From the KJV Bible,

Genesis 6:4
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

The sons of God are differentiated from sons of man because their height or stature was greatly different. They are the giants or Nephilim, as some versions (e.g. NIV) call it.

Genesis 6:4
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

I quote from Ellicott's commentary:

(2) The sons of God. . . . —The literal translation of this verse is, And the sons of the Elohim saw the daughters of the adam that they were good (beautiful); and they took to them wives whomsoever they chose. Of the sons of the Elohim there are three principal interpretations: the first, that of the Targums and the chief Jewish expositors, that they were the nobles, and men of high rank; the second, that they were angels. St. Jude, Jude 1:6, and St. Peter, 2 Ep., 2Peter 2:4, seem to favour this interpretation, possibly as being the translation of the LXX. according to several MSS. But even if this be their meaning, which is very uncertain, they use it only as an illustration; and a higher authority says that the angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. The third, and most generally accepted interpretation in modern times, is that the sons of the Elohim were the Sethites, and that when they married for mere lust of beauty, universal corruption soon ensued. But no modern commentator has shown how such marriages could produce “mighty men . . . men of renown;” or how strong warriors could be the result of the intermarriage of pious men with women of an inferior race, such as the Cainites are assumed to have been.
The Jewish interpreters, who well understood the uses of their own language, are right in the main point that the phrase “sons of the Elohim” conveys no idea of moral goodness or piety. Elohim constantly means mighty ones (Exodus 15:11, marg.). (Comp. Exodus 12:12, marg., Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:8-9, where it is translated judges; Exodus 22:28, 1Samuel 2:25, where also it is translated judge.) In Job 1:6 the “sons of Elohim” are the nobles, the idea being that of a king who at his durbar gathers his princes round him; and, not unnecessarily to multiply examples, the “sons of the Elim,” the other form of the plural, is rightly translated mighty ones in Psalm 29:1.

When you read on, it says that the Sethites are among the descendants of Cain. They were boastful and advanced rapidly in the arts or army.
About the Giants, the commentary has this to say:

(4) Giants.—Heb., Nephilim, mentioned again in Numbers 13:33, and apparently a race of great physical strength and stature. Nothing is more probable than that, at a time when men lived for centuries, human vigour should also show itself in producing not merely individuals, but a race of more than ordinary height. They were apparently of the Cainite stock, and the text carefully distinguishes them from the offspring of the mixed marriages. The usual derivation of the name is from a root signifying to fall; but Lenormant (Origines de l’Histoire, p. 344) prefers pâlâ, which means “to be wonderful,” and compares the Assyrian naptû, “unique in size,” often found in the cuneiform inscriptions as the denomination of an ogre.
The same became mighty men.—Heb., They were the mighty men that were of old, men of name. “Gibborim,” mighty men (see Genesis 10:8), has nothing to do with stature, but means heroes, warriors. It is also generally used in a good sense. The children of these mixed marriages were a race of brave fighting men, who by their martial deeds won for themselves reputation.

So, the sons of God are from the descendants of Cain, who are great in stature (which can be known as Giants to inferior men), strength and they were noble/heroic. They are definitely not aliens or angels.


Why is it said that the Gospel of Luke presents Jesus as "the Son of Man"?

The Bible says that Jesus became man, and that He remained being God.
John 1:14 "And the Word became flesh"
Colossians 2:9 "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form".

So He is 100% human and 100% God. One person with two natures, and one of them, Son of Man.

This does not mean that he has a sinful human nature. Because His father is God and not man after all.
John 8:42 "Jesus said to them, 'If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.' "


Did Ignatius believe in the doctrine of Eternal Generation of the Son?

This "begotten and unbegotten" quote comes from Ignatius's Epistle to the Ephesians, chapter 7.2.  One source for the Greek is The Loeb Classical Library, Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1, page 180.  English translations of the text differ somewhat, but here are two popular ones:

There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible,—even Jesus Christ our Lord. (ANF)
There is one Physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and yet not born, who is God in man, true life in death, both of Mary and of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord. (Loeb, 181)

Quoting this section, J. N. D. Kelly, in Early Christian Doctrines, 92, indicates that the word agennetos is "the technical term reserved to distinguish the increate God from creatures."  Thus the emphasis can be understood to be more on Christ's distinction from his creatures than between Him and the Father.
Still, this is an attribute typically associated with God the Father, and this isn't the only place where Ignatius closely connects the Son and Father – Kelly provides several other quotes along similar lines, and describes how this language has sometimes been interpreted:

In view of this language the conclusion has sometimes been drawn that [...] Ignatius was really an 'economic trinitarian', i.e. regarded God as an undifferentiated monad in His essential being, the Son and the Spirit being merely forms or modes of the Father's self-revelation, only distinguishable from
Him in the process of revelation. (93)

However, Kelly disagrees with this conclusion, and contends that Ignatius did believe in the pre-existence of the Son – not that he only became an expression of God in the incarnation – as well as his independence from the Father:

[The thought of Ignatius] was steeped in the Fourth Gospel, and its strong emphasis on the oneness of Christ with the Father reflects such Johannine texts as 1:1f.; 10:30; 14:9; 17:5. [...]
[Ignatius] definitely states that He 'existed with the Father before the ages', and that He 'came forth from the unique Father, was with Him and has returned to Him'. Phrases like these imply a real distinction, as do the passages in which he compares the relation of deacons to the bishop, or of the church to the bishop, to that of Christ to the Father.
Numerous other contexts suggest that His independence vis-a-vis the Father was not limited to His earthly sojourn, such as (a) the formulae of greeting and farewell affixed to the letters, and (b) Ignatius's requests to his correspondents to address their prayers to Jesus Christ. (93)

So it's fair to conclude that while Ignatius did closely associate the Father and the Son, this use of "unbegotten" can be understood as referring to Christ as compared to his creatures, and that Ignatius did believe in the eternal generation of the Son.


What is the basis for saying "God bless you" when a person sneezes?

This is an ancient custom which predates Christianity. Pliny (Natural History 28.5) records a custom among the Romans of greeting someone who sneezes:

  Why is it that we salute a person when he sneezes, an observance which Tiberius Caesar, they say, the most unsociable of men, as we all know, used to exact, when riding in his chariot even? Some there are, too, who think it a point religiously to be observed to mention the name as well of the person whom they salute. [...] These usages have been established by persons who entertained a belief that the gods are ever present, in all our affairs and at all hours, and who have therefore found the means of appeasing them by our vices even.1

So he says that superstitions of this kind are attributable to the belief that certain apparently meaningless events are actually "signs" from some spiritual power. Homer also gives an account of a sneeze-omen in the Odyssey 17.528-550, where Penelope predicts that Odysseus will kill her suitors if he returns: at this point, Telemachus sneezes (Τηλέμαχος δὲ μέγ' ἔπταρεν), and Penelope interprets that as a sign that her prediction is true.

The fact that sneezing is involuntary might make it more likely for people to see a hidden hand at work. Augustine (On Doctrine 2.20) writes about "the most frivolous practices" of superstitious observances when "any part of the body should jump", or "to go back to bed if any one should sneeze when you are putting on your slippers". 2 In this case, the sneeze is interpreted as a divine warning that today is a bad day to do anything important.

Because a sneeze comes from the head, the seat of reason, it may be regarded as being of divine origin, according to the school of Aristotle; and moreover, it was seen as a sign of good health and vitality, unlike coughing, which was more commonly associated with disease (Problems chapter 33, "Concerning the nose"). The only Biblical sneeze is in 2 Kings 4, where Elisha restores a dead boy to life, demonstrating a perceived link with the breath of life:

  When Elisha came into the house, he saw the child lying dead on his bed. So he went in and closed the door on the two of them, and prayed to the Lord. Then he got up on the bed and lay upon the child, putting his mouth upon his mouth, his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands; and while he lay bent over him, the flesh of the child became warm. He got down, walked once to and fro in the room, then got up again and bent over him; the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes. 2 Kings 4:32-35 (NRSV)

Just from these examples, we can see that sneeze customs are a bit ambiguous when it comes to the sneeze being "good" or "bad". "God bless you!" could be an appropriate response either way. But Scripture also often speaks against the interpretation of omens - or at least encourages people to seek actual divine guidance - so we could say that a "get well soon" kind of "bless you" is acceptable, but the "ooh, that's unlucky" kind is not.

I have heard the evil nasal demon explanation many times but I have never seen a source which endorsed the theory. (It's not hard to find people sneering at the silly mediaevals, but this may be yet another case where they weren't so silly.)

1. Original: cur sternuentes salutamus? quod etiam Tiberium Caesarem, tristissimum, ut constat, hominum, in vehiculo exegisse tradunt, et aliqui nomine quoque consalutare religiosius putant? [...] haec instituere illi, qui omnibus negotiis horisque interesse credebant deos et ideo placatos etiam vitiis nostris reliquerunt. English translation above by John Bostock and H. T. Riley (Taylor and Francis, 1855).
2. Original phrases: inanissimarum observationum; si membrum aliquod salierit; redire ad lectum si quis dum se calceat sternutaverit.


Where did the Catholic Church condemn naming guardian angels

Where does the Catholic Church condemn naming guardian angels?

You can find your answer from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the sacraments Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy, PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES:

  Popular devotion to the Holy Angels, which is legitimate and good, can, however, also give rise to possible deviations:

  when, as sometimes can happen, the faithful are taken by the idea that the world is subject to demiurgical struggles, or an incessant battle between good and evil spirits, or Angels and daemons, in which man is left at the mercy of superior forces and over which he is helpless; such cosmologies bear little relation to the true Gospel vision of the struggle to overcome the Devil, which requires moral commitment, a fundamental option for the Gospel, humility and prayer;
  when the daily events of life, which have nothing or little to do with our progressive maturing on the journey towards Christ are read schematically or simplistically, indeed childishly, so as to ascribe all setbacks to the Devil and all success to the Guardian Angels. The practice of assigning names to the Holy Angels should be discouraged, except in the cases of Gabriel, Raphael and Michael whose names are contained in Holy Scripture.

Although this practice is discouraged, some of the faithful do in fact give a name to their Guardian Angels.


According to Catholics (and Mark 7:19) what happens to Jesus' flesh after it is ingested?

Unlike perishable food that sustains the body, Christ's body in the Eucharist cannot be broken down and assimilated because His glorified body is incapable of harm.

As St. Thomas Aquinas writes (Summa Theologica III q. 77 a. 7 co.):

  it cannot be said that Christ's true body is broken because it is

  incorruptible and impassible
  entire under every part, as was shown above (q. 76 a. 3), which is contrary to the nature of a thing broken.

cf. this article on Guitmund of Aversa vs. Thomas Aquinas on the question of whether Christ's body in the Eucharist can be chewed (atteri), from The Thomist

After digestion has corrupted the sacramental species, Christ's body and blood cease to be under this sacrament.

Summa Theologica III q. 77 a. 4 co.:

  if the change [of the sacramental species] be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted*, then Christ's body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.*[had such a change been done to the bread and wine before consecration]

cf. this answer, which addresses whether the sacramental species can nourish.


Why did St. John Paul II add the Luminous Mysteries to the Rosary?

No one knows for sure where Pope St John Paul II the Great got the inspiration to add the Luminous Mysteries to the Rosary.
The history of the Rosary shows a wide variety of styles, due to the unique inspirations of an individual or even a Religious Order. St John Eudes (1601-1680) is a good example of employing different ways of using a rosary in one's life of prayer in his treatise on The Life and the Kingdom of JESUS.
It is obvious that Pope John Paul II desired to make the traditional mysteries of the Rosary to be expanded to include Jesus' public life and more Christological.

I believe, however, that to bring out fully the Christological depth of the Rosary it would be suitable to make an addition to the traditional pattern which, while left to the freedom of individuals and communities, could broaden it to include the mysteries of Christ's public ministry between his Baptism and his Passion. - ROSARIUM VIRGINIS MARIAE

The probable origins of the Mysteries of Light and Pope John Pal II's inspiration for them came from Saint George Preca (1880-1962). He was canonized by Pope Benedict XVI on June 3, 2007.

It is not yet known whether these new mysteries were actually taken from those proposed by Dun Gorg (as the new Blessed is affectionately known in Malta). But it is certainly a curious fact that, apart from some small differences, the five mysteries are identical to those proposed by Fr Preca. Interesting as well is the fact that the Pope has called these mysteries from Christ's public life “the Mysteries of Light”, the same title given originally by Fr Preca when he first proposed them in 1957. - Probable Origin of the Mysteries of Light

Fr. Dolindo Ruotolo may have been  Fr. Preca’s inspiration!

The Misteries of Light were proposed and included in the Rosary by Pope John Paul II with the Apostolic Letter of October 10, 2002
The Mysteries of Light are taken from the Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke and St. John written by Father Dolindo Ruotolo (1939).

The Sacred Scripture: The Gospel According to Luke (Don Dolindo Ruotolo) Book 1


How do non-sacramental denominations identify and ordain pastors and other leaders?

Baptists and many evangelicals reject the notion of a sacremental "priest" that is somehow in essence different than mere laity, but still ordain their ministers.  A "priest" confers the idea that the person is specially endowed with the ability to stand between man and God. Those who subscribe to the idea of the "priesthood of all believers" do not believe that any intermediary is necessary.  That said, they still typically note that God gave "some to pastors and teachers" and so that gets recognized.

Ordination (such as my own), typically comes about after:

a candidate has expressed a desire to be set apart for ministry,
has some amount of training (although not always a degree), and
a vetting process wherein a board (usually from outside the local body) examines the candidate

The ceremony itself typically involves:

a sermon (come on, we're talking preachers here!) about what ordination means
a laying on of hands
a prayer
a proclamation that the ordinand has been set apart for God's work.

I've seen the laying on of hands restricted to one elder, be open to all ordained visitors in attendance, or even to all in the congregation.  Like most baptist & nondenominational things, there is no set liturgy - but it feels better if you have the elements above involved.

My ordination (like most Baptist ordinations) says that it was conferred by Long Branch Baptist Church. Technically, no other church, be they Baptist or otherwise, is under any compulsion to honor it, but in practice, I have never had an issue. One will note, if one reads their diploma, typically it just states that the professors here have found the student worthy of a degree.  Technically my ordination is my church recognizing that I have been set apart by God in the same way. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no human authority that can remove it, other than my church.

When I went to the courthouse to be given the right to marry couples, the certificate was considered valid. Later, when an Episcopalian lay member of a prison ministry group questioned my clergy credentials (I was retired, and he was being a bit of a jerk), another Episcopalian priest vouched for my credentials, saying I was duly ordained. In interfaith settings, most sacramental priests understand the difference between a Baptist minister who has actually used his ordination and the guy off the street that just bought an ordination certificate online.  In practice, I tend to tell people I am ordained and have a Masters of Divinity, since not all Baptist ministers do. It is a cue to those who understand the value of the M.Div, although in the IT world, a lot people still think I just got a certificate.  When I tell them it took 8 years, and that I pastored a church for 4, then I get the "ooh"'s of recognition.


What does the Bible say about Egypt aside from the story of Moses in Exodus?

It's pretty clear from the Bible that people outside the Hebrews knew about the existence of God.

To make that more specific, they knew that there was a God that the Hebrews worshipped, just as the Hebrews knew there was a god (or gods) that the Egyptians worshipped, and the same for any other race. That doesn't mean they knew that the Hebrew God was the Almighty Creator of the Universe.

They (the Egyptians) might have assumed that he was just one among many gods (or possibly that he didn't exist and the Hebrews made him up). It was a pretty normal assumption in those days that a people thought of their god as one among many - perhaps the best, the most powerful, the one who was on their side, but just one among many.

You might be seeing a number of things going on in Egypt. The Egyptians might assume that the Hebrew god wasn't real, or that their own gods were more powerful. That would explain why Pharaoh might press an attack even knowing that the God of the Hebrews was against him - he is relying on protection from his own gods.

As for your last point, it's never been true that being a follower of God assures you worldly success. Plenty of civilizations have achieved great things without being followers of God.

To answer the bigger question in the title, there are places where you can search the Bible for specific words. Here are the results of a search for the word "Egypt". You can read all those passages to find out what the Bible says about Egypt. You can also read something called a Bible Dictionary which will tell you all sorts of things about Egypt in the Bible.


But does the Pope directly talk with God or the Virgin Mary? Or, does he do it in any other, not-direct, way?

First, notice that God is Trinitarian, so anyone "speaking" to God must speak to one of the three persons, either God the Father, Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

Now, regarding visions or other forms of visitations, if we are to believe the apocryphal Acts of Peter, then Peter himself (the First pope) was the only Pope in history of which we have recollection to have directly talked to God (as Jesus). There seems to be no other account of such encounter.

Regarding talking to God in "other, not-direct, way", of course! That's what prayer is all about. Jesus taught us and encouraged us to pray to God the Father. He Himself gave us the example of such prayer. Thus, this is not limited to popes but open to every Christian. We can also direct our prayers/conversation to Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Now, it is only us (so far as I know) who speak in terms of words to God. God might respond in multiple, sometimes unexpected ways, to our prayers and questions. Many times we are so busy and anxious with the daily tolls of life that there is no enough silence in our hearts/souls in order to listen to God.


Under a Protestant perspective what sort of ‘sacrifices’ as a symbolic priest can a believer perform within the ‘priesthood’ of all believers?

The best place to look for an answer to how Lutherans would view the 1 Peter passage on sacrifices is to look at the section on the Defense of the Augsburg Confession on sacrifice.

19] Moreover, the proximate species of sacrifice are two, and there are no more. One is the propitiatory sacrifice, i.e., a work which makes satisfaction for guilt and punishment, i.e., one that reconciles God, or appeases God's wrath, or which merits the remission of sins for others. The other species is the eucharistic sacrifice, which does not merit the remission of sins or reconciliation, but is rendered by those who have been reconciled, in order that we may give thanks or return gratitude for the remission of sins that has been received, or for other benefits received.
25] Now the rest are eucharistic sacrifices, which are called sacrifices of praise, Lev. 3:1f.; 7:11f.; Ps. 56:12f., namely, the preaching of the Gospel, faith, prayer, thanksgiving, confession, the afflictions of saints, yea, all good works of saints. These sacrifices are not satisfactions for those making them, or applicable on behalf of others, so as to merit for these, ex opere operato, the remission of sins or reconciliation. For they are made by those who have been reconciled. 26] And such are the sacrifices of the New Testament, as Peter teaches, 1 Pet. 2:5: An holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices. Spiritual sacrifices, however, are contrasted not only with those of cattle, but even with human works offered ex opere operato, because spiritual refers to the movements of the Holy Ghost in us. Paul teaches the same thing Rom. 12:1: Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable, which is your reasonable service. Reasonable service signifies, however, a service in which God is known, and apprehended by the mind, as happens in the movements of fear and trust towards God. Therefore it is opposed not only to the Levitical service, in which cattle are slain, but also to a service in which a work is imagined to be offered ex opere operato, The Epistle to the Hebrews 13:15, teaches the same thing: By Him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually; and he adds the interpretation, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name. He bids us offer praises, i.e., prayer, thanksgiving, confession, and the like. These avail not ex opere operato, but on account of faith. This is taught by the clause: By Him let us offer, i.e., by faith in Christ.


If Solomon had not been born, obviously another son would have become king.  After David sinned with Bathsheba and was told an ingenious parable by the prophet Nathan, David pronounced his own judgement by saying that such a person must pay four times for this crime (2 Sam 12:6).  Thus, David had the following sons die:

The son from Bathsheba's first pregnancy (2 Sam 12:18)
David's eldest son and the one most likely to have succeeded as king, Amnon (2 Sam 13), if David had not decided to appoint Solomon as heir (1 Kings 1:29, 30).
David's next son, Absalom (2 Sam 15-17)
David's next son, Adonijah (1 Kings 1:1-52, 2:13-25)

This is somewhat academic, as David had made it quite clear who was to succeed him (1 Kings 1:29, 30).  It was the reigning kings prerogative to appoint his chosen heir which was often (but not always) the eldest son.  [Note the important example of this where Jacob chose Judah over Reuben as his primary heir, from whom came King David himself.]


How do creationists explain some recent hominid discoveries

Here's what Ken Ham had to say regarding the news of this discovery:

  No scientist witnessed the origin of man, and evolutionary scientists
  only believe there were intermediate evolutionary links between an
  ape-like ancestor and man because they have disregarded God’s Word and
  substituted their own fallible opinions in its place

  ...

  The only way to find an ape-man—or a “bridge” between apes and humans—is to
  misinterpret fossils of either an ape or a human as something in
  between.

Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell of Answers in Genesis provides a more thorough review and in her assessment claiming these bones are human is a stretch.

In general most Young Earth Creationists would recognize that claims such as this are based on the presuppositions and biases of the person making the claim. In other words the scientist(s) in question assume that Evolutionary Theory is true and interpret the facts to fit that framework. Other scientists would interpret the same facts based on the assumption that the Bible is true and reach a completely different conclusion.


From the Westminister Shorter Catechism Question 1:

  Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.

Supporting verses:

Psalm 86:9 (ESV)

  All the nations you have made shall come
      and worship before you, O Lord,
      and shall glorify your name.

Isaiah 60:21 (ESV)

  Your people shall all be righteous;
       they shall possess the land forever,
  the branch of my planting, the work of my hands,
      that I might be glorified.

Romans 11:36 (ESV)

  For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

1 Corinthians 6:20 (ESV)

  for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

1 Corinthians 10:31 (ESV)

  So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

Revelation 4:11 (ESV)

  “Worthy are you, our Lord and God,
      to receive glory and honor and power,
  for you created all things,
      and by your will they existed and were created.”

Psalm 16:11 (ESV)

  You make known to me the path of life;
      in your presence there is fullness of joy;
      at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.

Philippians 4:4 (ESV)

  Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice.

There are numerous other verses cited, but these are the majority of the verses that support this answer.


Music Ministry in Evangelical Free Church of America

Short answer: ask the pastor and/or worship leader in your local church.

Long answer: The Evangelical Free Church is an association of churches, which is less binding than a true denomination.  As such, each individual church has a great deal of autonomy in the everyday workings of the local church.

My brother and my father are both pastors at EFCA churches. I have been a worship pastor at an EFCA church.

In the church where my brother and father serve, they have an extremely talented group of musicians. The pianist has a Master's degree in music. The bassist plays in a professional jazz band. The guitarist spent the first half of his life as a performing musician in a couple of well known mainstream bands.  At that church, it would be difficult to join the worship team in those positions - not because of your longevity in the church, but because the existing musicians are extremely talented and consistent.

I served as worship pastor in a much smaller church. If someone came to visit who had reasonable musical skill and was willing to play, I would bring them onto the worship team as early as the very next week.

In general, the larger the church, the more difficult it will be to join the worship team. Still, this is more of a function of your relative skill in your instrument than a function of how long you have been attending.

Also, a church will be more willing to give you a leadership position if they believe you are willing to stick around. When I moved to a new city, I began attending church immediately. I sat down with the pastor, explained my experience and why I had moved churches (because I moved for work) and was invited to join the worship team that next week.

Hope this helps!


Why were we created to serve if He is all-powerful?

The question is better answered by understanding why God created at all and CCC 293 tells us the God created all things not to increase his glory, but to show it forth and to communicate it, for God has no other reason for creating than his love and goodness.

The next point CCC 294 continues that God made us to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, [...] The ultimate purpose of creation is that God who is the creator of all things may at last become all in all, thus simultaneously assuring his own glory and our beatitude.

Therefore for his glory and our beatitude, God made us to know Him, love Him and serve Him in this world, and be happy with Him forever in the next. [Cf. Penny Catechism 2].

But really, who is serving who when the LORD himself came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

What shall one render to the Lord for all his bounty to them? [Cf. Ps 116:12 (RSVCE)]

The way I look at it is that it is an exchange, just as lovers do, God has given us everything we have and in his love and mercy and goodness, even gives us the gifts for us to make a return to him.

  It is truly right and just, our duty and our salvation, always and
  everywhere to give you thanks, Lord, holy Father, almighty and eternal
  God. For, although you have no need of our praise, yet our
  thanksgiving is itself your gift, since our praises add nothing to
  your greatness, but profit us for salvation, through Christ our Lord.
  And so, in company with the choirs of Angels, we praise you, and with
  joy we proclaim: Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts . . . - COMMON
  PREFACE IV.


Reiterating John 3:16, as in its whole meaning…

thank you for your questions.  Yes, God is wonderfully merciful, loving, and generous.  He is hurting a lot when his children go astray and hurt themselves, because He wants his children to be happy, but to be happy they have to return to him.  So God sends a rescue mission in the person of Jesus, his only Son.

I'll try to answer your questions now.

  Why does God love the world so much? Or the individual people in it?

The world in John 3:16 means all the people He had created, so yes, all the individuals.  The "world" here doesn't mean earth, although God also loves nature as well (because he creates the universe too !) and at the end of time God will recreate earth to be better than ever !

Why does God love the world?  Same reason why parents love their children: they brought the children into the world and they want the children to have the best lives they can have.

  Does this mean we only have to believe in Jesus Christ/God to go to heaven?

The short answer is YES.  But what does believing in Jesus mean?

Let's say the their child breaks a law (shoplifting, steal car, hurt another child, etc), then parents would have to pay for the damage so the child can come home from the police station.  Of course it costs the parents money and shame, but they want to give the child a new start.  But what does the child need to do?  If the child still wants to join gangs and doesn't want to come home, what can the parent do?  So believing in Jesus means you have to stop the rebellion and start trusting your parents again and SHOW the trust by obeying their commandments so you can grow to be the best adult you can be.  You don't have to repay your parents the cost of your upbringing or the damage you have caused, you only have to trust your parents.  It's FREE !  That's what believing in Jesus means.

I hope I answered your questions.  Please ask questions in the comments section.

God bless !


Do both officiant and recorder need holy orders to perform a Catholic baptism?

I am going to extrapolate from the behavior of the California fathers under the assumption that they followed canon law. The answer depends on which sort of officiant is involved. It turns out there are lots of examples of an Officiant who is not a priest — they could even be women — for provisional (partial) baptisms. Then the sacrament could be completed later by a priest, the Supli Ceremonia Officiant. I quote from the guide to the database:

There are two types of baptism: standard or provisional.  If the baptism was a standard baptism — one in which the ego was healthy and able to participate — it was coded as normal ... the padres also baptized individuals who they feared were in danger of imminent death or were otherwise unable to travel to the mission due to ill health.
Usually the officiant is a missionary, but in the cases of provisional baptisms, the officiant could have been a layperson.
In many provisional baptisms no godparents were assigned at the time of baptism. At a later date, if the ego survived, the Franciscans would execute the complete rite of baptism, stating in the record that they had “supli las ceremonias,” or in a crude translation, supplied the full ceremonies.  It should be noted that this was not a second baptism, but the completion of the original baptism.  It was at this time that the godparents might be assigned.

The database also contains Nuptial Officiants and Dispensation Officiants for other specific cases with regard to marriage.


Mormonism view on God as a physical being

David,
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (colloq. Mormons) believe that we are literally spirit children of God, that He is an exalted being, and that we can become like Him.  Jesus Christ also has a physical body and He was the only begotten of The Father (God).  Our physical bodies were not begotten of The Father, but we are all His spirit children, and Christ is our brother.
Paul explained it clearly when he said, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device." Acts 17:29
There are many Bible and other LDS canonized scriptures to support this doctrine.  Here are some of the many references:
King James Bible

Gen 1:27 God created man image
Ps. 82:6 Ye are gods, children of the most High:
Heb. 12:9 Be in subjection unto the Father of spirits
Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God
Phil. 3:21 His glorified body
1 Jn 3:1-2 Now are we the sons of God

LDS Canonized Scriptures
Book of Mormon

Mosiah 5:7 You shall be called the children of Christ, his sons and his daughters
Mosiah 27:25 All people must be born again, becoming his sons and daughters
Ether 3:14 They shall become my sons and my daughters
Moro. 7:19 Ye certainly will become a child of Christ

Pearl of Great Price
Moses 1:13 I am a son of God
Doctrine and Covenants
D&C 130:22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s
Bonus
There are many other Bible references to God and his physical body:

Gen 32:30 His face
Ex. 24:10 His feet
Ex. 31:18 His finger
Num. 12:8 His mouth


What's a list of theological terms to describe how one approaches the bible?

Interesting question, and worth a measured response, either here or in Stack Exchange Biblical Hermeneutics Beta.  By the way, I assume you are not after a mere list of different schools of thought vis a vis literalism but an explanation of what distinguishes one "faction" of literalists from another faction of literalists.

According to Dr. Bob Thiel, Theophilus of Antioch, who wrote c. 180 A.D., was one of the earliest proponents of the "literal" approach to biblical interpretation. Thiel, by the way, is known online as COGwriter.com, and he is a widely published spokesperson for the Continuing Church of God (with which I am in no way affiliated).  Thiel contrasts Theophilus's approach with the "allegorical" approach to biblical interpretation espoused by Origin of Alexandria, who borrowed extensively from  Clement of Alexandria.  These two "schools of thought" or "camps" are in some ways the antithesis of each other.

On the one hand, Theophilus, a literalist, would explain the concept of God's anger in very human terms, albeit not in a sinful sense.  Call it righteous indignation or an aspect of the wrath of God, but God's anger is literal, according to Theophilus, and its expression is real.

On the other hand, Origin, an allegorist, would insist the human concept of anger is not worthy of God but must be explained not in anthropomorphic terms but in figurative and allegorical terms.  In other words, there needs to be a "deeper" meaning than simple, human anger.  The literalist camp would insist that while there may in fact be an occasional deeper meaning in a biblical text, the "default setting" (my term, copyright 2013!) for reading the Bible should be literal, not figurative.

Since the third century in the Common Era, variations of the two camps (not to mention other, competing camps) have come and gone.  I would not be surprised if by google-ing various key terms in this regard, one might come up with a scholarly work which traces the evolution--or devolution, as the case may be--of the literal method.  In fact, I will do that search myself and edit this answer if I find any sources worth quoting.

Additionally, I would not be surprised, either, if someone has written a tome on the various ways in which Christian literalists have gone about the art of interpretation since the first century A.D.  Come to think of it, the "higher critics," so called, may in fact be literalists in some ways.  What sets them apart from other literalists, however, is their tendency to explain away or discount such things as miracles and even the inspiration of the Scripture by the Holy Spirit.  In other words, they may believe there was an actual Moses, for example, but not that Moses spoke to a rock and out gushed water.

The same reasoning applies to the crossing of the Red Sea.  Higher critics lean toward believing the sea was a Sea of Reeds, and that there was nothing particularly miraculous in the way the Israelites crossed that shallow body of water that could not be explained through natural phenomena.

I hope someone takes up the challenge I've issued and answers the OP's question based on knowledge which has already be acquired in this regard before I've had time to prepare a more thorough answer than my partial answer.


Was 30 the canonical age for Catholic priesthood in the 1700s?

The Council of Trent (1545-1563) wrote a decree Sacrificium et sacerdotium on the holy orders dealing with this question:

Nullus  in  posterum  ad  subdiaconatus  ordinem  ante  vigesimum  secundum  ad  diaconatus  ante  vigesimum  tertium  ad  presbyteratus  ante  vigesimum  quintum  aetatis  suae annum promoveatur.
Sciant tamen episcopi non singulos in ea aetate constitutos debere ad hos ordines assumi sed dignos dumtaxat et quorum probata vita senectus sit.
Regulares  quoque  nec  in  minori  aetate  nec  sine  diligenti  episcopi  examine  ordinentur; privilegiis quibuscumque quoad hoc penitus exclusis.
(Decretum super reformatione, canon XII)
No one shall for the future be promoted to the order of subdeaconship before the twenty-second year of age; to that of deaconship before his twenty-third year; to that of priesthood before his twenty-fifth year.
Nevertheless, bishops are to know, that not all who have attained to that age must needs be admitted to the aforesaid orders, but those only who are worthy, and whose commendable life is an old age.
Regulars likewise shall not be ordained under the above age, nor without a diligent examination by the bishop; all privileges whatsoever in this regard being completely set aside.
(Decree on reformation, chapter XII)

So the minimum age for ordination as a priest was set to 25 years. The diligent investigation of the age was prescribed in canones V and VII.
I do not know for sure, if there was a later papal decree raising the minimum age, but I do not see any reason for such a step. There could also be a local law setting a higher age.
So probably the minimum age for your case was 25. So the suspected age of 24 would have been a problem. Maybe the note "older than 30 years" refers to the declared or the investigated age.


Within the Catholic Church, when and by whom did the story that Jesus was born in a house arise?

Sorry, I can't really address this from within the Catholic Church either through membership or knowledge of, but it is entirely non-denominationally biblical.

Perhaps the account of the visit of the wise men (Magi)in Matthew 2:1-12 will help:

1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, 2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.  3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.  4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.  5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, 6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.  8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.

9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
10  When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.  11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.  12 And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way. - KJV

So, the so-called 'wise men' visited a considerable time after Jesus' birth in the stable's crib and having settled with his mother and father in a more suitably comfortable room of a proper house.

That's all.  Thanks and God bless


Does the Bible say when the day of the Lord (as described in 2 Peter 3:10) will occur, and does it go into more detail about this particular event?

The Bible doesn't say exactly when this Day will occur. Furthermore, Jesus said:

  Mark 13:32 says, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."

Updated Information: The "Day of the Lord" is not about some kind of war; rather, is is about the Second Advent of Jesus Christ. I suggest you first read Mark's Gospel (or any of the other three Gospels) to aid you in your interpretation of what is written in the Epistles.


Do Latter Day Saints / Mormons consider themselves to be henotheists?

An article provided by FairMormon (a Latter-day Saint volunteer apologetics group not connected with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) provides what I think is a good answer.  The full article, which addresses a broader array of questions than just the one here posed, can be found at this link.

The substance of the answer provided by FairMormon is:

  There really is not a single word that adequately captures LDS thought on the nature of God. ... Instead of using a single-word label, one must actually articulate the belief (using fully-developed sentences or paragraphs). The single-word label that will adequately describe the full breadth of LDS thought on the nature of God has yet to be coined.

As a life-long Latter-day Saint, I concur with the quoted statement.  No single-word "-ism" has a definition that quite matches my church's teachings, and the differences between the definitions and the teachings are sufficiently important to merit not using any of those words as a full description of our beliefs.

The article, however, is not an official statement from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its leaders, which is what you are asking for.  So far I haven't been able to find any official statement, and it seems likely there is none.  A search at ChurchofJesusChrist.org (which is replacing lds.org) for "henotheist" returns no results, and a search for "henotheism" returns one result to an Old Testament lesson manual, though I cannot find where in the manual the word appears.  If someone can find an official statement, please share.


The part of the scripture you left out is pretty important to understanding this passage.  Basically, she has to drink some dusty water that will cause her to miscarry if she's guilty, but she'll be fine if she's not guilty.

I think it's simply making clear that the husband is not guilty for miscarriage and the harm that results from the actions of the priest applying the law to his wife.  That guilt lies with the woman, because it is her who slept around and lied about it.  According to scripture, she brought it on herself.  She can't come back and say, "This child would have lived had you not taken me to the priest."  In that situation, he could simply respond, "No, the child would have lived had you not had an affair and lied about it."

In other words, he is not held responsible when her actions conflict with God's law, and bring pain and suffering onto her own head, even if he was the one who brought her to the priest for the application of the law.

The spiritual point is this:

The application of the law doesn't bring guilt.  The transgression of the law does.


Did Adam and Eve's Progeny Commit Incest?

There is a third option -

The prohibition on incest didn't come about until the covenant in Leviticus & Deuteronomy, and to accuse Cain, Abel, and Seth of incest is to accuse them ex post facto.

As an aside, a Young Earth Creationist would date the Creation to 4004 BC, and the Exodus (and  hence the Covenant) to about 1440BC.  As such, you would be accusing them of a crime that wasn't mandated for nearly 2600 years.

If you want to say, "but surely the law goes back further than the covenant," you get into territory of, "So when did it become a law?"  Incest is prohibited in most secular cultures today because it weakens the gene pool.  Over time, the level of closeness has gotten wider in order to ensure a wider mixing.  In modern times, a first or second cousin is off-limits.  If I remember correctly in Leviticus, immediate family was prohibited, but I believe that cousins were ok. If you follow the trajectory backwards, you'd probably arrive at a date at which it was ok even for family members to procreate together, societally speaking.

An objection has been raised worth noting:

  regardless, biology hasn't changed. legally incest wasn't "wrong" yet but humanity does not tend to survive well on inbreeding.

My response stands, however:

  Agreed that humanity doesn't tend to survive well on inbreeding, but it fares even more poorly if the first of the species refrain from procreation altogether


Does the Bible ever refer to Jesus Christ as “God”?

This answer to Does Jesus ever claim to be God, or the son of God? addresses your question, but now the verses are included for reference below and the idea of Jesus as Lord (Kyrios) which is equal to God is discussed.

There are 7 instances where the Jesus is called God (Theos) in the New Testament, which are in John 1:1, 1:18, 20:28, Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8, and 2 Peter 1:1.

  John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
  John 1:18 "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known."
  John 20:28 "Thomas answered him, 'My Lord and my God!'"
  Romans 9:5 "To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen."
  Titus 2:13 "Waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,"
  Hebrews 1:8 "But of the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,    the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.'"
  2 Peter 1:1 "Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:"

Also noteworthy is that Jesus is called Lord (Kyrios or Kurios) over 500 times in the New Testament, which is how both YHWH and Adonai were translated in the Old Testament into the Septuagint >100 years before Jesus came. Elohim is translated as Theos. There are multiple instances even in the New Testament where Kyrios is used to refer to God, such as the quotations that Jesus uses in Matthew 4 against Satan:

  Matthew 4:7 Jesus said to him, "Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord  (Kyrios) your God (Theos) to the test.’”
  Matthew 4:10 "...You shall worship the Lord (Kyrios) your God (Theos)and him only shall you serve."

So when you account for Jesus being called Lord, you could perhaps say that the Bible calls Jesus (equal to) God explicitly over 500 times.

Edit: the link in the question has a video that mentions how kyrios is also used in several other places in the NT to mean something much less substantial than "God." He mentioned 21 references specifically; 11 of them (over half), ironically enough, are used in parables which Jesus is using an owner/master/lord (kyrios) to represent God. He does make a good point though, that kyrios applies beyond just God or Jesus. However, we can't ignore the significance of the fact that the translations of LORD (YHWH) and Lord (Adonai) are both now Kyrios in the Greek Septuagint. It's probably also worth noting that capitalization was nonexistent in the autographs (original manuscripts) of either the Old or New Testament, as unicals (all capital letters) were the norm. For the NT, minuscules began becoming more popular around 4th-5th century I believe.

Finally, not only is Jesus Lord (Kyrios) and God (Theos), He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Kyrios Kyrion)! These terms are applied to Jesus in 1 Timothy 6:15, Revelation 17:14, and Revelation 19:16.

Additional resources:

"The Trinity" chapter in Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology

The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration by Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman


How is "abstain from things strangled" not contradictory to "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man"?

One way to come at this is not to treat it mathematically. When we treat natural language mathematically we are inclined to say none must mean 0% and all must mean 100%. However often when we use natural language there can be exceptions to statements (i.e. an implicit 'some' or other limitation on the statement). Such as when one says, "but everyone is saying it." It is unlikely that everyone thinks or says the same thing. Unfortunately I am not a linguist so the precise explanation for how natural language differs from mathematical language is currently beyond me.

Another way at this, from a scriptural viewpoint is to consider what Paul later wrote: "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful." In light of this we could state that Jesus is saying it is lawful to eat any food. Later, caring for the flock, the apostles give guidance not to eat certain foods because, though not sinful, they may have a negative spiritual effect on the eater.

The foods in question are:

Food which has been offered to idols
Blood
Animals which have been strangled

Food which has been offered to idols ought to be avoided in case it causes problems for people of weak faith. There's a good article which addresses this question here. As the article points out (based on this scripture), there is actually no question of sin about eating such food, in itself, but one ought not to cause a brother or sister to stumble. This is particularly important when dealing with people that have a background where they offered food to idols and they are sensitive to it.

As for blood. Moses wrote not to eat it. But Jesus and Paul both affirmed that what we eat does not make us sinful. Here I am afraid I don't know the answer. However, I believe it involves the Christian being under grace, and not under law. The caveat is that there is a reason given with the command not to eat blood, which is that the life is in it. Even if the law has been superseded by the law of the Spirit, the underlying reason has not changed. So one might, along with the apostles, abstain from eating blood out of prudence.

As for eating strangled animals I am drawn in two directions: firstly, to apply the principle established in scripture that all foods are clean and then to consider that perhaps the apostles had some concern for us that I don't know of.

The second is to recall the story of Samson, the Nazirite. The nazirite vow included not going near dead bodies. However Samson had no regard for this, and touched a dead body. The LORD is slow to anger. But eventually Samson suffered greatly for not living as a Nazirite.

The reason I bring up this story about Samson is that we have a command from the apostles, given in the Spirit. I think that the reason they gave it was out of care for the flock. Like a mother's or father's commands these are not law, per se, but perhaps a graceful garland to be worn.


Did the Annunciation and Good Friday coincide?

The Golden Legend, by Archbishop Jacobus de Voraigne of Genoa, published between 1260 and 1275,  and printed many times (once printing was invented), was a medieval best seller. It included the lives of many saints and much other information.  It states that the Annunciation and the Crucifixion, and several other events, happened on March 25th. The popularity of this book would be sufficient to account for the popularity of this belief in the later Middle Ages. There may, of course, have been other sources too.

This  passage is translated:

  This blessed Annunciation happened the twentyfifth day of the month of March, on which day happened also, as well tofore as after, these things that hereafter be named. On that same day Adam, the first man, was created and fell into original sin by inobedience, and was put out of paradise terrestrial. After, the angel showed the conception of our Lord to the glorious Virgin Mary. Also that same day of the month Cain slew Abel his brother. Also Melchisedech made offering to God of bread and wine in the presence of Abraham. Also on the same day Abraham offered Isaac his son. That same day S. John Baptist was beheaded, and S. Peter was that day delivered out of prison, and S. James the more, that day beheaded of Herod. And our Lord Jesu Christ was on that day crucified, wherefore that is a day of great reverence.

So, according to this legend, the Creation of Adam, the Fall of Adam, the murder of Abel, Melchisedech's offering of bread and wine, Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac, the Annunciation to Mary and Conception of Christ,  the decapitation of John the Baptist, the Crucifixion  of Christ,  James' killing and Peter's escape all occurred on March 25th.

The matching dates for Annunciation and Crucifixion are referred to , around 400,  by Augustine in Book 4, Chapter 5, of his work on the Trinity:

  For He is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also He suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which He was conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which He was buried, wherein was never man laid,  neither before nor since.

This is likely the source for the dates in the Golden Legend.

It is said that there was a tradition that great prophets were conceived and died on the same day. Moses announced on what appears to be his last day :

"I am an hundred and twenty years old this day". Deuteronomy 31 2.  This is known as the integral age concept, which however does not seem well corroborated.

With regard to the Sarum calendar, this article states that the inclusion in liturgical calendars of several historical dates was very common in the middle ages. The most common listing is for the Resurrection, which if listed is always on March 27th. This is further corroboration of the popular belief that the Crucifixion and the Annunciation took place on the same day, and that this belief was recognised in church calendars.

March 27th was listed as the historical date that the Resurrection occurred. It had no effect on the date of the Easter celebration.

Some additional  support may possibly be inferred from the old Scottish Quarter Day on May 15th which was known as Whitsunday. May 15th is exactly 7 weeks after March 27th. The usual meaning of Whitsunday is Whit Sunday (known in some countries as Pentecost), as mentioned here, but for various purposes in Scottish law (e.g. moving house) was formerly regarded as fixed. If the Resurrection occurred on March 27, the Descent of the Holy Ghost, which is the event marked at Whitsun, would have been May 15th.


How can Christians know if they are truly saved and that Jesus won't tell them "..Depart from me, I never knew you," on judgement day?

Your many questions touch on an area of Christian thought over which sincere and well-informed Christians have long debated: the assurance of salvation. Some denominations believe that such assurance is commonly available to believers, some that it is granted specially by God to select believers, and the rest that no person can have complete assurance since everything could change before they die should they lapse back into gross sin.
Some Protestants hold that such assurance is possible, among them those that hold to these confessions of faith:
The Canons of Dort (1618–1619) and Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) give similar answers for the sources of assurance for those in Christ.

Assurance comes from faith in the promises of God.
Assurance comes from the testimony of the Holy Spirit testifying to our spirits that we are children of God.
Assurance comes from “a serious and holy pursuit of a clear conscience and of good works” (Canons of Dort 5.10).

The above is excerpted from https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/assurance/
That article also list many scripture verses related for the topic, including those that a believer may apply to themselves as a test to see if they are walking in faith. One scripture commonly cited is:

This is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our
hearts at rest in his presence: If our hearts condemn us, we know that
God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. Dear friends,
if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and
receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do
what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of
his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. The
one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is
how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.
(1 John 3:19-24, NIV)

This and the rest of 1 John deal with spiritual discernment, including how to tell if you are walking in the truth. Nevertheless, it is not uncommon for Christians to experience times when they doubt their salvation. This touches on another distinction: the believer’s subjective condition versus objective position. Our condition is how we feel, and our feelings are changeable. Our position is what Jesus has done and promised. Christ’s finished work is unalterable, perfect, and complete, and his promises true and unbreakable. One of the challenges we all face is to learn to look to the Bible and its eternal truths and lean on Christ instead of trusting our feelings. Our feelings are sand. His Word is a rock.
Even for those denominations which believe in perfect assurance, this state is attained after a period of effort, prayer, repentance, Bible study and maturation, and yes - suffering. Suffering especially dispels the delusory conceit of false believers because only true faith can survive such suffering. Thus you will find in the Book of Job that his clearest apprehension of the character of the savior occurred in the midst of his suffering.
The below is summarized from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_(theology)
These are by no means the only views found in Christendom.
Methodism. John Wesley believed a believer can have perfect assurance as to whether they have saving faith NOW. They can lose it tomorrow through gross sin.
Lutheranism. Martin Luther taught that believers can be assured of salvation.
Calvinism. Calvinism teaches that believers may have assurance of their salvation especially through the work of the Holy Spirit and also by looking at the character of their lives. The idea that because good works necessarily result from true faith one can gain assurance by observing evidences of faith in their life is called the practical syllogism.
Catholicism. The Catholic Church teaches that an infallible certitude of final salvation, as supposed in Calvinism, is not a usual experience, as seen in the sixteenth canon of the sixth session of the Council of Trent:
"If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema."
Baptism.
Some denominations insist that Baptism is required for salvation, others do not. I am a Baptist and do not believe it necessary for salvation, but it is an act of obedience and obeying Jesus is a good thing. What Baptists believe is that Baptism is the entrance into the body of Christ - the church - and communion is the continuation of that fellowship. You mention doubts and inner conflict. You say nothing about the church. Regular fellowship with a healthy, Bible believing church is essential if you want to overcome these feelings and attain a spirit of self control. I never would have found the assurance I have without the support of my college Bible study and later my church.
Harvest. Regardless of whether you believe in an absolute assurance or not, every denomination has room for times of spiritual harvest. The road out of the place you now find yourself is toward your next spiritual harvest. It may be useful to assess where you are along that process.

Preparation. Sovereign acts of God to set the stage.
Plowing. Suffering that may seem to have no purpose or redeeming value.
Planting. Receiving new teaching from the Bible. The devil will try to trick you out of believing, like the bird snatching the seed. Find more mature Christians to help you work through your doubt and confusion. Meditate on Jesus. This is the battle for your mind.
Pouring. The hot sun and rocky soil of hardship and persecution will try to scare you out of believing. You need the Holy Spirit to soften your rocky heart through the conviction of sin to repentance. That same Holy Spirit will comfort your heart and relieve you of your fear and grant you courage. This is the battle for your heart.
Plucking. The weeds are cares and worries that your flesh will use to distract you from the faith. The antidote is to focus your priorities away from materialistic goals toward spiritual ones and adopt new habits of behavior. Appeal to the father to help you rearrange your surroundings and relationships to foster this change. This is the battle for your hands.
Produce a Harvest. Son, Spirit and Father work together to produce a beneficial outcome in your life and the life of the people you serve. This harvest is tangible evidence that your faith is real.
Peace. You experience a time of peace. Then you begin working toward a new harvest.

I have gone through many such harvest cycles in my life. One lasted about two months. Some lasted a few years. One lasted about fifteen years. Sometimes they overlap. One constant has been that the Word (seed) often made no sense at first, or seemed to do nothing. Seeds do not grow overnight. Looking back, I see that Bible passages that made no sense when I first read them transformed my life in big ways later on. Expect this.


How do apologists defend against Bart Ehrman's arguments that Church scribes corrected and changed the Bible to fit their theology?

I mean no offense, but as the comments following the question above attest, the OP’s real purpose is to find a refutation to a scholarly argument he hasn’t yet read and doesn’t fully understand or appreciate.  Attempts to make the question suitable to this site forced the OP to focus on a single thin example of Dr. Ehrman’s work, undocumented and barely sketched out here for others to critique.  Explicit throughout is the mistaken idea that Christianity and the Bible need ‘defending’ from Ehrman and that ‘advocates’ and ‘believers’ necessarily oppose his critical scholarship.  Referring to Ehrman himself as “the atomic bomb of Christianity” violates the respectful tone expected of participants on this site.
Dr. Bart Ehrman, Critical Scholar of New Testament Texts
Some clarification, then, might be helpful.  At issue is the evidence Bart Ehrman has offered on the question of whether changes made to the biblical texts by early Christian scribes were theologically motivated.  This was the topic of two Ehrman books: perhaps his most popular title, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (HarperOne, 2007), and a more academic handling of the same issue, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford University Press, 1993).
These are not works of theology but of history.  Ehrman explores the historical evidence surrounding variants in the biblical texts, he posits explanations for the differences based, again, on the historical evidence, and he suggests how these changes had implications on the development of early Christian theology. For example, he writes:

“Christianity is a religion of the book. From the outset, it has
stressed specific texts as authoritative scripture. Yet not one of
these original, authoritative texts exists today. We have only late
copies, dating from the second century to the sixteenth. And these
copies vary considerably. Indeed, the 5,700 manuscripts of the Greek
New Testament that have been catalogued contain more variations than
there are words in the New Testament. Some scholars say there are
200,000 variant readings, others say 300,000, 400,000 or even more!
“Some variant readings are simply scribal mistakes. Others are
editorial ‘improvements’ intended to make the text easier to
understand. Still others are deliberate attempts by the scribes to
make the texts more amenable to the doctrines being espoused by
Christians of their own persuasion and to eliminate the possible
‘misuse’ of the texts by Christians affirming heretical beliefs."

These facts, as with most of Ehrman's scholarship, are generally not disputed.  There is no doubt, even among conservative scholars, for example, that Mark 16:9-20 is a late addition to the original gospel, or that the original text of Mark 1:41 is uncertain – variant texts show Jesus responding to a leper either in compassion or in anger.  Of course scholars debate the finer points and may draw differing conclusions from the same facts, but Ehrman is generally regarded as a good and fair historian and a clear writer, and the bulk of his academic work reflects the consensus view of contemporary critical scholarship.
What is the Textual Evidence? General Agreement
Whether there are 200,000 or 400,000 variant renderings of the Greek texts – and whether ‘many’ or only ‘some’ of these were motivated by a scribe’s carelessness or purposeful theological intent – scholars will debate and differ in good conscience.  Evangelical scholars Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger summarize their review of Ehrman’s position:

“Did the battles over heresy and orthodoxy in earliest Christianity
affect the transmission of the New Testament text? Yes. No doubt a
variety of scribal changes are due to these early theological
disputes. .... Since the New Testament is a historical book that has
been passed down to us through normal historical means (copying
manuscripts by hand), then it inevitably contains the normal kinds of
scribal variations that we would expect from any document of
antiquity. No doubt some of these scribal variations were intentional
and motivated by the theological debates of the day.”

These conservatives see no need to ‘defend’ the Bible or Christianity against historical or textual evidence of the kind Ehrman describes.
What are the Implications for Theology?  Opinions Differ
Where they think his opinion wanting, however, is in the implications Ehrman draws from the evidence.  In his popular books and public debates Ehrman often describes how the historical facts impacted his personal beliefs and led him away from fundamentalist Christian religion. For Ehrman, studying the Greek texts and their hundreds of thousands of variants undermined [both] his confidence that the ‘original text’ of the Bible was ever recoverable, and his conservative view of biblical inerrancy, authority, and textual reliability.  Kostenberger and Kruger weigh the evidence differently: they conclude that “the vast number of textual variants is ‘insignificant,’ and ... we can have confidence that the text we possess is, in essence, the text that was written in the first century."
Determining whether variant readings are insignificant or whether the evidence is sufficient to instill confidence that the biblical-text-as-received is in essence the same biblical text of the first century, is largely a matter of personal opinion or a matter of faith.  Only those religious beliefs that are incapable of accommodating contrary historical evidence need an apologetic defense.
In other words, if you are going to do battle with Dr. Ehrman, whom you describe as "the atomic bomb of the Christian community," then Isuggest you be prepared to fight fire with fire: your historical evidence against his historical evidence. If you are not willing to do that, perhaps you need to defend your defense of the faith!


Are we the result of God's permissive will?

God is the only necessarily existing being, as St. Thomas Aquinas shows in his third proof for the existence of God (Summa Theologica I q. 2 a. 3 c.; cf. ch. 3, § "The Third Way" of Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide):

  …not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. … we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, … This all men speak of as God.

All creatures are a product of God's free will (Summa Theologica I q. 19 a. 4 "Whether the will of God is the cause of things?" c.):

  We must hold that the will of God is the cause of things; and that He acts by the will, and not, as some have supposed, by a necessity of His nature.

Nothing necessitates or forces God to create the angels, universe, animals, souls, humans, or any other creature. Therefore, we are all accidents; our being/existence is not necessary.

Regarding what you call "permissive will" and "perfect will",* there is only one will in God; He is supremely simple. The will of God is always fulfilled, but a distinction must be made—between absolute necessity and conditional (ex suppositione or "suppositional") necessity—when addressing the question of "Whether whatever God wills He wills necessarily?":

  There are two ways in which a thing is said to be necessary, namely, absolutely, and by supposition. We judge a thing to be absolutely necessary from the relation of the terms, as when the predicate forms part of the definition of the subject: thus it is absolutely necessary that man is an animal. It is the same when the subject forms part of the notion of the predicate; thus it is absolutely necessary that a number must be odd or even. In this way it is not necessary that Socrates sits: wherefore it is not necessary absolutely, though it may be so by supposition; for, granted that he is sitting, he must necessarily sit, as long as he is sitting. Accordingly as to things willed by God, we must observe that He wills something of absolute necessity: but this is not true of all that He wills. For the divine will has a necessary relation to the divine goodness, since that is its proper object. Hence God wills His own goodness necessarily, even as we will our own happiness necessarily, and as any other faculty has necessary relation to its proper and principal object, for instance the sight to color, since it tends to it by its own nature. But God wills things apart from Himself in so far as they are ordered to His own goodness as their end. Now in willing an end we do not necessarily will things that conduce to it, unless they are such that the end cannot be attained without them; as, we will to take food to preserve life, or to take ship in order to cross the sea. But we do not necessarily will things without which the end is attainable, such as a horse for a journey which we can take on foot, for we can make the journey without one. The same applies to other means. Hence, since the goodness of God is perfect, and can exist without other things inasmuch as no perfection can accrue to Him from them, it follows that His willing things apart from Himself is not absolutely necessary. Yet it can be necessary by supposition, for supposing that He wills a thing, then He is unable not to will it, as His will cannot change.

cf. Charles De Koninck's "The Problem of Indeterminism" (also on PDF pp. 366ff. of this) and "Reflections on the Problem of Indeterminism" (ibid. pp. 412ff.)

In other words: God wills that some causes produce their intended effects only some of the time. This is not always due to a defect in the cause but can be due to a defect in the effect (ibid. ad 4):

  that God does not necessarily will some of the things that He wills, does not result from defect in the divine will, but from a defect belonging to the nature of the thing willed, namely, that the perfect goodness of God can be without it; and such defect accompanies all created good.

For another treatment of the question, see St. Thomas's Summa contra Gentiles I cap. 81 "That God Does not Will Other Things in a Necessary Way".

*St. Thomas nowhere uses the term "perfect will", but he does distinguish between "five expressions of will—namely, prohibition, precept, counsel, operation, and permission" (Summa Theologica I q. 19 a. 12).


What did Luther think of the Eastern Orthodox and vice versa?

I linked to this article in another question, but it's certainly relevant here:

Luther Had His Chance

Some Lutherans did make contact with Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople.  They gave him a copy of the Augsburg Confession and requested his reaction.  The Patriarch politely thanked them and, later, gave a detailed reply, indicating where the various points of the Lutheran document were in conflict with Orthodox doctrine.

The Reformers, in turn, composed a detailed reply to explain themselves and assert that doctrinally the two churches were not really so far apart.  The Patriarch replied at greater length, again explaining which doctrines were not acceptable to the Orthodox faith.

The Reformers sent one more letter, but the Patriarch felt things were at an impasse.  He replied requesting no more correspondence on matters of doctrine, but rather "for the sake of friendship."


What is an overview of Reformed beliefs about hell?

Like most labels, Reformed theology defies clean boundaries, especially on a divisive topic like this one.  But if we consider the term broadly, we will notice that the positions tend to follow those of Protestantism more generally.  I'll divide the views into three main categories, each with an admittedly imperfect name:

Traditionalism
Universalism
Annihilationism

Traditionalism
Those in what I call the "traditionalist" bucket are those who affirm what is called "eternal conscious torment" (ECT) in some form.  This is the "orthodox" position held by the early Reformed creeds, like the Westminster Standards:

The punishments of sin in the world to come, are everlasting separation from the comfortable presence of God, and most grievous torments in soul and body, without intermission, in hell-fire forever.1

Some Reformed thinkers tend to emphasize the "fire" and "burning" aspects of hell; we might call these the "literalists" within the ECT camp.  Charles Spurgeon might be placed in that category:

Could all the misery that ever startled the keepers of our hospitals be conceived, it could not convey the least idea of the pains of the spirits that are doomed to dwell in eternal fire and everlasting burning.  The woe however, will act its terrible part on the soul.  The memory aghast,—hope and fear, thoughts and imaginations, conscience and judgment, all will be racked, every one stretched on a bed of fire, every nerve strained to its utmost, every vein made a road for the hot feet of pain to travel on.2

Others, however, believe it best to interpret the graphic biblical descriptions of hell as primarily metaphorical.  Anthony Hoekema writes:

The various figures by means of which the punishment of hell is depicted are not to be taken literally.  For, when taken literally, these figures tend to contradict each other: how can hell be darkness and fire at the same time?  The imagery is to be understood symbolically, but the reality will be worse than the symbols.3

Charles Hodge agrees and makes the common argument that the sufferings of hell will not be uniformly felt:

There seems to be no more reason for supposing that the fire spoken of in Scripture is to be literal fire, than that the worm that never dies is literally a worm. The devil and his angels who are to suffer the vengeance of eternal fire, and whose doom the finally impenitent are to share, have no material bodies to be acted upon by elemental fire. As there are to be degrees in the glory and blessedness of heaven, as our Lord teaches us in the parable of the ten talents, so there will be differences as to degree in the sufferings of the lost: some will be beaten with few stripes, some with many.4

Tim Keller offers an explanation of the purpose of these images:

What, then, are the 'fire' and 'darkness' symbols for? They are vivid ways to describe what happens when we lose the presence of God. Darkness refers to the isolation, and fire to the disintegration of being separated from God. Away from the favor and face of God, we literally, horrifically, and endlessly fall apart.5

Universalism
The orthodox view of hell, though historically dominant, has been rejected or ignored more and more in recent centuries among some branches of Reformed theology, broadly considered.  The confessional statements adopted in the 20th century by the PC(USA) – the Declaration of Barmen, the Confession of 1967, and the Brief Statement (1983) – make absolutely no mention of the H-word, and many theologians have sought alternatives.   Two alternative categories prevail: Universalism and Annihilationism.
Within "Universalism" I include not only those who expressly call themselves universalists (all will be saved), but also those who hold to "continued probation" and "universal hope" theologies, as well as those whose views are commonly characterized as logically leading to universalism.
It is perhaps not completely out of line to include Friedrich Schleiermacher here as a "Reformed theologian," given his roots in the German Reformed church, though his theology came to bear little resemblance to traditional Reformed theology.  Schleiermacher was a universalist; he held that "all human souls" would be restored.6
Some in the "New School" branch of 19th century Presbyterianism adopted a view of future probation,7 in which the unsaved would receive an additional chance to accept salvation, and at least one of their number, Edward Beecher, openly advocated a doctrine of universal restoration.8  And in the 20th century, two leaders of the neo-orthodox movement from the Reformed tradition – Emil Brunner and Karl Barth – had difficulty distancing themselves from universalist label.  Karl Barth's view of the universal election of men is commonly cited as evidence of his universalism, and some of Brunner's writings seem to strongly imply it, for example:

That is the revealed Will of God and the plan for the world which He discloses, a plan of universal salvation, of gathering all things into Christ. We hear not one word in the Bible of a dual plan, a plan of salvation and its polar opposite. The Will of God has but one point, it is unambiguous and positive. It has one aim, not two.6

Annihilationism
Continuing the streak, annihilationism is a poor name for a category, since it includes both annihilationism proper (that the immortal souls of the lost are ultimately annihilated by God) and conditionalism, which holds that no soul is immortal until God grants it eternal life.
Like universalism, annihilationism is widely seen as a heterodox view by conservatives, but, interestingly, it has been adopted by some respected evangelicals, such as John Stott.  Stott, however, was an Anglican, and many prominent advocates of this view associate with non-Reformed Protestant traditions.  Those most closely associated with Reformed theology would include Lyman Abbott9 and Horace Bushnell, though Bushnell saw souls not being extinguished (as in annihilationism proper) but transformed so as to be incapable of feeling.10 I've had little success in identifying contemporary Reformed theologians who advocate annihilationism, but lay proponents are easier to find.
Summary
Historically the most common view of hell in Reformed theology has been the traditional or orthodox view, and many would consider it the only view of "true" (confessional) Reformed theology.  Within this camp there are different approaches with respect to how literal or metaphorical the scriptural imagery should be understood, with some emphasizing burning and pain and others the isolation and destruction.
Of the two remaining positions, universalism and annihilationism, both have their advocates among those associated, more or less loosely, with Reformed theology.  In most cases these views coincide with other divergences from Reformed confessional standards, such as on the theology of the atonement and the reliability of Scripture.  Of the two, it seems that universalism has historically been more closely tied to Reformed theology, whereas annihilationism, though perhaps relatively more prevalent in evangelicalism, is more closely associated with the Anglican, Lutheran, and Arminian traditions.

Westminster Larger Catechism, 29
"Woes to Come", in Storm signals, 77
The Bible and the Future, 273
Systematic Theology, 3.868
"The Importance of Hell"
Quoted in Harry Buis, The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment, chapter 6.  Buis's survey is helpful in tracing the history of the debate from a traditionalist perspective.
The Andover Review, April 1890, 441
History of Opinions on the Scriptural Doctrine of Retribution, 298
Our Day, Volume 9, 345–46
B. B. Warfield, Annihilationism, in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge


According to the Catholic Church, why did Mary go with haste to visit Elizabeth?

Elizabeth, who had been called “barren," is going to be a mother. Gabriel, sent by God, had informed Mary of it. Shortly afterwards, Mary set out in haste for the hill country, to a town of Judah (Lk 1:39).

  She is not motivated by curiosity, nor does she make the journey to
  discover for herself whether the angel's message is true. Humble,
  filled with charity—a charity that leads her to be more concerned for
  her elderly cousin than for herself—Mary goes to the home of Elizabeth
  because she has discerned in the heavenly message a hidden
  relationship between Elizabeth's child and the Son she carries within
  her.

It is a long way—nearly a hundred miles—from Nazareth to Ain Karim, the little town in the hills of Judea where, according to tradition, Zachary and Elizabeth lived. Most likely it was Joseph who arranged the trip, looking for a caravan in which the Blessed Virgin could travel safely. He himself may have accompanied her, at least as far as Jerusalem; some commentators even think he went with Mary right to Ain Karim, which is only five miles from the capital. If so, he would have needed to return immediately to his workshop in Nazareth.

Mary entered the house of Zachary and greeted Elizabeth (Lk 1:40). According to a local tradition, the meeting of the two cousins took place, not in the town, but in a country place where Elizabeth—as the sacred text affirms (Lk 1:24)—had secluded herself for five months from the sight of curious relatives and neighbors, to raise up her heart in gratitude to God for such an immense gift.

The rest here if interested.


It seems that Luke gives Joseph's geneology (Luke 3:23-38):

  And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years; being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat, 24 Who was of Levi, who was of Melchi, who was of Janne, who was of Joseph, 25 Who was of Mathathias, who was of Amos, who was of Nahum, who was of Hesli, who was of Nagge, 26 Who was of Mahath, who was of Mathathias, who was of Semei, who was of Joseph, who was of Juda, 27 Who was of Joanna, who was of Reza, who was of Zorobabel, who was of Salathiel, who was of Neri, 28 Who was of Melchi, who was of Addi, who was of Cosan, who was of Helmadan, who was of Her, 29 Who was of Jesus, who was of Eliezer, who was of Jorim, who was of Mathat, who was of Levi, 30 Who was of Simeon, who was of Judas, who was of Joseph, who was of Jona, who was of Eliakim, 31 Who was of Melea, who was of Menna, who was of Mathatha, who was of Nathan, who was of David, 32 Who was of Jesse, who was of Obed, who was of Booz, who was of Salmon, who was of Naasson, 33 Who was of Aminadab, who was of Aram, who was of Esron, who was of Phares, who was of Judas, 34 Who was of Jacob, who was of Isaac, who was of Abraham, who was of Thare, who was of Nachor, 35 Who was of Sarug, who was of Ragau, who was of Phaleg, who was of Heber, who was of Sale, 36 Who was of Cainan, who was of Arphaxad, who was of Sem, who was of Noe, who was of Lamech, 37 Who was of Mathusale, who was of Henoch, who was of Jared, who was of Malaleel, who was of Cainan, 38 Who was of Henos, who was of Seth, who was of Adam, who was of God.

Of course the parenthetical "Jesus .... being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph" (3:23) means that while Christ was reckoned the son of Joseph by all, he of course contributed nothing to the conception of Christ, but was a foster father, Mary having conceived miraculously without Joseph's participation: "he knew her not before her bringing forth a son" (Matthew 1:25); "How shall this [conception of Jesus] be, seeing as I do not know  man?" (Luke 1:34).

He perhaps ends his genealogy with "God" as the final 'patriarch' in answer to the fact that Joseph was not the true father, but God. It seems to be a frank but subtle recognition that this genealogy of course does not to prove Christ's ancestor via any royal line, but still serves the purpose of conveying the truth that Jesus is in a sense not of this world, but the Son of God.

That he brings Christ's genealogy back as far as Adam is also to show that Christ is the new Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45 etc.), theology Luke perhaps learned from one of its major, or perhaps first, proponents, Paul, of whom he was the amanuensis, or secretary. So thought apostolic fathers like Irenaeus.1

Whereas it seems that Matthew gives Mary's genealogy because of the indispensable requirement for the Messiah to be a son of David (Mary being a daughter of David).

  The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham: 2 Abraham begot Isaac. And Isaac begot Jacob. And Jacob begot Judas and his brethren. 3 And Judas begot Phares and Zara of Thamar. And Phares begot Esron. And Esron begot Aram. 4 And Aram begot Aminadab. And Aminadab begot Naasson. And Naasson begot Salmon. 5 And Salmon begot Booz of Rahab. And Booz begot Obed of Ruth. And Obed begot Jesse. 6 And Jesse begot David the king. And David the king begot Solomon, of her that had been the wife of Urias. 7 And Solomon begot Roboam. And Roboam begot Abia. And Abia begot Asa. 8 And Asa begot Josaphat. And Josaphat begot Joram. And Joram begot Ozias. 9 And Ozias begot Joatham. And Joatham begot Achaz. And Achaz begot Ezechias. 10 And Ezechias begot Manasses. And Manasses begot Amon. And Amon begot Josias. 11 And Josias begot Jechonias and his brethren in the transmigration of Babylon. 12 And after the transmigration of Babylon, Jechonias begot Salathiel. And Salathiel begot Zorobabel. 13 And Zorobabel begot Abiud. And Abiud begot Eliacim. And Eliacim begot Azor. 14 And Azor begot Sadoc. And Sadoc begot Achim. And Achim begot Eliud. 15 And Eliud begot Eleazar. And Eleazar begot Mathan. And Mathan begot Jacob. 16 And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 17 So all the generations, from Abraham to David, are fourteen generations. And from David to the transmigration of Babylon, are fourteen generations: and from the transmigration of Babylon to Christ are fourteen generations.

It seems that Mary is lumped in her along with the other descendants of David, namely Joseph, because it's already obvious and implicit that: a) among the Jewish people, it was known that the Messiah must be a real descendant of David, and so the mother is obviously a descendant of David if the father's David ancestry is irrelevant, as in this case b) it is immediately related after this that Joseph had no part in the conception of Jesus. That is, both Mary and Joseph are descended from David (Luke 1:32; 2:3-5).

This is important because Matthew's Gospel is universally recognized as a very Semitic Gospel, whose intended audience are Jews, who are looking for all the key requirements of the Davidic Messiah to be met in the Christ (note also the arbitrary selection of Abraham, the father of the Jews, as a major patriarch, as opposed to anyone else).  The importance of the Davidic ancestry of the Messiah is perhaps why Matthew begins his Gospel with Jesus' genealogy; a non-descendant of David was not a candidate for the Messiah.

Thus, He gives a Davidic lineage via Mary, his mother: "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, which he had promised before, by his prophets, in the holy scriptures, concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David [i.e. Mary], according to the flesh" (Romans 1:1-3); "God sent forth His Son, born of a woman" (Galatians 4:4). Also significant perhaps is involving the mother at all in an important genealogy such as this, since the Davidic Kingdom consisted of the King, but also a significant figure, being the mother of the King, who served as Queen or Lady of that Kingdom (cf. Jeremiah 13:18; 1 Kings 2:19; 2 Kings 24:12; etc.). This was doubtless, then, another expectation of the Jewish people concerning the Messiah: 'who would the blessed mother of our Messiah be?' Note therefore the fulfillment of this expectation in the words of Elizabeth, speaking of the mother of the Messiah: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why was it granted to me that the mother of my lord [i.e. the Messiah] should come to me?" (Luke 1:43; cf. Psalm 110).

Worthy of consideration is the fact that the Hebrew letters דוד ("David") have the sum numeral value of 14 (ד being 4, ו being 6), which may explain the division into fourteens here as significant of 'perfect Davidicness.' It may be, too, that the apparent redundancy or irrelevance of Joseph's genealogy (Jesus not being descended from him) can be explained as showing simply that Joseph is a fulfillment in the delineated recapitulations of generations in fourteens.

Footnotes

1 "Wherefore Luke points out that the pedigree which traces the generation of our Lord back to Adam contains seventy-two generations, connecting the end with the beginning, and implying that it is He who has summed up in Himself all nations dispersed from Adam downwards, and all languages and generations of men, together with Adam himself. Hence also was Adam himself termed by Paul 'the figure of Him that was to come,'" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 22, 3. Circa A.D. 180.


What is LDS policy/teaching on not taking God's name in vain in languages where it is extremely common?

It may be helpful first to understand exactly what is mean by the word "vain."  The NOAD defines vain as "producing no result, useless" and "having no meaning or likelihood of fulfillment."  The use of God's name is usually reserved for prayer.  Calling upon God is meant to have some kind of effect, but only if the caller is penitent and sincere.  If the use of God's name is not intended to produce such an effect, then it is used in vain.

George Q. Cannon, a former Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church, stated the following:

  “Do angels take the Lord’s name in vain? The idea is so ridiculous
  that we scarcely like to ask the question. … How dare we do that which
  angels dare not do? Is it possible for us to argue that that which is
  forbidden in heaven is praiseworthy on earth? …

  “Though we are sure no boy can tell us any advantage that can arise
  from the abuse of God’s holy name, yet we can tell him many evils that
  arise therefrom. To begin, it is unnecessary
  and consequently foolish; it lessens our respect for holy things and
  leads us into the society of the wicked; it brings upon us the
  disrespect of the good who avoid us; it leads us to other sins, for he
  who is willing to abuse his Creator is not ashamed to defraud his
  fellow creature; and also by so doing we directly and knowingly break
  one of the most direct of God’s commandments”

The instructions from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve apply to the Church in the entire world, regardless of culture.  In no culture is it acceptable to use the name of God lightly.

It should be clear that while invoking God's name without real intent is not acceptable, it is acceptable to respectfully reference God by name in a conversation.

Additional information may be found in this talk by former President Gordon B. Hinckley of the Church.


Isn't the point of Christ that we were formerly unable through our goodness (lack of it) to initiate a relation with God, so that Christ's role was to initiate this relation, to create this mediation? And once that is in effect, we have the choice to accept this relation or reject it? Isn't the point of Christianity precisely that since we cannot merit salvation through morality, we must always depend on Christ, in choosing Him?

Calvinists would agree with all of this. What predestination means for Calvinists is that even though we do choose to accept or reject God's offer of reconciliation, the ultimate and decisive choice is God's. Our wills are real, but God's will is decisive.
John Piper talks about it this way:

And so sovereignty is God's decisive self-reliance, self-determination. And there is no such thing as ultimate human self-determination. Humans have measures of self-determination, but they are not ultimate, because God ultimately governs and guides all of human willing and all of natural events. That's what I mean by the sovereignty of God. (Source)
I've never met a believer who, when you ask how they came to Christ, really wants to take credit for it. I've never talked to anybody who wants to say that they we the one who really provided the decisive initiative and the decisive work behind their salvation. Almost every believer, because of the work of God within them, wants to give God the credit for their salvation.
When you have two brothers listening to a sermon together, and one is awakened to see the spiritual beauty of Christ while the other isn't, can this awakening in the one be attributed to any innate wisdom or sensitivity to spiritual things? No! These things are not innate. The Bible says that we are all dead in our trespasses and sins and that it is God who makes us alive together with Christ. God, in his sovereign mercy, is the one who quickens people and causes them to be born again. (Source)