Is Pope Francis holding and professing different views (even personally) from any of the traditional Catholic Church doctrine?

In September 2016, four cardinals, with the support of many other clerics, questioned the orthodoxy of Francis's document on marriage and the family, Amoris Lætitia, in the form of five dubia ("doubts"):

It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio ["in a marital way"]?
After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 79, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?
After Amoris Laetitia (301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?
After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 81, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?
After Amoris Laetitia (303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 56, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?

(emphases in original)
Briefly, they question if Francis supports

Communion for adulterous couples?
moral relativism?
living in sin?
there not being intrinsically evil acts?(e.g., homosexual acts, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, suicide, etc.)
private interpretation of moral norms?

After years of Francis refusing to address these dubia, Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke and four bishops issued the Declaration of the Truths relating to some of the most common Errors in the Life of the Church of our Time on May 31, 2019, which reiterates Catholic teaching on the

Fundamentals of Faith (#1-2)
Creed (#3-11)
Law of God (#12-29)
Sacraments (#30-40)

in 40 brief points (cf. their accompanying explanatory note).
For example, the Declaration of the Truths says, in response to dubia number

37. By virtue of the will of Christ and the unchangeable Tradition of the Church, the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist may not be given to those who are in a public state of objectively grave sin, and sacramental absolution may not be given to those who express their unwillingness to conform to Divine law, even if their unwillingness pertains only to a single grave matter (see Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 4; Pope John Paul II, Message to the Major Penitentiary Cardinal William W.  Baum, on March 22, 1996).

12. A justified person has the sufficient strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the Divine law, since all of the commandments of God are possible for the justified. God’s grace, when it justifies the sinner, does of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin (see Council of Trent, sess. 6, Decree on Justification, c. 11; c. 13).

22. Anyone, husband or wife, who has obtained a civil divorce from the spouse to whom he or she is validly married, and has contracted a civil marriage with some other person during the lifetime of his legitimate spouse, and who lives in a marital way with the civil partner, and who chooses to remain in this state with full knowledge of the nature of the act and with full consent of the will to that act, is in a state of mortal sin and therefore can not receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity. Therefore, these Christians, unless they are living as “brother and sister,” cannot receive Holy Communion (see John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 84).

15. “No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God, which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church” (John Paul II, Encyclical Evangelium vitae, 62).  There are moral principles and moral truths contained in Divine revelation and in the natural law which include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid certain kinds of action, inasmuch as these kinds of action are always gravely unlawful on account of their object. Hence, the opinion is wrong that says that a good intention or a good consequence is or can ever be sufficient to justify the commission of such kinds of action (see Council of Trent, sess. 6 de iustificatione, c. 15; John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17; Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 80).

20. By natural and Divine law no human being may voluntarily and without sin exercise his sexual powers outside of a valid marriage. It is, therefore, contrary to Holy Scripture and Tradition to affirm that conscience can truly and rightly judge that sexual acts between persons who have contracted a civil marriage with each other, can sometimes be morally right or requested or even commanded by God, although one or both persons is sacramentally married to another person (see 1 Cor 7: 11; John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 84).

(my emphases)
Since all these truths are interconnected, read the full document for a complete explanation.


Why Was Jesus Represented as Being Born in a Cave?

Some scholars argue that it was common for a house at the time to have a basement-cave serving as stables
This interpretation would say that Jesus was always represented as being born in a cave because it being part of a house was the typical arrangement at the time, and so we assume that's what actually happened. Thus there is no conflict with an interpretation of Matthew 2:11 saying that it refers to the house Jesus was born in (although he was likely moved from the cave to the living area of the house by the time the Magi arrived) or Luke's description of a manger but not a cave since he didn't see the need to comment on something that was commonplace.
Nazareth Village is a historical reenactment site in Israel that includes "a carefully researched re-creation of Jesus hometown" as it appeared in his time, including houses with this arrangement. Claire Pfann, Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs at the University of the Holy Land, talked about the Nativity while going through the village with a reporter. After Pfann argues that Mary and Joseph would have been expected to stay with family and that the word for "inn" can also be translated as "guest room", the reporter summarizes her explanations of the cave as follows:

Downstairs, the courtyard led to a room in the basement, which was really a 'cave' dug out of soft limestone. That room was used for storage. Nearby outside the housewife would be sieving grain. The families kept large jars of olive oil and wine in the cave. There were stacks of wheat and grain, too. [...]
The family would bring their prized animals inside for protection and lead them into the basement cave where they would eat from the feeding trough-a manger.
Jesus could have been born in a room like the basement 'cave', then wrapped in swaddling clothes and placed in the manger, as is written in the gospel of Luke. The animals would have been moved out, and clean hay laid down. Some of the women, midwives who were experienced in delivering babies would have come down here to help Mary.

In other words, Pfann's argument is that with a house full of family in town for the census, the only place to have enough space to deliver a baby was the basement-cave where animals, and the manger where they ate from, would have been.
It's worth noting that even in the modern era, there are still people who live in caves in Palestine and other areas of the Middle East and also use part of it for livestock.
So from this argument, some scholars would say that the answer to "why was Jesus represented as being born in a cave?" is that he actually was, although not the sort of cave we might think of today.
There is also scholarly support for the cave of Jesus' birth being the same cave below the Church of the Nativity
Professor Qustandi Shomali of Bethlehem University states that the cave that is now under the Church of the Nativity was recognized shortly after Jesus' ministry as his birthplace:

"We do know that the identification of the site where Jesus was born already traditionally goes back to the middle of the first century at least," Shomali said.

Stephen Pfann, also of the University of the Holy Land (and I assume some relation to Claire Pfann above), corroborates Shomali's statement.

"Around what was left of the house which was only a cave where the virgin gave birth to the Child," said Stephen Pfann of the University of the Holy Land. "People remembered this. People within 15 years were already going back to that site to visit it."

Naturally, the news article with these quotes doesn't cite the historical sources that led the professors to this conclusion (that's not what the article is about), but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they came to this conclusion through research and not unfounded speculation. Still, it may be worth looking up their work or contacting them directly if you'd like to know more about how they came to that understanding.


What was the organizing principle of Melanchthon's Loci Communes?

This answer is drawn from material I received from Chris Engelsma. One question I didn't take into account at first was which of the four editions of the Loci Bavinck is thinking of; however, if we are to go with the 1521, the answer seems to be relatively clear. If we compare the TOC of the Loci with the TOC of Book I and Book II of the Sentences, there is virtually no resemblance. However, looking at the TOC of the Loci, the influence of Romans is obvious.

Some further quotes that are of interest, also sent to me by Mr. Engelsma.

  Melancthon (died 1560.)—This reformer has left us an expository work upon the Epistle to the Romans, in two different shapes. The former appeared in 1532, under the title of Annotationes; the latter in 1532, with the name Commentarii. They consisted of his lectures, and afterwards gave rise to the Loci Communes. Melancthon delivers mere scholia, and as these are generally rather doctrinal than expository, they refer chiefly to the passages in which the doctrines are stated. Their chief excellence lies in the fine development which the author gives of the importance and nature of the doctrine of free grace without the merit of works. (Fred. Aug. Gottreu Tholuck, Exposition of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, trans. Robert Menzies, Second Revised and Corrected Edinburgh Edition. (Philadelphia: Sorin and Ball, 1844), 24.)

And

  The Epistle to the Romans has been an especial object of attention among protestant commentators. It embraces the peculiar and fundamental principles of Christian doctrine, and stands directly opposed to the Catholic and Pelagian errors which so long prevailed. Hence Melancthon adopted it as the basis of his Loci Communes, and Calvin as that of his ‘Institutes.’ Melancthon’s labors extended from the year 1522 to 1532. His object being dogmatic rather than exegetical, his annotations are chiefly confined to dogmatic passages. Calvin’s remark consequently was just. The latter prized the Epistle to the Romans above all the rest, because it so entirely harmonized with his argument, and with his sublime view of God’s grandeur, of his all-comprehending power, and the nothingness of man, who lives only by the grace of God, and owes his freedom wholly to its support. “Works cannot make you righteous, but the grace of God through Jesus, who is your righteousness and your life.” (Paul Henry and Henry Stebbing, The Life and Times of John Calvin, the Great Reformer, vol. 1 (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1851), 220.)

A further reference confirming that both the content and the form of Melanchthon's book was based most heavily on Romans, which I received via Dr. Joel Beeke, is Timothy J. Wengert, "The Rhetorical Paul: Philip Melanchthon's Interpretation of the Pauline Epistles," in A Companion to Paul in the Reformation, ed. R. Ward Holder (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 136.


Why did Jesus groan and use spit while healing the deaf man? (Mark 7)

In the book “Draw Close to Jehovah” chapter nine entitled “Christ the Power of God” this particular miracle is discussed it makes the point that this was an example of how empathetic Jesus was toward this man who had been brought by others to be healed. Being deaf he may have known little of the talk surrounding the man Jesus who was performing miraculous powerful works. The spitting and sighing or groaning as he looked heavenward are explained as being for the benefit of the man who likely had to use some form of sign language to communicate.

Below is an excerpt from that discussion :

  On this occasion, great crowds found Jesus and brought to him many who were sick, and he cured them all. (Matthew 15:29, 30) But Jesus singled out one man for special consideration. The man was deaf and hardly able to talk. Jesus may have sensed this man’s particular nervousness or embarrassment. Thoughtfully, Jesus took the man aside—away from the crowd—to a private place. Then Jesus used some signs to convey to the man what he was about to do. He “put his fingers into the man’s ears and, after spitting, he touched his tongue.”(Mark 7:33
  2) {Spitting was a means or sign of healing accepted by both Jews and Gentiles, and the use of saliva in cures is reported in rabbinic writings. Jesus may have spit simply to convey to the man that he was about to be healed. Whatever the case, Jesus was not using his saliva as a natural healing.}

  Next, Jesus looked up to heaven and uttered a prayerful sigh. These actions would say to the man, ‘What I am about to do for you is due to power from God.’

  Finally, Jesus said: “Be opened.”
  (Mark 7:34) At that, the man’s hearing was restored, and he was able to speak normally.

  How touching to think that even when using his God-given power to heal the afflicted, Jesus showed a sympathetic regard for their feelings! Is it not reassuring to know that Jehovah has placed the Messianic Kingdom in the hands of such a caring, considerate Ruler?


Is there a theological lesson (modern or traditional) in who carved the tablets for each set of the Ten Commandments?

I can answer this question from the perspective of the theology of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), and the denominations that accept his theology.

This answer is extracted from my article, "How God Speaks in the Bible to Us Boneheads." For a fuller explanation of these passages about the Ten Commandments, and of the giving of the Ten Commandments in general as it applies to the specific form that the Bible took, please see that article.

Divine tablets vs. human tablets

Here is the significance of the tablets and the writing on the tablets as distilled from Secrets of Heaven (traditionally known by its Latin title, Arcana Coelestia) #10453, by Emanuel Swedenborg:

The tablets represent the outward form of the Bible. In other words,
they represent its literal meaning, with all of the history, poetry,
and prophecy it offers.
The writing on the tablets represents the inward form of the Bible,
which is the divine truth it contains. In other words, it represents
the Bible’s deeper, spiritual meaning.

(For more on these two levels of meaning in the Bible, see the article, "Can We Really Believe the Bible?")

After making these points, Swedenborg goes on to offer a fascinating interpretation of the difference between the first set tablets, which were made by God, and the second set of tablets, which were made by Moses but had the same words written on them by God:

  There is a secret that has been unknown up to now in the fact that
  Moses broke the tablets that were the work of God when he saw the calf
  and the dancing, and in the fact that Moses, as commanded by Jehovah,
  carved out another set of tablets, on which the same words were then
  inscribed, so that the tablets were no longer made by God but by
  Moses, though the writing was still God’s writing. The secret is that
  the literal meaning of the Bible would have been different if the
  Bible had been written among a different culture, or if the particular
  culture in which it was written had been different than it actually
  was. The literal meaning of the Bible is all about that culture
  because that is the culture in which it was written. This is clear
  from the stories and prophecies in the Bible. (Secrets of Heaven
  10453:3)

Imagine for a moment what the Bible might have been like if instead of being written in ancient Hebrew culture, it had been written in ancient Chinese culture. How different would it have been?

For one thing, dragons wouldn't have gotten such a bad rap! In Chinese culture, dragons are a symbol of strength, power, and good luck. If the Bible had been written in China, there's no way Eve would have been tempted by a serpent--which is later identified as a dragon, and as the devil or Satan (Revelation 12:9; 20:2).

If the Bible had been written in China, instead of being all about ancient Hebrew culture, its stories, prophecies, and poetry would be all about ancient Chinese culture--which has its own unique character.

And yet, being the Word of God, the deeper meaning within those very different outward stories would still be the same.

This is the symbolism of the tablets being carved out by Moses, but the words being written on them by God.

In his encounters with God, Moses represented the whole Israelite nation. He was a Hebrew, and he was the leader of the Hebrew people. Symbolically, when Moses carved out a new set of tablets, this means that the specific outward form of the Bible would be shaped and determined by the particular, unique character of the Hebrew people.

When we read the Bible, that is precisely what we find: stories, prophecies, and poetry that are indelibly stamped with the history and culture of the Jewish people.

In the New Testament we find stories and prophecies indelibly stamped with both Hebrew and Greek culture, salted with a dash of Rome.

But . . . if the Bible is the story of a particular human culture, how can it be the Word of God?

That's where the words written on the tablets by the finger of God come in.

The treasure chest and its treasures

You see, the literal meaning of the Bible--the stories, the prophecy, the poetry--is not the divine truth itself. It is a container for divine truth. It is like a treasure chest containing diamonds, rubies, and gold.

The chest could have been made in any culture. Each culture would have made it differently. From the outside it might look as if it had nothing in common with what we know as the Bible. And yet, if we opened it up to see the deeper meanings within, we would find the same precious diamonds, rubies, and gold of eternal divine truth hidden inside that very different container.

Another way of thinking of it is that the literal meaning of the Bible is like a matrix, and the spiritual meaning is like a gem in the matrix. The matrix itself is a coarse mixture of low-quality minerals. But within that rough matrix lies a beautiful gem worthy of a royal crown. Though the matrix isn't much to look at, it plays an essential role both in the formation of the gem and in preserving and delivering it intact to its eventual proud owner.

The stories and prophecies in the Bible may be a rough mix depicting a culture that was crude and primitive by today's standards. But that rough exterior serves to contain and deliver divine truth to us in a form that we can understand and appreciate.


What is the Catholic view of the rapture?

Catholicism is incompatible with the Rapture because the Church has taught for many centuries before people started envisioning folks disappearing mid-sentence that there would be a Final Judgement where everyone would see their sins and their effects.

I don't think 1 Thessalonians 4:17 speaks to the Final Judgement on account of the fact that St. Paul says "We who are still alive".  If he's dead as his bones attest to then he ought to have said, "those who are still alive".

Now, Catholics don't have any problem with folks being carried off into heaven body and soul, so long as they're free from original sin (Mary and Jesus) or been given a special grace (Enoch and Elijah). The rapture, as it is envisioned in recent popular literature, would be prior to final judgement even if it came at the same hour and doesn't make a lot of sense in the light of Catholic teaching even though it fits the puzzle pieces left in the New Testament pretty well.

If there was a rapture, and the good were taken up, they would have been judged as good and the rest would be... waiting to see if they're good or not?  Well a 7 year span of tribulation doesn't jibe with the Final Judgement as a Last Thing.  The final judgement is Sheeps on this side, Goats on that side and everybody out of the pool.  The dead will have a particular judgement, but at the end of time, as far as I understand the teaching. The final judgement is for the living and the dead.


If a Catholic converts to some Protestant religion is he excommunicated or given any official rebuke by the Church?

This is a legal issue (since "punishments" are legal consequences), so we'll need to look at canon law.

When one leaves the Catholic Church, one may be rejecting the Christian Church and her teachings altogether, or (as seems more likely in the case you mention) simply rejecting certain of her truths and her ability to authoritatively speak the Truth. The former is technically known as apostasy; the latter may be either schism, heresy, or both. Canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law of the Latin Church states:

  Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

The distinction between heresy and schism is mostly that heresy requires "obstinacy"; that is, it requires that one be specifically told that a declared belief or doubt is contrary to Catholic doctrine, and then one must persist in that belief or doubt. Schism simply requires that one, in effect, believe that it's not necessary to follow the Pope and be part of the Church. For the remainder of this discussion, I'll assume that heresy is out of the question, and what is at issue is schism.

(Note: the noted canonist Dr. Edward Peters appears to agree that joining another church is a schismatic act; he refers to Rod Dreher's act of joining the Russian Orthodox Church, for example, as an act of schism.)

Formally speaking, one who commits an act of schism is subject to latae sententiae excommunication, that is, to being excommunicated without the act needing to be declared:

  ... an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

(Canon 1364)

It should go without saying that since a schismatic has voluntarily declared themselves no longer part of the Church, the Church may in turn declare the same thing—not that the individual will feel its effect immediately; but the hope is that if or when the person may return to the Catholic Church, they may feel the gravity of their action, in that they can't just "come back" but must first have their excommunication lifted.

However, it isn't that easy and straightforward. Canons 1321–1324 establish some pretty strict limitations on when excommunications and similar penalties may be imposed. Probably the strictest limitation of all is Canon 1323, section 2:

  The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept: ... a person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance.

If this is not specific enough, canon 1324 goes further, specifying in section 1 note 9 and section 3 that

  a person who without negligence did not know that a penalty was attached to a law or precept ... is not bound by a latae sententiae penalty.

And since, indeed, most people are unaware of the punishment to be imposed by Canon 751, it is generally inapplicable (unless of course the violator is someone like a priest, bishop, or theologian, who certainly ought to be aware of this in particular).


Was Jesus' human nature included in the Trinity?

"Is human nature included in the Trinity?" Included it what sense? Everything that is part of God is God, since God is supremely simple. But God is certainly not human nature, although He contains all the perfections of human nature (and more). The Second Person of the Holy Trinity assumed (took up) a human nature.
As St. Thomas says in "Whether the union of the Incarnate Word took place in the Person?":

The Word of God "did not assume human nature in general, but 'in
atomo'"—that is, in an individual—as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 11); otherwise, every man would be the Word of God even as Christ was.

In the question "Whether the human nature was united to the Word of God accidentally?" of St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica, he states:

the Catholic faith, holding the mean between the aforesaid positions,* does not affirm that the union of God and man took place in the essence or nature, nor yet in something accidental [like clothing is to a man], but midway, in a subsistence or hypostasis.
*[heresies on the Incarnation like Nestorianism]

Also, one could argue this way:

God is not a body.
A human is a body and soul.
Therefore, God is not a human.


Can people in Heaven communicate with each other?

They can, it seems. The clearest example is from Luke 16:22-25:

  22 When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and from the netherworld, where he was in torment, he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.
  24 And he cried out, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.’
  25 Abraham replied, ‘My child, remember that [...]

The rich man is in hell, suffering, and he cries out to Abraham. Abraham is dead and in a far-off and elevated place.

If even this person in hell can speak with Abraham, then surely Lazarus, who is right beside Abraham (and not secluded and separated from him like in the "Matrix" description you give), must be able to speak to Abraham.


Is it sinful for priests or/and those in state of religion to hug women?

Yes, it can be:

Scandal

So as to avoid scandal, can. 667 on enclosure prohibits certain people from entering cloisters.
Can. 667 §4 governs how semi-cloistered nuns (i.e., those with episcopal enclosure) can be outside their convents:§4. For a just cause, a diocesan bishop has the faculty of entering the cloister of monasteries of nuns which are in his diocese and, for a grave cause and with the consent of the superior, of permitting others to be admitted to the cloister and the nuns to leave it [their cloister] for a truly necessary period of time.Contemplatives, who are under papal enclosure, need the Pope's permission.

Lust

If the hugs are done for lustful motives (cf. Summa Theologica II-II q. 154 a. 4)

Over-familiarity

Super Io., cap. 4 l. 6.:  "nimia familiaritas, reverentiam minuit, et contemptum parit" ("over-familiarity diminishes reverence and breeds contempt")

Sacrilege

Just like a chalice, consecrated to hold the Precious Blood, used for a profane purpose (such as for drinking water) would be sacrilege, so, too, is "laying violent* hands on clerics or religious of either sex" or "the commission of acts of unchastity by or with a person bound by the public vow of chastity" sacrilege.*The hugging you show in your YouTube video appears violent, forced upon her.

Also, regarding your link to the The Voice show, listen to this sermon: "Sister Cristina & the Current Church Crisis."


Why don't most Protestants consider confession to be a sacrament?

Prior to Christ, a priest was needed to help make sacrifice to receive forgiveness:

  Thus shall he do with the bull. As he did with the bull of the sin offering, so shall he do with this. And the priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven. - Leviticus 4:20 ESV

The reason that Protestants don't consider confession a sacrament involving the need for a priest, is that Protestants believe that in Christ, we are a royal priesthood ourselves:

  But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. - 1 Peter 2:9 ESV.

And

  9 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,
  10 and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth."  - Revelation 5:9-10 ESV

Of which Jesus is the great high priest:

  Therefore, holy brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession, - Hebrews 3:1 ESV

Protestants believe that there is only one mediator between man and God:

  For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, - 1 Timothy 2:5 ESV

And

  and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. - Hebrews 12:24 ESV

And that the apostles are brothers, with no special power or authority:

  12 What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ."
  13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
  14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
  15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.
  16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
  17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. - 1 Corinthians 1:12-17 ESV

As such, the Old Testament gives a specific process for confession involving priests, sacrifices and a temple/tabernacle/tent of meeting.

But in Christ, Protestants believe that we are the temple in which God's Holy Spirit dwells (1 Cor 3:16), making us able to confess our sins directly to the Father.

  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. - 1 John 1:9 ESV


How was Jesus able to be heard when preaching?

Learning to "project" is a skill. Additionally, when there are no PA systems, people learn where is a good place to speak, and where isn't.

Both the Greeks and Romans built amphitheaters for various purposes, and a hillside can be used as a natural amphitheater. With practice it isn't hard to address over 1,000 people -- the largest group I've ever spoken to without amplification was about 4,000 people.


Does the great great grandmother in George MacDonalds Princess and the Goblin represent a Catholic conception of God?

Well, I'm a reformed guy, so I can't give the Roman Catholic view but I'll try to give a catholic one.

I didn't take the Great Grandmother as a God-character so much, but rather as Lady Wisdom, who instructs and guides. This is a theme MacDonald employs in a number of his other short stories as well, such as The Lost Princess or The Wise Woman, At the Back of the North Wind, and The Golden Key. I have found his fairy tales and Unspoken Sermons very helpful, though I don't agree with all of his theology (most notably his universalism). As with anything man-made, it must be compared to scripture to see where it matches and where it diverges. It's work, but it's worth it.

God portrayed as a woman

As far as I can tell, scripture nowhere casts God in the feminine. God is masculine - the creator, the initiator. The creation (and most specifically the church) is feminine - the suitable helper, the receiver. God is the Father, the Elder Brother, The Son. The Church is the Daughter, the Sister, the Bride.

Death and Resurrection

Death and resurrection plays a hugely important part in scripture. There is almost no story in scripture that doesn't have some kind of death and resurrection theme. Adam is put into a death sleep and his bride is built from his side. Israel is in slavery to death and is brought out as a new nation, and so on.

I see the Grandmother guiding the children through this as Lady Wisdom. Curdie is brave but foolish, immature at first. He must be tried, worked over, before he is willing and able to cling to wisdom. When Grandmother sends Curdie through the fire, this can be seen as a death and resurrection. The old man is put to death, and he receives a glorified fire-body (fire-hands anyway).


How has the ontological argument been used to explain the Trinity?

Based on your comments, I understand that you are interested if any sort of ontological arguments  have been made for the existence of God in a Trinity; and not whether "The Ontological Argument" - usually assumed to mean the medieval argument of Anselm of Canterbury for the existence of God - has been used to prove that God exists in a Trinity.

Oxford dictionaries defines ontology as "the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being".  An argument comprises a series of premises intended to support one or more stated conclusions.

With these definitions in mind, an argument for the existence of God as Trinity that perhaps comes the closest to being ontological is that made by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware in his book, The Orthodox Way, where he claims that God's existence as Trinity logically follows from God's nature as being personal and being love.  "Both these notions," explains Met. Kallistos, "imply sharing and reciprocity":

  First, a “person” is not at all the same as an “individual”. Isolated,
  self-dependent, none of us is an authentic person but merely an
  individual, a bare unit as recorded in the census. Egocentricity is
  the death of true personhood. Each becomes a real person only through
  entering into relation with other persons, through living for them and
  in them. There can be no man, so it has been rightly said, until there
  are at least two men in communication.  The same is true,
  secondly, of love. Love cannot exist in isolation, but presupposes the
  other. Self-love is the negation of love. As Charles Williams shows to
  such devastating effect in his novel Descent into Hell, self-love is
  hell; for, carried to its ultimate conclusion, self-love signifies the
  end of all joy and all meaning. Hell is not other people; hell is
  myself, cut off from others in self-centeredness.

  (Kindle Locations 408-414)

"God is far better than the best we know in ourselves," he continues:

  If the most precious element in our human life is the relationship of
  “I and Thou”, then we cannot but ascribe this same relationship, in
  some sense, to the eternal being of God himself. And that is precisely
  what the doctrine of the Holy Trinity means. At the very heart of the
  divine life, from all eternity God knows himself as “I and Thou” in a
  threefold way, and he rejoices continually in this knowledge. All,
  then, that is implied in our limited understanding of the human person
  and of human love, this we affirm also of God the Trinity, while
  adding that in him these things mean infinitely more than we can ever
  imagine.

  (Kindle Locations 415-419)

I think Met. Kallistos makes a good philosophical argument for why God must exist in more than one person, but I am not sure we can close the argument that He exists in a Trinity from ontology alone.  Why, for example, could God not be a Duality or a Quadrinity?  He goes on to write that "the Trinity is not a philosophical theory but the living God whom we worship; and so there comes a point in our approach to the Trinity must give place to wordless prayer."  Other knowledge we have of the Trinity comes from truth that has been revealed to us, and is probably not something that we could induce or deduce.


What author gave this illustration of truth via a backyard fence?

G.K. Chesterton in his seminal work Orthodoxy:

  Those countries in Europe which are still influenced by priests, are exactly the countries where there is still singing and dancing and coloured dresses and art in the open-air. Catholic doctrine and discipline may be walls; but they are the walls of a playground. Christianity is the only frame which has preserved the pleasure of Paganism. We might fancy some children playing on the flat grassy top of some tall island in the sea. So long as there was a wall round the cliff's edge they could fling themselves into every frantic game and make the place the noisiest of nurseries. But the walls were knocked down, leaving the naked peril of the precipice. They did not fall over; but when their friends returned to them they were all huddled in terror in the centre of the island; and their song had ceased.

He's pretty much saying that Orthodoxy leaves a person free'er to be truly human and truly alive than breaking laws and smashing things or being a pagan would leave you.

Note, Chesterton says "Catholic Doctrine" here, but this was written many years before he, himself, entered the Catholic Church.

Read it on Gutenberg
Listen on Librivox
Buy it from American Chesterton Society


How do egalitarians understand male headship?

Summary
Egalitarians emphasize the "one another" meaning of Eph 5:21 ("... submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.") to control the interpretation of Eph 5:21-33 while being silent on Col 3:18 and 1 Pet 3:1.  Secondly, they interpret "head" (kephal) to mean "source" instead of "authority over".
The Longer Answer
It's interesting how several English translations (such as NLT, NIV, NRSV) put Eph 5:21 in the same pericope with Eph 5:21-33 while other English translations (such as ESV,NASB, ASV, NKJV) put Eph 5:21 in the earlier pericope Eph 5:1-21.  Grouping Eph 5:21 with Eph 5:21-33 enables one to apply "submit to one another" to the husband and wife relationship.
An example of a proponent of egalitarian interpretation of Eph 5:21 is in a 2015 blog article Husbands, Crucify Your Privilege: Ephesians 5 & How Men Take the Lead by Kurt Willems, the founding lead pastor of Pangea Church in Seattle, who distinguishes Patriarchy (exemplified by the Roman culture at the time of St. Paul), Complementarianism, and Egalitarianism/Mutuality.  The argument emphasizes the "each other" in 5:21 as two directional submission and paraphrases Eph 5 as:

“Husbands, in this Roman culture men have all the privilege, but in submission out of reverence for Christ, you are invited to take the lead in crucifying your privilege. In doing so, you look like Jesus and can be part of a marriage of mutual image-bearing and kingdom co-leadership.”

Another example is the Junia Project advocating the full inclusion of women in church leadership and for mutuality in marriage.  The website links to a paper The Bible Teaches the Equal Standing of Man and Woman
 by Philip B. Payne holding a PhD in New Testament Studies from Cambridge and who wrote a 2009 book published by Zondervan Man and Woman, One in Christ reviewed here which summarizes his egalitarian exegesis of relevant Bible passages.  From the review:

Therefore, Paul appropriated, according to Payne, the egalitarian vision enunciated in Gen. 1–2 and the rest of the Old Testament Scriptures. Galatians 3:28 proclaims the equality of men and women in Christ, and the text cannot be restricted to soteriology.  Social and cultural implications follow from Paul’s bold declaration in Galatians. The fundamental equality of married couples is confirmed by 1 Cor. 7. Ephesians 5:22–33 in no way contradicts this since the text teaches mutual submission (Eph. 5:21). Furthermore, the word kephal? is understood to mean “source” instead of “authority over.”

Mr. Payne's paper's opening paragraph:

Is the Bible divided on the issue of gender? Many highly respected
evangelical scholars believe there is a tension in the Bible between
affirmations of gender equality and gender roles. Can we arrive at
a consistent biblical position without doing violence to the text?
Need one sacrifice good exegesis at the altar of systematic theology?
Surely, good exegesis and good systematic theology go hand in
hand. I have prayerfully wrestled for forty-one years with the texts’
apparent contradictions on gender and can honestly say that the
biblical texts themselves have transformed my understanding.
From creation to new creation, the Bible’s message about gender in
the church and marriage consistently affirms the equal standing of
man and woman.

With regards to Ephesians as well as the church in Ephesus, Mr. Payne made the following points in the paper:

Paul's affirmations of the equality of husband and wife: after discussing 1 Cor 7 as "Paul's most detailed treatment of marriage" where Paul "repeatedly uses symmetrically-balanced wording to reinforce this equality" he continues:

Similarly, in Eph 5:21–22, the wife’s submission is explicitly
one facet of mutual submission, each voluntarily yielding in love.23
Paul’s call to both wives and husbands is to defer to and nurture
one another. Christ is the model for all believers, wives as well as
husbands (5:2). Paul defines what he means by Christ being “head”
in verse 23 by equating it with “savior” through emphatic apposition:
“Christ the head of the church, he the savior of the body.” What
does Christ do as “savior”? Paul explains: “Christ gives himself”
for the church (5:25) and “nourishes and cherishes” it (5:29).
This shows that Paul is using “head” with the established Greek
meaning “source,” here focusing on Christ as the source of love and
nourishment of the church.24 Paul calls husbands as “head” of the
wife to follow Christ’s example as “head” by loving, nourishing,
and cherishing their wives (5:25–29). This cherishing, nourishing
love, not a hierarchy of authority, motivates her submission (5:23).
The Bible approves women leading in the home. Paul treats
husbands and wives equally in relation to their children (Eph 6:1–2;
Col 3:20) and tells wives to “rule their households” (literally, “be
house despots,” 1 Tim 5:14). If this is not leadership in the home,
what is?

1 Timothy 2:12: he argues that here Paul is not prohibiting women from teaching or having authority over men but "because of the ongoing crisis of false teaching in Ephesus, he prohibits women from unauthorized assumption of authority over a man."  Furthermore, Paul is not prohibiting Priscilla who was present in Ephesus (see 2 Tim 4:19) from assuming properly delegated or recognized authority or how she "explained to [Apollos] the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:26).

Further study
A 2009 issue of Christian Reflection (a quarterly publication of Baylor University's Center for Christian Ethics): Women and the Church (pdf here) has a book review essay Women in Ministry: Beyond the Impasse by Gretchen E. Ziegenhals covering 3 recent books, one of them is Zondervan's Two Views on Women in Ministry which includes 4 evangelical NT scholars holding seminary faculty positions with 2 arguing for the egalitarian position (Craig S. Keener and Linda L. Belleville) and 2 arguing for the complementarian position (Thomas R. Schreiner and Craig L. Blomberg).


According to the Catholic Church, what was the point of all the plagues?

The ten plagues corresponded to ten of the major Gods of the Egyptians. The God of the Hebrews wasn't trying to convert anyone, but assert himself as the God above all other gods.

1) God of the Nile, Osiris & Hapi? Your river is blood.

2) Frog-Goddess of Fertility, Heka? You get frogs, you get frogs,
   everybody gets frogs.

3 & 4) Geb, the god of earth, and Khephi with the head of a fly? Your
   soil is now lice, with a super size side of flies.

5) Bull god Apis? Livestock struck down. (EDIT: Also, Hathor)

6) Thoth, the god of medicine and cleanliness? Boils everywhere.

7) Nut the sky goddes and Shu the wind god? Storms of hail & fire.

8) Seth, the god of crops and Isis, protector of the fields? Why don't
   you have some locusts.

9) Sun god Ra? Darkness.

10) Your Pharoah sells himself as a god, and his son will be a god after
   him? Kill the firstborn... but not just his, but everyone's
   firstborn.

(The Apostolic Vicariate of Southern Arabia holyspiritinteractive.net/youth/biblegeek/35.asp)

The God of the Hebrews was impacting the whole of the Egyptian society with those plagues, both physically and spiritually. At the same time, he was showing favor to his chosen people, sparing the people from all of the plagues, especially "Passing over" them on the tenth plague. The God of the Hebrews wanted to make a lasting impact on not only the people of Egypt, but everywhere else too - Remember, the reason Jericho wound themselves up tight is because they heard of what happened in Egypt. Following that, the reason the people of Gibeon presented themselves as travelers from far, far away is because of what God did in Jericho.

In our minds, the God of the Hebrews can kinda seem overkill. And it isn't just in Exodus, you also see it in:

Elijah's highly-successful barbecue in 1st Kings 18, where the
prohpet not only placed the offering, but soaked it to the point of
filling up the moat dug around the alter... and then YHWH cooks the
entire thing, to the point of even boiling the water in the trench.
When He institutes the cleansing of the land of Canaan, He says to
destroy everything of the inhabitants, not only the idols, but the
livestock and treasure as well... and when Achan defies this order in
Joshua 7, not only does he get stoned and burned, but also "his sons
and daughters, his cattle, donkeys and sheep, his tent and all that
he had".
Jesus doesn't politely show out the monylenders, rather making "a
scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the
sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers
and overturned their tables" in John 2.

And many, many various other places in Scripture. The church response to all this is that God is passionate about his own glory, and will shake anything that stands in the way to the foundations to crush it with his heel, from Babel in Genesis to the Beast in Revelation.


Who first distinguished between the inerrancy of the Bible and the inerrancy of the original autographs?

In an essay titled "Inerrancy as Inheritance: Competing Genealogies of Biblical Authority," Published in a book titled Evangelicals and Scripture: Tradition, Authority and Hermeneutics, a collection of essays by various authors, Dr. Thomas Buchan, Associate Professor of Church History at Nashotah House Theological Seminary  reviews the late Dr. Harold Lindsell's The Battle for the Bible, Dr. Jack  Rogers and Dr. Donald McKim's The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach, and Dr. John Woodbridge's Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal. In this essay, Dr Buchan notes, that Lindsell, Rogers and McKim all agree that the doctrines of biblical inerrancy were not meaningfully discussed or engaged with by theologians until after the 19th centry.

  Lindsell's work, in my opinion, correctly identified the fact that the issue of biblical inerrancy did not become a matter of contention until the nineteenth and twentieth centrues.

  ...

  Rogers and McKim argued correctly that biblical inerrancy as he conceived of it could not be found in the earlier periods of church history.

Dr. Buchan goes on to note:

  These three works sought to settle the question of the status of biblical inerrancy as the authentically evangelical doctrine of Scripture by means of accounting for its historical lineage. Our consideration of them ,however, raises another question: does the project of writing the history of biblical authority need to be re-envisioned? We must face the possibility that Lindsell was right when he observed that the inerrancy of the bible has only become a controversial issue within the recent history of the church. If this is so, we ought not be surprised if we fail to find inerrancy as it has been articulated in the twentieth-century evangelicalism in the theology of the patristic, medieval or Reformation periods.

And concludes by saying,

  None of this rules out a an evangelical commitment to biblical inerrancy as a theology of Scripture, but it does call into question the perceived weight of the claim that an evangelical conception of biblical authority is historically normative.

This is not to say that the doctrine of inerrancy did not exist as an assumed fact by early church fathers, as other answers, like Dick Harfield's have pointed out. The problem is that because the inerrancy of scriptures was assumed, little to no meaningful thought was given to the difference between the original autographs and present manuscripts. The assumption was that there was no difference or only minor topographical errors - errors so minor as to render them essentially meaningless differences. As Mr. Harfield notes:

  Church Fathers up to the time of Augustine were unanimous in considering the scriptures perfect and inerrant, with no apparent thought that the manuscripts known to them differed in any way from the autographs.

Within Jewish circles, there was a belief that scripture was inerrant as early as 200CE (or as late as 500CE) as recorded in the Babylonian Talmud. In A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, author Emil Schürer notes

    "He who says that Moses wrote even one verse of his own knowledge is a denier and despiser of the word of God"3

  The whole Pentateuch was thus now regarded as dictated by God, as prompted by the Spirit of God.4 Even the last eight verses of Deuteronomy, in which the death of Moses is related, were said to have been written by Moses himself by means of divine revelation.5 Nay at last, the view of a divine dictation was no longer sufficient. The complete book of the law was declared to have been handed to Moses by God, and it was only disputed whether God delivered the whole Thorah to Moses at once or by volumes.6

  3 Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 99a
  4 See in general, Joh. Delitzsch, De inspiratione scriptura sacrae quid statuerint patres apostolici et apologetae secundi saeculi (Lips, 1872, pp. 4-8, 14-17
  5 Baba bathra 15a (lat. in Marx, Traditio rabbinorum veterrima de librorum Bet. Test ordine atque arigine, Lips. 1884, p 23). Philo, Vita Mosis iii. 39 ed Mang. ii 179). Joseph. anit. iv. 8 48.
  6 Gittin 60a

Yet despite this, there was still no distinction between the textis receptus and the manuscripts of the time. This was largely due to the belief that not just the written Torah was inerrant, but the oral Torah was also inerrant and supernaturally preserved as well. User [Aaron Shaffier] of the Mi Yodea Stack Exchange explains:

  Maimonides (also know as the Rambam) codifies 13 principles which are basic to Judaism. These principles are pretty much universally accepted as binding in all Orthodox forms of Judaism. Principle number 8 is, "The belief in the divine origin of the Torah." Principle number 9 is, "The belief in the immutability of the Torah."

  This being said, it is important to differentiate between the idea of the Torah being perfect as understood in Judaism and the concept of "Biblical Inerrancy" as understood by many Christian groups.

  Judaism believes that the Torah was revealed in two parts. The written text of the Torah was dictated to Moses exactly as we have it today. Together with this "Written Torah", much additional information about each commandment, as well as a complete system of Torah interpretation was was also given to Moses and passed down through the generations.

  After the destruction of the Second Holy Temple in 70 CE, a process of collecting and recording these teachings was begun. The teachings of the Oral Torah were eventually codified in the Talmud, Midrash, Zohar etc. This process is explained in great detail in the Introduction of the Mishneh Torah by Maimonides.

  This means that according to Judaism, one cannot just read the text of the Written Torah and fully understand what God wants from us. One needs to also consult the teachings of the Oral Torah.

This explanation, which is supported by Dr. Elizabeth Shanks Alexander in her essay "The Orality of Rabbinic Writing" published in The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and William Gaventa in his book Jewish Perspectives on Theology and the Human Experience of Disability provides an important clue as to why, though church fathers may have mentioned that there could be differences between the manuscripts of the time and the original autographs, this did not rise to the level of being a distinction between the modern manuscript being inerrant and the original autographs being inerrant.

In much the same way that Judaism had a tradition of oral Torah and a system of adjudicating and clarifying apparent errors in the Torah, so too did Catholicism. Should an issue or question regarding the inerrancy the the original autographs vs. the Vulgate, Geneva Bible or King James, one need only look to the Pope for clarification through an encyclical, decretal, Papal Bull, or other such means of issuing church doctrine. This rendered the question of inerrancy and the whole discussion moot and rather silent until it began to stir in 1512 when Desiderius Erasmus began to collect as many variants and copies of the Vulgate as he could in order to publish a Greek and Latin New Testament Critical Text. Shortly thereafter (1645–1707) John Mill collated 82 additional Greek manuscripts into the Novum Testamentum Graecum, cum lectionibus variantibus MSS.  he reprinted Desiderius Erasmus' original work, but also enumerated 30,000 textual variants. A few years after publication, Daniel Whitby criticized the work of Mill, and in some way it could be said that this was the first inkling of the idea that only the original autographs might be inerrant. About this same time, Richard Simon, a French Catholic Priest who published a work titled A Critical History of the Old Testament in 1682. This work was controversial in the Catholic Church and 1,300 copies of his work were seized and destroyed by royal decree. According to historian Philip Shaff in Theological Propaedeutic: A General Introduction to the Study of Theology it was Simon who was first to make the distinction between the inerrancy of the Bible and the inerrancy of the original autographs in a meaningful way.

It was not until 1881 with the publication of Inspiration by Archibald Hodge and Benjamin B. Warfield, leaders of Princeton Theology that the issue of Biblical inerrancy entered the mind of the theology community, and Warfield and Hodge put forth the doctrine that it was only the original autographs which were inerrant. Only after the topic of inerrancy entered the main stage of theological discussion could the more narrow idea of the inerrancy of the original autographs be put forth and discussed. Though it is obvious that they were not the first, Warfield and Hodges were the most influential in bringing this idea to center stage and it was Inspiration which introduced the topic to the world as we know it today.

This also coincides with the rise of archaeology at the beginning of the 1800s and the Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered between 1946 and 1956. As we began to discover older manuscripts and were able to compare them, only then were we able to realize just how different the original manuscripts could be from the present day manuscripts, thus bringing into focus the idea and question that it might only be the original autographs which were inerrant.

Software developer Brandon Staggs has an excellent video discussing the topic.


How does Luke target gentiles in the New Testament?

There are several things that suggest Luke wrote for a Gentile Greek audience:

The Greek vocabulary is vastly more sophisticated and more "classic" in style and construction.  The Greek betrays Luke as well-educated and highly intelligent.
Luke's writing style shows an intimate acquaintance with current culture, idiom and expression in well educated Gentile circles.
Col 4:11-14 suggests that Luke is a Gentile as he is not listed amongst the circumcision group
By contrast with Matthew's genealogy back to Abraham (Jewish ancestor), Luke's genealogy goes back to Adam (ancestor of the world).
Luke's choice of incidents in Jesus' life feature more Gentiles than the other Gospels, as well as Jesus interest in Gentiles (He includes the large Perean section of Jesus' ministry that is absent from other Gospels.)
Luke mentions Roman centurions more than other writers and always in a favourable light.
Luke's writing has no trace of Jewish exclusiveness which occasionally occurs in Matthew and Mark
Luke's dating of events uses the tenure of various officials

Thus, it has been clear that Luke was a Gentile writing for Gentiles.


Protestant denominations that reject solas?

You're correct that Methodist don't accept sola scriptura, but instead prima scriptura. Not only that, they also reject sola fide. That is because they teach synergism. Now, I do know some Pentecostals also hold to synergism, and therefore reject sola fide. Also, if you consider Anglicanism to be Protestant (which most don't, but they are related) there are multiple opinions among them. They're seperated between high church, broad church and low church. Each tradition gets either more Protestant or Catholic in its theology. Now, rejecting all the solas would probably disqualify you as a Christian; sola gratia (grace alone) is something all Christian denominations teach regardless if they are Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthdox, etc. Ultimatly, with the 40,000 different kinds of Protestants out there, it can get really diverse.


If someone doesn't know about Christianity, and they sin, do they go to hell?

There are lots and lots of different positions on this matter, this link is a very good summary.

To summarise even further the points in the article:

1. Church Exclusivism - outside the church there is no salvation (therefore there is no salvation for unreached people)

2. Gospel Exclusivism - outside the gospel there is no salvation (therefore there is no salvation for unreached people)

3. Special Revelation Exclusivism - outside special revelation there is no salvation (special revelation includes the gospel/the church, but also includes dreams/visions/direct words of God to non-believers and unreached people)

4. Agnosticism - neutral position, committed only to not knowing

5.  General Revelation Inclusivism - anyone can be saved by general revelation (belief in a non-religion specific God) but other religions are in no way instrumental to salvation

6.  World Religions Inclusivism - similar to (5), but also holds that other religions can be used for salvation.

7.  Postmortem Evangelism - unbelievers who die will have a chance to trust Christ after death

8.  Universalism - everyone will be ultimately saved by the Christian God

9.  Pluralism - everyone will be ultimately saved by God, the Christian image of which is no more or less valid than that of other religions

There's also a tenth position I'm aware of, but I can't find anybody willing to give it a name:

10. Universalism for the unreached - all unreached people will be saved, God only rejects those who reject him first

This is a very problematic position though, because it begs the question, why evangelise in the first place, given that it only decreases one's chance of salvation.


What is the doctrinal or Scriptural basis for a central Church authority?

A good article about the nature and structure of the Church according to Catholic doctrine can be found here. In short the Catholic view is:

The Church was instituted by Christ as one organization, not many
The church was hierarchic from the beginning. Local churches frequently sought approval from the central authority (the Apostles) even in Apostolic times, and church leaders were appointed by leaders from outside the local congregation.

The Anglican church disagreed with the Catholic church not on the desirability of a central organization, but only on whether national churches should be answerable to the worldwide church.


How do Protestants explain the relationship between justification and the works of the servants in the Parable of the Talents?

For the sake of brevity, I have placed a single page regarding the parables of the kingdom here on google docs.

A number of the parables of the kingdom, as described in the page, convey that  what is 'likened' to the kingdom is not actually the kingdom. The parable itself reveals that the essence of the kingdom resides within something that is 'like' the kingdom but is not - actually - the kingdom.

For that is what the kingdom of heaven is like. One thinks it is all around one (in the company of whomever) and one discovers, to one's horror, that the reality is not as the appearance.

As the psalmist complains :

  Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me. Psalm 41:9 KJV.

The net is cast wide (into the world) by those called 'fishers of men' and they drag the net into the boat. "The kingdom of heaven." But, no, it is not quite. It is only 'like' the kingdom of heaven.

For there is - now - a sifting. And some are cast back into the sea. The bad.
And some are put into vessels. They, as it were, become vessels. Full of the Holy Spirit, are they. The good.

For justification by faith is a matter of a relationship with Jesus Christ - the King of the Kingdom.

Many are there, milling about, busy, important even, sitting - perhaps - in the very chief seats. But what matters is what happens in the last parable - or, rather, in the reality which fulfils all parables - the coming of the Son of man.

If one has had a close relationship with Jesus Christ - the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me - and if one has been a sheep (my sheep hear my voice and they follow me) then it shall not be said by him :

  Depart from me ye workers of iniquity. I never knew you. Matthew 7:23 KJV.

If one is truly justified by faith, one will - in response to such unutterable love - be glad to serve the Lord and to take whatever talent he gives, be it two or five or ten, and to trade with it, bravely and in faith, to please him who hath called one and saved one.

But the churlish and the mean-spirited and the fearful and the unbelieving (Revelation 21:8) have no real part in the kingdom of heaven.

But they may well sneak in to the 'likeness' of the kingdom.

They may get caught up in the net along with some others. And they may not be long in the boat.

Or they may last a lifetime, sitting in a pew. And be buried in the communal place set aside for believers.

But all will be made plain :

  When the Son of man shall come in his glory. Matthew 25:31 KJV.

========================================================================

As to justification by faith itself, I have again - for brevity's sake - put a single page on google docs here.

Justification by faith does not pertain to legal righteousness, or human righteousness or arbitrary righteousness or assumed righteousness.

Justification by faith is when faith is associated with the Righteousness of God Himself.

Those who truly and genuinely are - by God himself - associated with God's own righteousness, are those of whom it is said :

  Whom he did predestinate, them he also called : and whom he called, then he also justified : and whom he justified, then he also glorified. Romans 8:30 KJV.

And there is nothing whatsoever in the parable of the talents which contradicts Paul's doctrine in that verse.

The parable of the talents simply narrates the fact of the sifting during life as the kingdom progresses towards a finality.

And, in the words of Jesus regarding the parable of the net :

  So shall it be at the end of the world : the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just. Matthew 13:49 KJV.

. . .  or, as one might say - sever the wicked from among the justified.


What is the biblical basis of the belief that Earth is the center of the universe?

The verses most commonly encountered during discussions of Bruno and especially of Galileo Galilei are included here.

  Josh. 10:13 "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day."

If the sun and moon miraculously stood still, then the ordinary behavior of the sun and moon ought to be movement. The heliocentrists argued that the sun was motionless and it was the Earth that moved.

  Psalm 19:1-5 "The heavens declare the glory of God;
      the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
   Day after day they pour forth speech;
      night after night they reveal knowledge.
   They have no speech, they use no words;
      no sound is heard from them.
   Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
      their words to the ends of the world.
  In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun.
       It is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
  like a champion rejoicing to run his course."

  Psalm 93:1-2 "The Lord reigns, He is clothed with majesty;
  The Lord has clothed and girded Himself with strength;
  Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.
  Your throne is established from of old;
  You are from everlasting."

  Psalm 104:5 "He established the earth upon its foundations,
  So that it will not totter forever and ever."

  Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
      and its people are like grasshoppers.
  He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
      and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

These verses in Psalms regard the motionlessness of the earth as a testimony of the steadfastness of God, or the movement of the sun as a sign of his power.

  Ecclesiastes 1:5 "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."

A literalist might argue that this verse implies that it is the sun that moves about the earth, which is apparently the position taken by the contemporary Church. An educational website about the trial of Galileo includes this offical statement:

  A decree of February 19, 1616, summoned Qualifiers of the Holy Office and required them to give their opinion on the two following propositions in Galileo's work on the solar spots.  (The assessment was made in Rome, on Wednesday, February 24, 1616.)
  Proposition to be assessed:

  (1) The sun is the center of the world and wholly immovable from its place.

  Assessment: This proposition was unanimously declared "foolish and absurd. philosophically and formally heretical inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the doctrine of the Holy Scripture in many passages, both in their literal meaning and according to the general interpretation of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology."

  (2) The earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but it moves as a whole, also with diurnal motion.

  Assessment: This proposition was unanimously declared "deserving of the like censure in philosophy, and as regards theological truth, to be at least errouneous in faith."

It appears that while this statement may reflect the official position of the Church at that time, it was not universally held among those educated in the scriptures, even among priests of the Cathoilic Church. The same educational website includes this 1616 announcement of suspension of the publication of certain books that contained teachings, theological, philosophical, or otherwise, that were contrary to their previous statement that heliocentrism was contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. (bold added)

  And whereas it has also come to the knowledge of the said Congregation that the Pythagorean doctrine—which is false and altogether opposed to the Holy Scripture—of the motion of the Earth, and the immobility of the Sun, which is also taught by Nicolaus Copernicus in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, and by Diego de Zuniga [in his book] on Job, is not being spread abroad and accepted by many—as may be seen from a certain letter of a Carmelite Father, entitled Letter of the Rev. Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Carmelite, on the Opinion of the Pythagoreans and of Copernicus concerning the Motion of the Earth, and the Stability of the Sun, and the New Pythagorean System of the World, at Naples, Printed by Lazzaro Scoriggio, 1615: wherein the said Father attempts to show that the aforesaid doctrine of the immobility of the sun in the centre of the world, and of the Earth’s motion, is consonant with truth and is not opposed to Holy Scripture.

Modern positivists like to use heliocentrism as evidence that the Church is dogmatic and incapable of adopting empirical understanding. However, it is notable that the geocetric view was held by the vast majority of astronomers and educated people in general at that time- Galileo delayed publishing his own work on heliocentrism because he anticipated ridicule from his peers, not from the Church. The observable evidence that the sun is the center of the universe, stellar parallax, was not observable by instruments at that time and so most contemporary astronomers dismissed heliocentrism, at least initially, on scientific grounds. In fact, Galileo was guilty not only of insubordination to the Church authorities but of bad science- he was teaching that his theory that the sun was the center of the universe was true dispite the fact that he lacked the evidence to demonstrate such.

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, these verses are not considered to be a valid Biblical basis for geocentrism. From Catholic Answers,

  Unfortunately, throughout Church history there have been those who insist on reading the Bible in a more literal sense than it was intended. They fail to appreciate, for example, instances in which Scripture uses what is called "phenomenological" language—that is, the language of appearances. Just as we today speak of the sun rising and setting to cause day and night, rather than the earth turning, so did the ancients. From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to rise and appear to set, and the earth appears to be immobile. When we describe these things according to their appearances, we are using phenomenological language.

  The phenomenological language concerning the motion of the heavens and the non-motion of the earth is obvious to us today, but was less so in previous centuries. Scripture scholars of the past were willing to consider whether particular statements were to be taken literally or phenomenologically, but they did not like being told by a non-Scripture scholar, such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must be taken in a particular sense.

According to Wikipedia, the Roman Catholic Church via Cardinal Giovanni Mercati made a statement regarding Bruno's condemnation in 1942, saying that the condemnation was just.


What non-Catholic Christian groups existed in Western Europe during the Middle Ages?

Taking your defined period for the Middle Ages—starting at the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE and ending with the 95 Theses in 1517 (which began the Protestant Reformation)—a number of minor Christian groups that were considered heretical, and thus outside the communion of the Catholic Church, popped up.

Given the definition of Catholicism, anyone who does not accept the entire Dogmata of the Church would not be in communion with it. It would therefore be impossible to enumerate every single person or minor group in a 1,000 year time span who may or may not have been in communion with the Church during that time period. However, it should be noted that the Church, from time to time, did address these heresies in the form of Synods, Ecumenical Councils, Papal Bulls, Encyclicals, and so forth.

Among the points of contention in the Middle Ages were the following:

The Investiture Controversy, where Kings and Queens were creating their own bishops and priests (a power reserved only to the Pope), addressed in the First Council of Lateran
The Antipope Anceletus II, pretender to the Papacy; addressed in the Second Council of Lateran
Catharism (also known as the Albigensian Heresy), a gnostic sect in France, addressed in the Third Council of Lateran
Waldensianism, which practiced something similar to sola scriptura prior to the Reformation, also addressed in the Third Council of Lateran
The Knights Templar, which were found to be a heretical order after the Crusades, and disbanded by the Council of Vienne

Those aside, there were two major events, or schisms:

The Great Schism of 1054: Brought on by a number of issues, the Eastern Eurpean Churches, centered around Constantinople (now the Orthodox Church, or the Eastern Orthodox Church), fell out of communion with the Western European Churches (now called the Roman Catholic Church).
The Western Schism (1378–1417): Due to a political issue with most of the major powers in Western Europe, three Papacies, all laying claim to the Church, arose: one out of Rome (backed by the Holy Roman Empire), another out of Avignon (backed by France), and a for a short third out of Pisa (backed by a small number of cardinals and bishops).

It's important to note that, like the Protestant Reformation that would come a few hundred years later, in both cases, all sides laid claim to Catholicity and considered themselves Catholic due to the First Council of Constantinople, which established there is only one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.


Because Bible publishers, like everyone else, must make a living, so they can pay their mortgages, buy groceries, and put the children through college.

It's the same reason pastors and missionaries are paid salaries.


Do the Gnostic Gospels exist online anywhere in original Coptic?

Some of these texts are PDFs, but the text is selectable. For example:

http://gospel-thomas.net/gtbypage_112702.pdf

To render the Coptic text, you will need to install a Coptic font:

https://www.copticchurch.net/coptic_fonts/


According to Protestants following the Reformation, what did Jesus mean when he said "do this and you will live"?

Protestants typically argue that Jesus is explaining how one might be "saved by works," and not suggesting that it is actually possible for the man to accomplish it on his own – on the contrary, he implies that it is impossible.  John Gill's analysis is helpful:

  Our Lord intimates by this, that, according to the tenor of the law, eternal life was not to be had without a complete and perfect performance of the duties of love to God, and to the neighbour, contained in these words; and this he suggests, in order to convict him of the impossibility of obtaining life by the works of the law, since such a performance cannot be made by man.

John Calvin argues that the Law teaches men how they could "obtain righteousness by works" – if someone obeys it perfectly, that person does not need justification.  But no one can obey it.  The lawyer realizes this in verse 29:

  But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” (NASB; emphasis added)

Calvin describes his attitude:

  So then, aware that the test of charity would prove unfavorable to him, he seeks concealment under the word neighbor, that he may not be discovered to be a transgressor of the Law.

And in addition to using this statement to make the point that the man was a sinner, Calvin suggests that Jesus intended to rebut the implication that he did not value the Law:

  It was the intention of Christ, in the meantime, to vindicate himself from the calumny which, he knew, was brought against him by the unlearned and ignorant, that he set aside the Law, so far as it is a perpetual rule of righteousness.

Calvin, Commentary
Gill, Exposition

Thomas Constable's treatment is helpful as well.


Why do adherents in laestadianism consider watching television and listening popular music as sin?

The Laestadian Lutheran Church (LLC), the American branch of the Laestadians, defines sin by quoting Ro. 14:23 saying sin is "whatsoever is not of faith". One reason they think it's sinful is that there's a whole lot on TV and in popular music that meets that criterion. And since it is part of their mission to promote "Christian values and ethics", seeing any show or movie rated higher than G would pretty much make them hypocrites (some make exceptions for documentaries). It's not the act of watching or listening or the TV or iPod that is sinful, it's the content of what is being seen or heard.

Those who have left the Laestadian church state that there are no rules prohibiting these acts but that they are severely frowned upon. That alone can be enough to deter someone living in such a tightly knit community from going against their group's norms. See these heartfelt testimonies here, and here, and especially here.

The last link is actually a book that is free to read online. If you want an in-depth perspective from someone who knows, it's a great resource. Essentially, it is an apologetic by the author (Edwin Suominen) documenting why he left. It is as objective as an ex-insider can possibly make it. In Section 4.6, he lists and explains what might motivate these two, and a whole host of other, sins. Those motivations include: authoritarianism; Christian asceticism; societal differentiation; keeping people within the fold; selective adherence to biblical edicts; and maintaining ample material for the forgiveness of sins to work with.


Christian view of why there are so many similarities between Quran and Bible?

It's not even a Christian perspective that's needed. It's a historical one.

Christianity sprang from Judaism, and Judaism and Islam share common roots.  All three are known as "Abrahamic religions" because they trace their history to the covenant God made with Abraham in the Hebrew Bible. All of the events you listed were from before Abraham.

Talmudic tradition says that while Abraham’s son Isaac became the forefather of the Jewish people, the Islamic line is descended from Abraham’s other son Ishmael.

The origin of Islam, and the relationship between it and Judaism is easily researchable. Here's a good place to start: http://www.allaboutreligion.org/origin-of-islam.htm


In modern times, what would happen to a Roman Catholic monk if he were to violate his monastic vows?

There are several different sets of rules for different communities of monks; and the specific penalties for the monks are dependent on the rule.

Most communities of monks or nuns are governed by one of two sets of rules: the Rule of St. Augustine (of Hippo), and the Rule of St. Benedict (of Nursia). There are also governing documents such as the Statutes of the Carthusians, but these are the two primary documents. Since this particular monk was a Benedictine, let's look at the penalties of the Benedictine Rule.

St. Benedict of Nursia, who lived in the early sixth century, developed a rule by which the monks under his care could live. The Order of St. Benedict has a translation of the Rule online, and the Rule has several sections dealing with how monks are to be disciplined. If a monk is a troublemaker, his superior (probably a prior) is enjoined to discuss the problem with him privately. If the behavior is still a problem, the superior will talk privately with him again. If that doesn't help, he will be called out in front of the community and rebuked publicly. If even that doesn't solve the problem, the monk will be excommunicated: that is, excluded from the community (see Chapter 23 of the Rule).

St. Benedict envisioned two kinds of excommunication: for less serious and more serious faults. For less serious faults, the monk (or sister; the same Rule applies to both male and female communities)

  shall take [his] food alone after the community meal, so that if they eat at the sixth hour, for instance, that [brother] shall eat at the ninth, while if they eat at the ninth hour [he] shall eat in the evening, until by a suitable satisfaction [he] obtains pardon.

("Rule of St. Benedict", Chapter 24)

If a more serious fault is involved, the monk is excluded both from the common meal time and from common worship time. Further, no one is allowed to talk to him or even approach him:

  Let none of the brethren join him either for company or for conversation. Let him be alone at the work assigned him, abiding in penitential sorrow and pondering that terrible sentence of the Apostle where he says that a man of that kind is handed over for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord (1 Cor. 5:5). Let him take his meals alone in the measure and at the hour which the Abbot shall consider suitable for him.

("Rule", Chapter 25)

The abbot of the monastery is enjoined to send spiritual help to the monk, in the hope of helping him and solving the problem. He is also entitled to use corporal punishment ("the rod") in severe cases. I highly doubt this punishment is used any longer, though I have no evidence either way.

The (second to) last resort is to have the community pray for the afflicted brother, in the hope that the Lord will help where the Abbot cannot; but if even this doesn't work, the abbot is told to expel the monk from the monastery:

  But if [he] is not healed even in this way, then let the [Abbot] use the knife of amputation, according to the Apostle's words, "Expel the evil one from your midst" (1 Cor. 5:13), and again, "If the faithless one departs, let [him] depart" (1 Cor. 7:15) lest one diseased sheep contaminate the whole flock.

("Rule", Chapter 28)

I don't see anything so harsh as walling up a monk alive.


If Lucifer was top perfect creature, how could he fall? [Catholicism]

Angels, incorporeal intellectual beings, cannot become less perfectly angelic (unlike humans, who can become more or less human); also, every angel is its own species. However, there can still be "evil of fault" (malum culpæ) in angels, not in their intellects but in their wills. Angels have freewill.


The Legitimacy Of The Mark 15:34 And Matthew 27:46 Accounts Of Jesus' Words

Mark begins his book by drawing attention to the words of Malachi.

  Behold I send my messenger ... Malachi 3:1

But there are two messengers in the quotation that follows. The messenger of preparation (who we know is John the Baptist) and the Messenger of the Covenant whom Malachi expressly states is :

  The Lord whom ye seek.

Since the Lord himself, come in flesh, is the Messenger of the Covenant thus Mark quotes his exact words (in Aramaic) - Eloi ! Eloi ! - since that is what his book is about - Jesus Christ come to express the Message, the Everlasting Covenant of the New Testament.

But Matthew draws attention to the King (of the Jews) and the Kingdom (not of earth but of heaven). Thus Matthew's focus is the transition from the passing phase of limited revelation within the compass of the nation of Israel into the full revelation to the whole earth through the Apostolic word of the Everlasting Gospel.

Thus Matthew draws attention to the Hebrew scripture. He does not quote the dialect in which Jesus spoke - he quotes the Hebrew words from the Psalm of David the King - Eli ! Eli !

  My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me ? ... Psalm 22:1

And why was it so ?

How could God ever forsake his servant in whom he delighted ?

Because God spared not his only begotten Son, but delivered him up for us all. That Divine Righteousness might be satisfied, sins must - they must - be resolved in humanity. Not the unclean and compromised humanity of Adam or any of his sons, but in Another Humanity, come of woman, but not come of Adam.

Thus the shocking rift in Deity, between God in heaven and God in humanity. That perfect unity of Father and Son - in One Divine Spirit - was disrupted. And for whom ?

For a vast multitude - as the sand of the sea and as the stars of heaven - whom no man can number.

I believe this cry came from the crucified Jesus spontaneously in the depths of unimaginable suffering when he experienced that appalling separation from the Father which was essential to the resolution of the sins of men.

And I believe that David was granted to prophesy of that moment in his Psalm.

Jesus is not - actually - quoting the Psalm, I would say.

It is the Psalm which, a thousand years before the event, is quoting Jesus.

Jesus cried out (spontaneously) in his native dialect of Aramaic.

David (the King) records it, in spirit, in prophecy, in Hebrew.

Thus Mark notes the actual cry of the Messenger.

And Matthew quotes the Hebrew Psalm of David.


If you are forgiven through the Grace of God, why do you need an Indulgence?

The idea is that we are not our own. If you read that in light of:

  Consider your own calling, brothers. Not many of you were wise by
  human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.
  Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and
  God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong, and God chose
  the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, to
  reduce to nothing those who are something, so that no human being
  might boast before God.

1 Cor 26-29

There's another reason why no one should boast.

Eph 2:8-9 is more to admonish Pharisees who thought they were saved by adherence to the law and 1 Cor 26-29 is to admonish the rich and powerful who thought they were above the law.  Both use the same language and ought to be read in the same context, they can't really mean two different things or have different weight.

Indulgences are just a way of understanding in a human way how our actions can reduce our temporal punishment in purgatory, or be applied to others to reduce their punishment.  If we need to pay to the last penny, then we need a method of payment that is possible for human beings to understand.

One thing we can agree on though, it is not necessary for salvation to receive indulgences.

Selling indulgences is just plain old Simony, which is not something that should have ever been going on, although it clearly did.


What were the Laodicean church members supposed to do?

This is part of a wider question about what believers should do when the find themselves belonging to a church which has gone astray. There are no easy answers and much will depend on the actual context.
In the specific instance of Laodicea, if hypothetically the church did not repent, then I think their lampstand being removed would equate to them not being a church any more. If there were faithful members within the church who did obey, then I think 2 Corinthians 6:17 would be applicable. If you believe that the church has gone astray to the point of not being Christian any more, then the only option left is to separate.
I would hope there would be a number of faithful believers left in Laodicea who would be able to meet together and form a church. If not, then perhaps moving would be an option. I hope that God would give clear guidance in that situation.
In the 21st century there are analogous situations, e.g. what happens when churches break off from mainline denominations such as ACNA breaking off from the Episcopal Church in America.


The speaker would be talking about Megiddo. Archaeologist have found stables which could hold perhaps up to 500 horses. Although some had said that the stables dated from the time of Solomon, Wikipedia says that most now think they are from 150 years later, the time of Ahab.


What is the Amillennial view of the ‘Times of the Gentiles’?

There  does not seem to be one view.   It is taken either as having a “temporal” significance or an “eschatological” one by Amillenials.

  The Non-Millenarian View [1]

  This takes us to the third point, and that is the meaning of the
  phrase “until the full number of the Gentiles has come in” (v. 25).
  Most commentators agree that Paul’s use of “until” (achri) has
  temporal significance and is intended to mark that period of time when Israel’s hardening ends and her fullness and acceptance
  begins.[53] Others, however, such as O. Palmer Robertson, insist
  that the term has an eschatological significance and is indicative
  of a condition that continues until the end.[54] The key here is
  Paul’s phrase “the full number of the Gentiles.” According to
  Anthony Hoekema, “The fullness here . . . must be understood in an eschatological way: the full number of Gentiles God intends to save.
  When that number of Gentiles has been gathered in, it will be the end
  of the age.”[55] Based on this interpretation, when the full number of
  elect believers among the Gentiles has come in, then Israel’s hardness
  will be removed, and Israel will attain the promised fullness and
  acceptance shortly before the return of Jesus Christ. This
  interpretation also comports with Jesus’s words that after God’s
  judgment falls on Israel and her people are scattered among the
  nations, “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the
  times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Luke 21:24). Once the times of
  the Gentiles are fulfilled, God will remove Israel’s present hardness
  of heart, and the nation will at long last return to her Messiah.

[1] “A case for Amilennialism”, © 2003, 2013 by Kim Riddlebarger Published by Baker Books a division of Baker Publishing Group P.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287 www.bakerbooks.com

http://a.co/20aOOub


What is the Biblical basis for Peter being the leader of the apostles?

The Roman Catholic Church acknowledges1 the direct Biblical basis for Peter's primacy comes from Matthew 16:17-19:

17Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Additionally, there's this passage from John 21:15-17:

15When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
16He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
17He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” [Jesus] said to him, “Feed my sheep.

And as DJClayworth noted in the comments, his role as the leader of the Apostles (and subsequently, the early Church) after Jesus's death and resurrection is clearly shown, particularly in the first half Acts of the Apostles which almost exclusively features his mission.

Note 1: The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

552Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." Christ, the "living Stone", thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakeable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.
553Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The "power of the keys" designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep." The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.


To what extent does the Law of Moses still apply?

There are many separate views to the matter. I'll try to list the most common ones, along with sources (at the end of each section). I'll first just describe the views briefly; the sources are available for those more interested.

Catholic

The Catholic Church teaches that the Law of Moses (the Old Law) is a preparation for the Gospel, and as such no longer binding. The New Law (the Law of Gospel) is a perfection of it, given through faith in Christ.

The Law of the Gospel is presented in the Sermon of the Mount (Matthew 5-7), but also in the moral catechesis of the apostolic teachings, such as Romans 12-15, 1 Corinthians 12-13, Colossians 3-4, Ephesians 4-5, etc.

God's Law has always remained the same, and has always been available as the natural moral law (e.g. through conscience), but only Jesus could express it perfectly.

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second edition. Paragraphs 577-582 and 1950-1986. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc2.htm

Reformed

The reformed teaching is that the law was given in three parts:

The moral law, which God gave first to Adam, and later to Moses on Sinai (the Ten Commandments).
Ceremonial laws, given to the people of Israel, prefiguring Christ.
Judicial laws, given to the State of Israel.

The moral law is eternal, binding Adam, the first man, as well as any Christian today.  Ceremonial laws were abolished in the New Testament. Judicial laws only concerned the State of Israel.

As noted, the moral law was delivered to Moses as the Ten Commandments. Thus the Ten Commandments apply to Christians today as such. Of other laws in the OT, the moral component applies.

Source: Westminster Confession, chapter XIX. http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XIX.html

Theonomy

Theonomy literally means "God's law". It is the notion that God's law is eternal and universally binding. That is, the entire Bible applies to Christians today.

This doesn't mean that salvation comes by keeping the law, as theonomy is often misrepresented. Salvation is granted "solely by grace through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ".

Psalm 119:97-98 (KJV) is a good verse to show what theonomy is about:

  O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.
  Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me.

Source: Duncan, T.M. Theonomy: What it is; what it is not. http://www.ipc.faithweb.com/documents/THEONOMY.htm

Dispensationalism

Dispensationalism makes a distinction between Israel and the Christian church in God's plan. Its major objective is to be able to interpret the Bible consistently literally.

Dispensationalists recognize seven dispensations in the Bible:

Innocence (Genesis 1:1–3:7)
Conscience (Genesis 3:8–8:22)
Human government (Genesis 9:1–11:32)
Promise (Genesis 12:1–Exodus 19:25)
Law (Exodus 20:1–Acts 2:4)
Grace (Acts 2:4–Revelation 20:3)
The millennial kingdom (Revelation 20:4-6)

The different dispensations are different ways that God has related to people. Salvation has always been through faith.

As today's Christians are living during the dispensation of grace, or during the New Covenant, the old laws or the Old Covenant do not bind them. Because God and His will do not change, the moral law of the New Covenant hasn't notably changed from the Old Covenant.

Source: What is dispensationalism and is it biblical? http://www.gotquestions.org/dispensationalism.html (I'd like to find a better/more original source)


Can the King James Bible be extensively quoted in commercial books?

The King James Version of the Bible is public domain in most parts of the world. Being in the public domain means that you can do whatever you want with it, including quoting it in a commercial book as you will like. In fact, you can even copy the whole text of the KJV, print it out, and sell your own copy (although since anybody can get it for free, that's not likely to be a very lucrative business model.

However, the United Kingdom and the commonwealth countries have more restrictions. By royal prerogative, only the Queen's Printer, Cambridge University Press, and Oxford University Press are permitted to reproduce the KJV. Cambridge University Press gives permission to use up to 500 verses (with some additional caveats) for educational and liturgical use. Beyond that, they approve usage on a case-by-case basis and generally don't charge a fee.

So if you are publishing in the United Kingdom or a commonwealth country, you will need to make sure that your work follows the appropriate guidelines for citing the King James Version of the Bible. If you quote extensively from it, you will likely need to contact them directly for permission.

If you are publishing to any other country in the world, you have nothing to worry about because being in the public domain means there are no restrictions to how you choose to use the KJV text, including using it in your own commercial work.