of the versions that Pastor Litke cites in the first place?  If a particular version of the Bible contains a faithful translation of the Shepherd of Hermas, would that particular Bible be considered "reliable"?  Hermas was included, after all, in the Codex Sinaiticus, which is considered by scholars to be one of the most reliable manuscript sources and is either the oldest or second oldest complete codex we have of the New Testament.

I think the problem with the basis of your question is that Pastor Litke's treatment of Biblical "reliability" is too superficial.  (I am not criticizing your question.  I personally think it is excellent.). The King James (and other) translations of John 5:27-28, are "reliable" in Pastor Litke's understanding, but convey a teaching (of Paul of Samasota) that was considered heretical by the Church in its 3rd century of existence (and is still considered heretical within the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches at least).  The Bible versions he lists exclude some books that were initially considered but later rejected by the Church for inclusion (e.g. Hermas) and exclude others that were prescribed for inclusion by the Church canons, but later excluded by reformers (e.g. some of the Deuterocanonical books).  Pastor Litke's framework for "reliability" doesn't accommodate differences of canon at all.