What does Lewis mean by the things that stifle bitter resentment in elders in A Grief Observed

Section One deals with Lewis’s initial reaction to the death of his wife.  He asks this about God:

  Why is He so present a commander in our time of prosperity and so very absent a help in time of trouble?  I tried to put some of these thoughts to C. this afternoon.  He reminded me that the same thing seems to have happened to Christ: “Why hast thou forsaken me?”  I know. Does that make it easier to understand?”

Then comes the quote about “our elders” who submitted to God’s will and the question of bitter resentment being stifled, the whole thing “an act – put on to hide the operation” (page 8).

Further on in the book, in Section Two (page 29), Lewis likens grief to fear, suspense or waiting for something to happen.  It is in Section Three (page 45) where Lewis uses the metaphor of an amputation to describe how one never really recovers from the grief of the death of a loved one.

  To say the patient is getting over it after an operation for appendicitis is one thing; after he’s had his leg off it is quite another... Presently he’ll get back his strength and be able to stump about on his wooden leg.  He has ‘got over it’.  But he will probably have recurrent pains in the stump all his life... he will always be a one-legged man.

In Section Four Lewis realises that he is going through a process and likens it to a winding valley where any bend may reveal a totally new landscape.  He then introduces another metaphor to describe the process he is going through:

  Two widely different convictions press more and more on my mind.  One is that the Eternal Vet is even more inexorable and the possible operations even more painful than our severest imaginings can forbode. But the other, that ‘all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well’.

Lewis is moving through the process of grief, which is not unlike recovering from an operation.  He likens the death of a beloved to an amputation.

Perhaps now we can understand the reference to “the operation” given on page 8.  It is a metaphor that covers all sorts of suffering, and how Christians who came before, (“the elders”) the biblical saints, who submitted to the will of God and were persecuted and suffered for righteousness’ sake, struggled with internal doubts, resentment and fear.  “Why, God, are you allowing these terrible things to happen to me?”  The “operation” may be a reference to the price they pay for submitting to God’s will, just as Christ Jesus, who paid the ultimate price, suffered in order to do the will of his Father in heaven.

It is human nature to question and challenge what appears to be unfair, or unreasonable, or wrong.  This is where resentment is stifled and it may look to others that the believer who is suffering is simply putting on an act.  Just like grieving after the death of a loved one, all sorts of internal struggles are besetting other believers who did not fully understand why these dreadful things were happening to them (“the operation”) but who, nevertheless, endured.   You may find this article helpful:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Grief_Observed


Is there a Christian definition of "social justice?"

No, there's not a specific Christian definition for this phrase.  It means various things to different people based on their own values.  The defiition, in general is the same as it is in the secular world - to champion social causes that are considered "Just".  Beyond that, it gets into "What's 'Just'?".

Put simply, there's no "Specific Christian definition" because "Christianity" is not one single view, it's the sum total of all the views of the believers.  See Is it valid to ask if “Christianity” teaches anything?


Mark and Paul's view that 2nd coming would be in their lifetime

This refers to Matthew 17, the transfiguration.  So the Word from Christ is indeed fulfilled.

Edit: My apologies for being too brief.

Matthew 17 and the scripture you quoted, Mark 9, both reveal the answer to Christ's words.  The sight of God's kingdom was the Transfiguration, the disciples present saw Elijah and Moses, who are in heaven, momentarily, and then heard the voice of God speak, which caused them to fall on their faces.

To address the second point, I'd look at 1 Corinthians 7:6-7 where Paul instructs people to marry if they so please, or to stay unmarried.

  6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. 7 For I wish
  that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from
  God, one in this manner and another in that.

  8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if
  they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control,
  let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

The twinkling of an eye passage I think you are referring to is 1 Corinthians 15:51-52.

  51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall
  all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the
  last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised
  incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

This is referring to Rapture, where we do not die but instead are changed; this is often referred to the spiritual body in non-denom Christianity, and it occurs in the last days.

Hopefully this is more helpful than my original answer!


How is the belief that Christians are both adopted and begotten sons of God reconciled?

In the verse you quoted, John 1:12-13, the Greek words for "children of God" is "tekna Theou." (Notice that "tekna" is always referring to "little children.")

Contrast this with John 3:16 which uses "monogene huion" or "only Son." The term "monogene" being the one containing the notion of "the only offspring" or "the only begotten one."

(Also, anywhere else in the New Testament, "huion" always refers to a "mature" children, not little ones)

Based on this, I believe that the translation that use the word "begotten" should not be used to ascribe the concept of "begotten" into these verses. In fact in ESV translation (and some others), there is no "begotten" in both John 1:12-13 and John 3:16.

I also believe that the only "begotten" Son is the Lord Jesus Christ and Him alone. Believers are adopted sons (and daughters) of God.  There is no notion of "begotten" ever applied to believers.


Why were none of the Apostolic fathers' writings included in the last canon accepted in the Ecumenical Councils?

Not many direct statements about the lack of canonization of those books were made during the specified time. But a few statements were made.

The canon list in the Muratorian Fragment, dating to about 170, mentions the Shepherd of Hermas, saying that it "cannot be read publicly to the people in church" because "it is after [the apostles'] time":

  Hermas wrote The Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, nor among the Apostles, for it is after their time.

That's the only statement I could find that mentions a specific book of the Apostolic Fathers and gives a specific reason for its exclusion from the canon. But I'm not going to end the answer there.

Eusebius, the fourth-century church historian, has four categories of books:

"recognized," which seems to mean that there is a consensus that they belong in the canon
"disputed," which seems to mean that a majority recognize them but some dispute their canonical status
"spurious," which seems to mean that most don't count them as canonical
"heretical," which means that nobody in the church has ever regarded them as trustworthy

About the heretical books he says:

  To none of these has any who belonged to the succession of ecclesiastical writers ever thought it right to refer in his writings. Moreover, the character of the style also is far removed from apostolic usage, and the thought and purport of their contents are completely out of harmony with true orthodoxy and clearly show themselves that they are the forgeries of heretics. For this reason they ought not to be reckoned among the spurious books, but are to be cast aside as altogether absurd and impious.

From this we can infer that Eusebius' criteria for considering a book canonical is that it 1) is accepted by the church, 2) is orthodox, and 3) is from the time of the apostles. He regards Barnabas, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas as "spurious," but doesn't mention any other of the Apostolic Fathers.

Athanasius seems to have a threefold categorization:

Canonical. "These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these."
Good non-canonical books. "Not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness."
Apocrypha. "They are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple."

Of the Apostolic Fathers, Athanasius only mentions the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas, both of which he places in the middle group.

Rufinus says that "the ancients" "were willing to have all these read in the churches but not brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine," referring to a handful of books including the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas, though he doesn't mention any other Apostolic Fathers.

The word they were all using for canon can mean "rule" or "standard" or "measuring stick."

So, although the direct evidence is relatively scant, we can infer the following from the aforementioned facts:

Anything not from the apostles' time was disqualified (which disqualifies most of the Apostolic Fathers, although some of them, like 1 Clement and the Didache, may have been written while John and others were still alive.)
Anything that misrepresented its authorship was out (which probably only disqualifies the Epistle of Barnabas, 2 Clement, and the inauthentic Ignatian epistles.)
The canon was to be the final appealed-to doctrinal word (Athanasius and Rufinus are the clearest expositors of this point, but the word "canon" itself seems to be a clue to this fact.) Jesus, Paul, and John are probably the clearest New Testament examples of speakers/writers who claim to be speaking directly from divine revelation. Perhaps 1 Clement and the Didache, which I mentioned in point 1 as possibly from the apostles' lifetime, were excluded for consciously being doctrinally dependent on the apostolic writings. But that's speculation.
Consensus. Eusebius and Rufinus both seem to believe that the most important canonical criterion is whether "the church" through the ages has accepted the book as fitting the other three criteria. Perhaps the councils were able to make their choices because the consensus had already solidified by that time.


What would happen to somebody voting in opposition to a proposition at LDS General Conference?

This originates from a revelation given to Joseph Smith, recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 26, and is known as the law of common consent. Note that this is different from congregationalism in that in common consent, a decision is already made through prayer and by inspiration, and the decisions are not made by democratic voting, per-se. Those affected by the decision or change then sustain it, not necessarily vote on what should or should not be.

Sustaining leaders is a regular occurrence in the church, even in local meetings. Raising the right hand may be understood, in some way, as a pledge or covenant to help and support whoever is being proposed.

If somebody opposes, it is generally done because of some first-hand knowledge the opposer has of the person in question. In local settings, that person will be asked why after the meeting (usually the reason must be for some grave sin, or unworthiness to serve in the position, which leaders usually know about anyway as they may help the person through the repentance process).

In general conference, there are about 21,000 people in a single session in the Conference Center. The conducting authority will generally conclude with "Insofar as I have been able to observe, the voting in the conference center has been unanimous in the affirmative."

If there is an opposition in general conference, the person is directed to speak with their stake president who takes the matter, if it merits attention, to higher authorities.

Update: I was in attendance when this happened today, on Saturday, April 4, 2015, during the afternoon session of General Conference. Some attendees opposed and the speaker simply remarked, "Thank you, the vote has been noted." Instead of saying that voting was unanimous at the end, he said, "The voting has been noted. We invite those who opposed any of the proposals to contact their stake presidents." [Video]


How can the "Son of Man" passages of Matthew 24 be interpreted as a fulfilled prophecy?

J. Stuart Russell was a prominent 19th century preterist whose thought has been recently popularized in some circles through R. C. Sproul's book, The Last Days According to Jesus.  Russell addresses these two passages as follows.
Verses 29–31
Russell notes that verse 29 begins with the word "immediately" and insists that the text allows no change in "time, place, [or] circumstances" between the earlier verses, describing the desolation and tribulation of Judea, and the events of verses 29–31.  Thus, verse 30's "all the tribes of the earth" actually refers only to the land of Judea, not the entire world.  Similarly, there is no gap in time between the two sections of the passage.
Russell next addresses the challenge of those who find it absurd that anyone can believe that the phenomena of these verses (the darkening of the sun, etc.) could have already occurred.  He responds:

To argue in this strain is to lose sight of the very nature and genius of prophecy.  Symbol and metaphor belong to the grammar of prophecy, as every reader of the Old Testament prophets must know.  Is it not reasonable that the doom of Jerusalem should be depicted in language as glowing and rhetorical as the destruction of Babylon, or Bozrah, or Tyre?

Russell quotes Isaiah 13, describing the downfall of Babylon, and argues that "the imagery employed in this passage is almost identical with that of our Lord":

'Behold the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.  For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine . . . . I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place' [emphasis in original]

He then asks:

If these symbols therefore were proper to represent the fall of Babylon, why should they be improper to set forth a still greater catastrophe—the destruction of Jerusalem?

He provides other examples, like Isaiah 34's reference to the historical destruction of Bozrah, the capital of Edom, and the historical punishment of Samaria and Jerusalem in Micah 1.
Ultimately, this figurative language, he argues, is a "characteristic quality of prophetic diction":

The moral grandeur of the events which such symbols represent may be most fitly set forth by convulsions and cataclysms in the natural world. [...]
It is appropriate, both as it is in keeping with the acknowledged style of the ancient prophets, and also because the moral grandeur of the event is such as to justify the use of such language in this particular case.

Verses 39–41
Russell again insists that these verses also refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.  He understands these and the surrounding verses to be primarily warnings and admonitions to vigilance:

This watchfulness was essential to the safety of the followers of Christ, for so sudden would be the catastrophe that it would overtake the unready and unwary, as birds that are caught in a net.

He does not specifically address the "one taken and one left" language, but it's clear from his analysis that he believes this language is used to emphasize that

the final catastrophe would overtake Jerusalem and Judea at an unexpected hour, when the business and the pleasure of life occupied men's hands and hearts.

Those "taken," thus, would include the "prodigious numbers slaughtered in the siege of Jerusalem."  He quotes Josephus's record of the event, and summarizes, "A more exact verification of our Lord's prediction it is impossible to conceive."
Summary
Preterists like Russell view the language of Matthew 24 as prophetic language similar to that of the Old Testament prophets, and that the events described as occurring in the heavens should be seen as symbolic of the events around the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

All quotes are from Russell's 1878 work, The Parousia, pages 76–93.


How are the words of Mary in Luke 1:34 incontrovertible proof of her perpetual virginity?

One would think Mary knew the birds and the bees. One would think that she knew that after betrothal, a couple would cohabitate and consummate their marriage. Naturally, a baby would ensue approximately 9 months later. After all, that’s how Mary was born! Her mother and father went through the same process. One would think Mary knew that.
This is a translation of Gabriel’s statement to Mary:1

31 And behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and you shall give birth to a son, and you shall call his name “Jesus.”

At that very time, Mary was already betrothed to Joseph. It would be expected for them to cohabitate and consummate their marriage. Would it not? If indeed this were to be the case with Mary and Joseph—the consummation—then why would Mary ask Gabriel:

34 ...How shall this be since I do not know a man?

“To know” is, of course, a euphemism for “to have sex.” Thus, we could just as well translate that verse as such:

34 ...How shall this be since I do not have sex with a man?

Hello?! Mary?! Don’t you know what shall happen when you and Joseph consummate your marriage? What do you mean, “How shall this be?”
So, if you do not believe that Mary was going to remain a virgin perpetually, then you have to believe Mary did not understand what happens when a husband and wife consummate their marriage. You have to believe Mary did not understand the birds and the bees although her parents already handed her off to be married to another man. You have to believe that Mary was asking Gabriel for a biology lesson.
Note, Gabriel does not say to Mary, «μέλλεις συλλαμβάνειν»—“you are about to conceive,” implying that her conception was at hand, prior to her consummation with Joseph. Rather, he uses the future tense, and Mary, already being betrothed, would have rightly understood it as being fulfilled when she consummated her marriage to Joseph—if indeed she did not have a perpetual vow of virginity.

Footnotes
1 Luke 1:31: «καὶ ἰδού συλλήψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ καὶ τέξῃ υἱόν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν»
2 Luke 1:34: «εἶπεν δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον Πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω»


According to LDS doctrine, what is the source of God's power?

This is a difficult question to answer. If you asked "What is source of gravity?", what would the answer be? Matter? Matter has gravity.
Similarly, the answer to "What is the source of God's power?" is probably "God". God has God's power. Perhaps that isn't really satisfying, but it's accurate.

Cleon Skousen, a famous LDS scholar, had interesting things to say about God's power.
Disclaimer: These are Skousen's insights, based firmly in LDS doctine, but his own beliefs nonetheless.
Most of this is from  a sermon "A Personal Search for the Meaning of the Atonement". The recording and transcipt are available. Similar statements are also in his book The First 2,000 Years in "The Source of God’s Power."
Skousen quotes Doctrine and Covenants 29:36:

for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;

God possesses power over the sea, the earth, the heavens because they honor him. And they honor him because he is who he is.
This honor is more than figurative; all things have an "intelligence"...for lack of better word, a fundamental spark of divinity/existence that cannot be created or destroyed (Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 3). This universe of intelligences honor God, and so he has power.
Alma 42 explains the necessity of Jesus's sacrifice for sin, to satisfy justice while offering mercy:

...except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.
...which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.
What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.

God would "cease to be God" if he were unjust. He would his lose his honor, and also his power. Of course, God is just and good, and will be yesterday, today, and forever, and so all things obey him, and he has all power in heaven and in earth.


Since when have JWs said that United Nations will launch an attack on religion?

Even before the United Nations existed, Jehovah's Witnesses have held the position that the United Nations is going to destroy false religion. The belief originates from back when its predecessor, the League of Nations, was formed in 1920.

Christian clergymen at that time were heralding the League of Nations as the organization that would bring about the Kingdom of God. This was seen as a big warning sign to the Bible Students at that time, since 1914 was believed to have been when Jesus began ruling over God's Kingdom from heaven, and the League of Nations was clearly being formed as mankind's attempt at world peace, not God's.

Here are some older Watchtower publications which describe these events:

w53 9/15 "Flight to Safety with the New World Society" para. 19, 20
g85 10/8 "A Vision Rejected"
w85 10/1 "A 'Disgusting Thing' Fails to Bring Peace" para. 12-14
w54 11/15 "Is World Unity a Dream?" para. 15


Why aren't the Biblical Apocrypha included in the protestant Bible?

These books of the Bible were accepted as part of the canon (part of the Bible). These books have been around for a long time. First of all, the books called apocrypha are related to the Old Testament. The New Testament is accepted with its 27 books among the major Christianity branches (Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals).

The Old Testament Canon was taken from the Jewish Bible. The Jewish recognized an historical value to the apocrypha, but not one of authority. The Catholics started to view the apocrypha as part of the Bible during the counter-reforme in 1546 (Concile of Trente). Principally to object the protestant attack on particular doctrine like the purgatory.

In fact, the protestants returned to the position of Jerome, who presented the Old Testament with the apocrypha separated to the Old Testament (Prologus galeatus) around 390.

--Source Magazine Theologie Systematique, Article : Apocryphes ou Deuterocanoniques by Henri Blocher. (Sorry for the French source) Here is the English transcript

Why are those books not included in the post-reformed Bible? Simply beacause for the Protestants these books were never part of the Old Testament. The New Testament does not quote them, as it does for most of the Old Testament. The Jewish people did not see those books on the same levels then the rest of the Old Testament Canon.


2 Corinthians 11:14 says that Satan masquerades as "an angel of Light." From that we can deduce that Satan is, in fact, and angel, Albeit not an angel of light. Still, you are right that there is very little in the Bible about him.

We know that he is "the Accuser of the Brethern" (from Job), and in fact, "Ha-Satan" is Hebrew for "Accuser."

We also know that he is a snake (Gen 3), a lion waiting to devour (Gen 4), and that he is the Prince of the Power of the Air (Ephesian 2:2).

In Revelation 12, he often associated with "the Beast, that evil dragon," but it is wise to remember that Revelation has all sorts of wild imagery that seems intended as metaphor as much as description.

Finally, in Isaiah 14, Christian tradition has said that he is Lucifer, the Morning Star, who was brought down by pride. Ezekiel 28 is another text often applied to him.

Beyond that, most everything else we know about Satan is historical tradition.  Paradise Lost, in particular, has shaped many people's beliefs about "the Fall from Heaven."


Why are Adam and Eve considered married?

Genesis 2:24–25 (ESV): Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

Genesis pretty clearly views them as husband and wife, even giving their union as foundational to all other marriages.


What is the difference between Abraham's and Sarah's laugh after the LORD's promise?

Abraham's laugh was a laugh of joy, while Sarah's laugh was a laugh of contempt.
God looks at the heart or that is to say he looks at the underlying cause.
The heart in Christianity is believed to be the place where one's loyalty, belief, dedication, and so on is lodged.
All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation.

Matthew 12:35  A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
Matthew 13:15  For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Unless God understood the machinations of man's minds he would not be omniscient, and could not have known:

Genesis 15:4 through 6 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. 5  And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6  And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.


Is mindfulness meditation banned in Eastern Orthodoxy?

Being Eastern Catholic, I’d say you need to be aware that because of the similarities between some eastern spiritual practices and the practices of the orthodox there is sensitivity amongst the Eastern churches of west’s accusations that we engage in pagan meditation techniques.
I think we need to get over our hang ups with the west’s accusations.
Our traditions; including the Jesus prayer is built around the breath.
As long as you remain theologically sound, practice mindfulness as you will.


How can Jesus rule the earth during the second coming, if he is only in Jerusalem?

Put aside the question of whether the Jerusalem which Jesus will enter and rule from is:

1) The Jerusalem we know (but fixed up)

2) A new physical city that descends fully built from Heaven, as described in Revelation

3) An image of the Church, where the people of God are the walls and buildings to be inhabited.

How can Jesus be seen by the world?

1) Television and the internet, via TVs, cell phones, tablets and watches which are in the possession of most people today.

2) Supernatural means. If man is capable of creating the internet, God is capable of even greater marvels.

How can Jesus rule the world?

1) Delegation. At his disposal, Jesus has:

a. angels. Matthew 26:53 says:

  Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my
  disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

b. the church, whom he promised will judge the world. The apostles will sit on thrones. 1 Corinthians 6:2 says:

  Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if
  you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial
  cases?

Luke 22:29-30 says:

  And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me,
  so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on
  thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

2) Action at a distance. In Matthew 8, Jesus heals a centurion's servant while that servant was sick in bed miles away. He does not need to be physically present to accomplish the Father's will.


What biblical/traditional elements lead Catholics to believe that saints can hear our prayers?

Catholic traditions often reach deep into the Jewish roots of the faith and the answer to this question might be best supplied by looking at the Jewish teachings on Caleb who was asked to reconnoiter the land of Canaan and report back to Moses.

Caleb made a "side trip" to the graves of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) and asked for the heavenly intercession.

As we know, Caleb is the lone voice of optimism for the potential taking of the land.

In the Jewish faith these men and women (such as the Patriarchs and Matriarchs) are called "Righteous" wherein a similar comparison could be made to the men and women of heaven that Catholics call "Saints."


You, my friend, have a hard heart if you can't find anything interesting in Ezra.  ;-)

  And when the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the LORD, the priests in their vestments came forward with trumpets, and the Levites, the sons of Asaph, with cymbals, to praise the LORD, according to the directions of David king of Israel. And they sang responsively, praising and giving thanks to the LORD,

  “For he is good,
    for his steadfast love endures forever toward Israel.”

  And all the people shouted with a great shout when they praised the LORD, because the foundation of the house of the LORD was laid. But many of the priests and Levites and heads of fathers' houses, old men who had seen the first house, wept with a loud voice when they saw the foundation of this house being laid, though many shouted aloud for joy, so that the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful shout from the sound of the people's weeping, for the people shouted with a great shout, and the sound was heard far away.—Ezra 3:10-13 (ESV)

To me, this is a picture of the joy we will have in the Lord when He brings this age to a close and we enter the age that will last forever.

The entire book tells the story of God's influence in world history even in the operation of a worldly empire.  Since the Second Temple was rebuilt, Jesus was able to enter it and, ultimately, bring the Mosiac Covenant to a close.


Do any Christian groups regularly practice the "lifting up of holy hands" during prayer?

Many Christian groups practice this.  It's quite common. So much so, that it's considered ordinary among many groups.  It's especially common in Charismatic groups, but it's also found in more conservative groups such as Baptists.

From Joyful Heart Ministries:

  To classic Pentecostals lifting the hands in praise and prayer is
  second nature, flowing from a tradition decades old. But to the new
  convert or non-Pentecostal just entering the Charismatic movement, the
  custom may be new and awkward. Most traditional Protestants have only
  seen the minister lift his hands to give the benediction or blessing
  upon the people. Questions follow: Why lift hands to worship and pray?
  What does this practice mean? As we explore the twenty-eight verses in
  the Bible on this subject we will find answers to these questions.

And later on in the article:

  Lifted hands must not mask sin. Worship offered to God while still
  practicing iniquity is an abomination (cf. Ps 40:6-8; 50:7-23;
  51:16-19; Is 1:11-18). Defiled lives must be cleansed by repentance:
  "When you spread forth your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even
  though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full
  of blood. Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean ...." (Isaiah
  1:15-16; cf. 59:1-3). R*ather we are to lift up "holy hands without
  anger or quarreling" (1 Timothy 2:8).* The prophet Jeremiah admonishes
  the Israelites mourning the destruction of Jerusalem, "Let us search
  and try our ways, and turn again to the Lord! Let us lift up our
  hearts with our hands to God in the heavens" (Lamentations 3:40-41,
  KJV).

A typical search on a major search engine will list thousands of results for anyone wishing to learn more.


144,000: is there any denomination or group holding this symbolic interpretation?

The Christian theologian Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) holds a compatible view. Here is his interpretation of the 144,000, from his book Apocalypse Revealed #348:

  And I heard the number of those who were sealed, one hundred and forty-four thousand. (Revelation 7:4) This symbolizes all people who
  acknowledge the Lord [Jesus Christ] as God of heaven and earth and are
  governed by truths of doctrine springing from the goodness of love,
  received from Him through the Word [the Bible].

  These are symbolized by the number 144,000 from the twelve tribes of
  Israel because the twelve tribes of Israel symbolize a church that
  consists of people who possess goodness and truth from the Lord and
  acknowledge Him as God of heaven and earth. The number 144,000 means
  all such. For that number has the same symbolism as the number twelve,
  since it is the product of twelve times twelve, which is then
  multiplied by 1000; and any number multiplied by itself and then by
  10, 100, or 1000, has the same symbolism as the original number. Thus
  the number 144,000 has the same symbolism as 144, and this the same
  symbolism as twelve, as 144 is the product of twelve times twelve.
  Similarly, the product of the 12,000 sealed from each tribe times
  twelve is 144,000.

  The number twelve means, symbolically, all, and is predicated of
  truths springing from goodness, because twelve is the product of three
  times four, and the number three symbolizes everything connected with
  truth, and the number four, everything connected with good. Thus the
  number twelve here symbolizes everything connected with truth that
  springs from the goodness of love.

You can read the full interpretation in Apocalypse Revealed #348 here.

Swedenborg's interpretation provides the basis for the understanding of the 144,000 among the various denominations of Swedenborgians.

Most Swedenborgians do not interpret Swedenborg's use of "church" here to refer to any specific denomination, including their own. Rather, they follow Swedenborg's cue and think of "the church" as "all people who acknowledge the Lord as God of heaven and earth and are governed by truths of doctrine springing from the goodness of love, received from Him through the Word." In other words, being part of "the church" is based not on denominational affiliation, but on belief in Jesus as God and on living according to divine truth and love as taught in the Bible.

So Swedenborgians—especially the more liberal ones—commonly accept all heartfelt and Bible-believing Christians everywhere as included symbolically in the 144,000.


According to Calvinism, is it possible to believe in predestination, yet reject Christ?

It is a bit unclear in the question, but I believe what you are asking is essentially, "Can a person be so theologically informed as to believe in predestination, and yet not be truly saved?"

The answer to this is absolutely, yes.  Academic assent to God's existence or to various doctrines does not imply an authentic salvation.  Authentic salvation is characterized by a commitment and surrender of one's life to Christ as Lord and Saviour.  It is quite possible to subscribe to something academically, and not commit one's life to Christ.  The passage you quoted from James illustrates this, as does this passage:

  Matthew 7:21-23 (ESV)
  21   “Not everyone who  says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will  enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who  does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22   On that day  many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not  prophesy in your name, and cast out demons  in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23   And then will I declare to them, ‘I  never knew you;  depart from me,  you workers of lawlessness.’

When someone commits his life to Christ, he is sealed by the Holy Spirit, and the evidence of this is a changed life.


Did any of the Apostles travel to present day Saudi Arabia? Apostle Thomas?

I would cite this comment from New Advent on the subject.

  The origin and progress of Christianity in Arabia is, owing to the lack of sufficiently authenticated historical documents, involved in impenetrable obscurity, and only detached episodes in one part or another of the peninsula can be grouped together and studied. References to various Christian missionary enterprises in the north and south of the country, found in early ecclesiastical historians and Fathers, such as Eusebius, Rufinus, Socrates, Nicephorus, Metaphrastes, Theodoret, Origen, and Jerome, are valuable, but to be used with caution, inasmuch as a lamentable confusion, common to all writers of that time between Arabia proper and India, or Abyssinia, seems to have crept into their writings.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01663a.htm

I found a detailed term paper that covers Pre-Islamic Arabia.    From scanning it looks like the student did a good job compiling lots of church history, anthropology, and archeology and other resources together.
http://www.academia.edu/829636/Pre-Islamic_Christianity_in_Arabia

Galatians 1

  13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

One tidbit I picked up (looking at the term paper I linked to).   Some Early Church Historians credit Thomas as having spread the Gospel to Arabia, but this point is made doubtful by other folks (like the New Advent quote at the top of this entry).   The author of the term paper however makes this a credible claim, based on the Fact that Souther Arabia was considered "The Gateway to India" due to the shipping routes of the day.


What is the Christian counterpart of Sharia and Halakha?

Within the Catholic Church there is Canon Law. Other Christian Churches also have a type of Code of Canon Law unto their own denomination.

For the Catholic Church, the Holy See's government, Canon Law directs one to another special law  for it's legal makeup and framework:

  Can. 360 The Supreme Pontiff usually conducts the affairs of the universal Church through the Roman Curia which performs its function in his name and by his authority for the good and service of the churches. The Roman Curia consists of the Secretariat of State or the Papal Secretariat, the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, congregations, tribunals, and other institutes; the constitution and competence of all these are defined in special law.

  Can. 361 In this Code, the term Apostolic See or Holy See refers not only to the Roman Pontiff but also to the Secretariat of State, the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, and other institutes of the Roman Curia, unless it is otherwise apparent from the nature of the matter or the context of the words.

What is Canon law?

  Canon Law Definition

  Canon law has two functions: to govern churches with a uniform code of rules, and to guide church members in their conduct and worship. Canon law covers a range of issues, including human rights, property, relationships, becoming an adult member of the church, choosing church leadership and more. Of course, canon law is separate from legal codes enacted by governments. You won’t get arrested if you break your church’s canon law, but you may face consequences within your church community. The word “canon” means rule. So, think of canon law as a set of rules for churches and worshipers. Canon laws keep things smooth and uniform.

  The following churches use canon law: Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Episcopal and Mormon. Some of these don’t have formal unified canon laws like those of the Catholic Church. However, they still incorporate some type of canon law into their practices. For example, the Anglican Church does not have a centralized canon law, but does use a canonical system within its member churches.

  Canon Law History

  Canon law has a long history dating back to early Christianity. The first Catholic canon law was called the Decretum and was adopted by the Church in the 12th century. The Decretum remained the standard law of the Catholic Church for centuries. After the first Vatican Council in 1869-1870, the church leadership decided to create a uniform code. Cardinal Pietro Gasparri led the project, and in 1917, the first Code of Canon Law was adopted by the Catholic Church.

  As the church grew over the 20th century, so did its need for updated rules and regulations. In 1983, a revised Code of Canon Law was enacted, still in use today. In 1990, the Catholic Church issued a Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. This means the Catholic Church now has two canon laws, one for its Eastern churches, and one for its Western or Roman Churches.

  List of Canon Laws

  Code of Canon Law (Roman Catholic): Originally codified in 1917 and last updated in 1983, the Code of Canon Law is the comprehensive set of rules followed by the Roman Catholic Church.
  Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (Eastern Catholic): This set of laws was adopted in 1990 to address the unique needs and practices of Eastern Catholic Churches.
  Constitution & Canons (Episcopal): The Episcopal Church officially adopted its Constitution at a General Convention in Philadelphia in 1789. Constitution & Canons lays out the Church's official rules for governance. It has since been updated many times, most recently in 2015.
  The Book of Discipline (Methodist): This set of rules addresses how Methodists agree to live together. The Book of Discipline has been evolving for more than 200 years. Every four years, Methodists update the Book at their General Conference. The latest update was released in 2016. -  What Is Canon Law?


Was Jesus Circumcised for the Romans to nail the plaque 'King of the Jews' above his head on the Cross?

We know that Jesus was circumcised because we are told that he was in the book of Luke:

Luke 2:21  KJV

  And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

As Jesus said to the Sadducees:

Matthew 22:29  KJV

  Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

The Covenant requiring circumcision was with Abraham, and the Jews are the descendants of Israel, but they are only one of the  Nations descended from Abraham, others include the descendants of Ishmael, of Esau, and that includes most of the Arabian peninsula nations.


The genealogy of Jesus Christ, documented both by Matthew and Luke in their gospel accounts shows that he was born of Mary and was descended from both Abraham, the father of all the Hebrews, and descended from David the principal King of Israel.

The whole history of the Old Testament records God's dealings with Israel and his unfolding purpose which was initially demonstrated by him within the confines of one people - Israel - but was always intended to reach farther and to encompass the whole world in due time.

Jesus Christ came of Israel, was born of an Israelite, Mary, was counted as the son of David by being adopted by Joseph, but God's purpose in sending his Son is evidently a purpose that reaches to every one on earth.

Those who believe on Jesus Christ do not revert to that which was, initially, a more restricted situation as God's purposes were intimated and exampled in Jewish rituals and ceremonies. What is now revealed is the reality of a spiritual revelation that far transcends the earthly figures and patterns.


Why is "fornication" used to describe the actions of "Babylon the Great" in Revelation 18?

In layman's terms, fornication is often used as an allegory for idolatry. In the same way people are unfaithful to spouses by fornicating in the usual sense of the word, idolatry is "cheating on" God.

More at http://www.thewholetruthnow.com/2PORNEIA.htm and http://www.sabbathcovenant.com/doctrine/fornication_defined.htm

From the second link above:

  In Revelation, we again see a clear link between the act of
  fornication and idolatry:

  Revelation 2

  14   But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a
  stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed
  unto idols, and to commit fornication....
  20   Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess,
  to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat
  things sacrificed unto idols.

  John is clearly speaking out against the practice of committing the
  sexual act of idolatry and then eating meat sacrificed to idols in
  that act of worship.

  If you do a word study on Fornication, you will see that it is
  condemned in context to Idolatry EVERY time.  100% of the references
  to fornication are in context to idolatry.

similarly, several times in Scripture, idolatry is described as "whoring after other gods" such as in

  Judges 2:17 KJV

  And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a
  whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned
  quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the
  commandments of the LORD; but they did not so.


Context for Paul and Solomon's usage of "heap burning coals on his head."

It seems that the issue here may be due to differing metaphorical purposes of burning coals.

Coals can be used to burn and harm, but they can also be used to resharpen and temper as in a forge.

From looking at the context of the verse from Paul, it would seem that his usage of the quote would have the latter purpose of to temper or reforge.  Earlier he says:

  Romans 12:9 - "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good"

I should think that doing good to one's enemies for the mere purpose of actually doing them harm later wouldn't be very "sincere."

The author of Proverb's contextual meaning on this verse seems to be more likely the former (harm) than the latter (tempering).  This is from his earlier verse:

  Proverbs 25:15 - "Through patience a ruler can be persuaded, and a gentle tongue can break a bone."

"Breaking bone" seems to have more in common with doing damage to one's enemies than bringing them into a state of righteousness.  In addition, the verse in Proverbs has the the part, "and the LORD will reward you." added on where Paul does not.  This statement of contrast with the burning coals again makes me think that he was meaning the coals would undermine or harm one's enemies.  Though, it is entirely possible that the two authors could have been saying the same thing.


Why do (some) Anglican vicars use 'sing-songy' voices?

I submit that there may be a practical reason for the sing-songy voice, and I have tested the reason myself, with the help of a friend.

First, I read a passage from Scripture in a normal speaking voice, at normal volume, from the lectern in a large, "traditionally" furnished Episcopal church, and had my friend move back in the nave as I was speaking until my words could be heard, but no longer clearly understood. This was about 3/8 of the way from the lectern to the rear of the church. Then, I had my friend move still further back, to where my words could not be heard in their entirety. This was about 2/3 to 3/4 of the way to the back of the church.

Next, we repeated the experience with me chanting the same passage, from the same place, and at about the same volume. My friend had no trouble hearing clearly the words I chanted at the very back of the room.

Finally, we repeated the process in the "sing-songy" voice. In this case, the words were clearly understood about 2/3 of the way back the church, and heard all the way to the back.

I don't have enough training in psychoacoustics, or acoustics, for that matter, so I can't say exactly why chanting, and its distant cousin is more clearly heard than plain speech, but I've done the same test in different rooms, always with the same result--the closer to plain speech, the less the sound travels at a particular volume, the closer to chant, the better the sound travels.

These days, of course, with microphones, amplification systems, and loudspeakers, all one need to do to get normal voice to be easily heard anywhere in the room is to turn up the gain on the amplifier. But it was not always the case, and I suspect the sing-songy voice is a hold-over from pre technology changes, and that the perpetrators may not be be aware they are doing it, or if they are, may not put it on like vestments, which by the way, derive from regular garments of the Common Era, though that's a different queston altogether.


There are Ecumenical councils of which there have been seven and local councils of which there have been many.
Ecumenical councils affirm previous Ecumenical councils as Ecumenical.
Councils have to be accepted by the Body of Christ as a whole to be considered Ecumenical.

As such, it is impossible to say directly at or immediately following an attempt at an ecumenical council whether it will be accepted as such.


What is the Catholic Church's interpretation of 'hunger and thirst for righteousness'?

The Catholic Haydock Commentary says this about Mt. 5:6:

Ver. 6. Hunger and thirst; i.e. spiritually, with an earnest desire of being just and holy. But others again understand such as endure with patience the hardships of hunger and thirst. (Witham) --- Rupertus understands those to whom justice is denied, such as poor widows and orphans. Maldonatus those who from poverty really suffer hunger and thirst, because justice is not done them. (Menochius) --- They shall be filled with every kind of good in their heavenly country. I shall be filled when thy glory shall appear. (Psalm xvi.)

St. Thomas Aquinas's collection of the snippets from Church Fathers' Scriptural commentary, Catena Aurea (Golden Chain) c. 5 l. 4, says this about Mt. 5:6:

St. Ambrose: As soon as I have wept for my sins, I begin to hunger and thirst after righteousness. He who is afficted with any sort
disease, hath ho hunger.
St. Jerome: It is not enough that we desire righteousness, unless we also suffer hunger for it, by which expression we may understand
that we are never righteous enough, but always hunger after works of
righteousness.
Pseudo-Chrysostom: All good which men do not from love of the good itself is unpleasing before God. He hungers after righteousness who
desires to walk according to the righteousness of God; he thirsts
after righteousness who desires to get the knowledge thereof.
St. Chrysostom: He may mean either general righteousness, or that particular virtue which is the opposite of covetousness. As He was
going on to speak of mercy, He shews before hand of what kind our
mercy should be, that it should not be of the gains of plunder or
covetousness, hence He ascribes to righteousness that which
is peculiar to avarice, namely, to hunger and thirst.
St. Hilary: The blessedness which He appropriates to those who hunger and thirst after righteousness shews that the deep longing of
the saints for the doctrine of God shall receive perfect replenishment
in heaven; then "they shall be filled."
Pseudo-Chrysostom: Such is the bounty of a rewarding God, that His gifts are greater than the desires of the saints.
St. Augustine: Or He speaks
of food with which they shall be filled at this present; to wit, that
food of which the Lord spake, "My food is to do the will of my
Father," that is, righteousness, and that water of which whoever
drinks it shall be in him "a well of water springing up to life
eternal."
St. Chrys.: Or, this is again a promise of a temporal reward; for as covetousness is thought to make many rich, He affirms on the
contrary that righteousness rather makes rich, for He who loves
righteousness possesses all things in safety.


Generally speaking the intentions/motivations of the person make it right/wrong or allowable/forbidden.

Sin has always been rebellion against God—generally speaking, doing something that you believe to be wrong. The Jews had some mandates about accidental sins, but with the atonement that Jesus made, I don't see how there's a need for any form of repentance for things that you did not knowingly choose to do (or not do, in the case of something you ought to have done).

If someone dies due to my negligence or irresponsibility, then that might constitute a sin on my part, because I made that choice. Accidents that you could not have controlled do not constitute a choice. You're choices are what will condemn or exonerate you.


When did the massacre of the innocents happen?

The first question is what year Jesus was born in.  The people who devised the Christian calendar reckoned that Jesus was born in 1CE, aka 1AD.  (There was no year zero CE).  However, there is a lot of scholarship that concludes that Jesus was born sometime between 6-4BCE.

You can consult Wikipedia on this.  They also have an article on Nativity of Jesus.  One of the estimates they use is to conclude from the gospel texts that Jesus was about 31 years old in the fifteenth year of the Reign of Tiberius.  They then count backwards to 6-4BCE.  That would place Jesus' birth before Herod's death.

Two events occur between Jesus' birth and the massacre of of the innocents, if the gospels are to be relied on.  The first is the visit of the Magi and the second is the flight of Joseph and Mary, with the infant child, to Egypt.  There is enough time between 6BCE and Herod's death for all of these events to take place in the only sequence that makes sense.

Assessment of what various groups of Christians believe in this regard is complicated by the fact that many Christians believe in scriptural inerrancy.  Some Christians hold that inerrancy implies chronological accuracy.  Others don't.

This means that some groups will treat scholarship done from a neutral point of view as a challenge to the faith, while others will view it as a genuine search for truth.


What is the argument in support of personal interpretation of the Scriptures?

The Bible itself -- if you'll pardon my interpretation -- seems to support such a practice.

In the Old Testament, the law is read aloud to the people (Deut 31:10-13; Josh 8:34f; 2Kgs 23:2; Neh 8:1ff) and the king is required to copy out the law so that he may know it and do it (Deut 17:18ff). In both cases, it is read "raw" and the people and rulers are to understand it and do it. Likewise, the Psalms are meant to be sung by the people, and Proverbs is in part a training manual in wisdom for princes to be read and understood.

In the New Testament, Jesus preaches directly to the people, the Apostles and missionaries preach to the people, and Paul intends that his letters be read aloud to the people (Col 4:16 -- possibly with the courier providing some additional clarification).

Now these are authoritative teachers teaching, so one could argue they are similar in function to the Magisterium, but the "noble Bereans" are also commended for independently searching the scriptures to confirm Paul's teaching (Acts 17:11); Priscilla and Aquila, who are certainly not in the Magisterium, tutor Apollos (Acts 18:24ff); and Luke-Acts was written for the private individual Theophilus (Luke 1:1ff; Acts 1:1).

None of this is to say there is not a binding authority given to the church; there certainly is -- even in Protestantism (how else could church discipline exist as one of the "true marks" of the church?). But individuals are still encouraged to read, hear, understand, and apply the words of the Bible themselves.

In Richard Pratt's formulation of Reformed hermeneutics, IIRC, there are three sources of interpretation one seeks to respect: historical (the church of the past, tradition), community (the church of the present, your pastor and elders), and individual ("private interpretation", conscience, internal illumination by the Holy Spirit). In "remnant" situations, the individual interpretation may be the most correct, and God expects his people to abide by his true word, regardless of what the corrupt authorities say (cf. the OT prophets, and Jesus and John the Baptist vs. the scribes and Pharisees in the NT). That being said, going against broad agreement in interpretation across history and in one's present community should be done only with great prayer, humility, self re-examination, and trepidation.

A footnote on 2 Pet. 1:20 ("no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation"), a contested verse in this context: "Prophecy" here is effectively "God's communication." Reading the surrounding verses shows (I think!) that the passage is concerned with the origin of a prophecy, specifically that it does not come from a private or merely human source. It is not addressing interpretation or understanding of that divine communication, which is what we're talking about in this question.


Can Only A Priest Give Confession?
What I think you mean is whether only a priest can give absolutions for confessed sins? The short answer is yes.
There could be situations of doubt in certain situations though.
I remember reading about the atrocities committed during the French Revolution.
As it happened one day, that one of the revolutionaries was grievously wounded and knew he was dying. Three elderly woman were at his side and seeing that he desired to have a priest present, he asked that two of them go a search out a priest.
The oldest woman remained at his side. He then confessed his sins to the old woman, in the case he went unconscious before a priest arrived to hear his confession.
As it turned out, he went unconscious by the time the pastor of the local church arrived. Having been told of the sins committed by the elderly woman by this revolutionary decided to absolving him conditionally, leaving it to God if the confession was valid or not.
In the history of the Church, there are many strange situations that have happened.
Of course in the absence of a possible confession Catholics are taught to make a perfect act of contrition.


Can a Catholic priest excommunicate someone for premarital sex?

Talk to a Priest. As far as I know marrying outside the Church is invalid but does not incurr automatic excommunication. You would not be able to receive Holy Communion, and I suspect that you may be confusing the two

Even if you are excommunicated your excommunication can be lifted. Again a chat with a Priest, or an appointment for Confession would  be the place to start.

It does not seem like your marriages were valid, a Catholic has to marry in the Church or receive a dispensation. This is good news because you can get a decree of nullity for your previous marriages and convalidate your current one. That, and a good Confession should allow you to receive Holy Communion, assuming that you are not excommunicated or that if you are it has been lifted. Again a chat with a Priest should point you in the right direction to get the process started.


Why was the New Testament Written in Greek?

First, actually, it was very likely that Jesus and His followers spoke no fewer than these three languages: Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew. What language did Jesus speak?

Aramaic was the primary language of the land, Greek was the language of business, education, and for communication with foreigners (because it was a wide-spread language), and Hebrew was the religious language of the Jews and was primarily reserved for prayers, religious teaching, and communication with other Jews.

But why did they choose Greek? Well, first, we don't have the originals of any of the texts, but it is likely that most were written in Greek, however, there is some debate over a few of the books, just for your information.

The primary reason would be portability. Greek was a very wide-spread language. Hebrew and Aramaic were not. Further, after Peter had an encounter with Gentiles that had him declare that the message of Christ's resurrection was for the Gentile too, it became an international matter that all hear the Good News.

  48 So he ordered that they [Gentiles] be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 10:48

Greek was the language that made sense. It was wide-spread, it was for the foreigner, and the Jew knew it as well. Greek was the language that would affect the most people.


Why didn't Jesus give proof to the priests?

Jesus did give them proof, on numerous occasions. He healed the sick, turned water into wine, and raised the dead. He showed how his coming fulfilled prophecy. But they still didn't believe.

Consider the story of the blind man Jesus healed in John 9. When he was brought to the Pharisees, did they say, "Zounds, Jesus restored the sight of a blind man! He must be a great prophet if not God himself!" No, they didn't. They had the man right there, giving his eye-witness (no pun intended) testimony. And what was their response? They had his parents brought in and questioned if he had really been blind. When they said he was, they demanded that the man explain how Jesus did it. Of course he didn't know. They pressed and pressed, and when he wouldn't recant his story, they had him excommunicated.

So when they asked for yet another sign, Jesus told them no, he had already given them all the proof they needed. If Jesus had come to some meeting of the priests and performed a miracle right in front of them, I'm sure they would have claimed it was an illusion or a magic trick.

It's just like some of the demands people make today. Every now and then an atheist will say, "If there really is a God, let him strike me down with lightning right now." Why doesn't God respond by sending lighting? Because: suppose that an atheist said that, and at that very moment a bolt of lightning tore through the roof and knocked him to the ground. Would all the atheists say, "Wow, we were wrong. God did indeed prove his existence"? I really really doubt it. Much more likely they would say, "Wow, what an astounding coincidence! Just as Bob made that comment about God striking him with lightning, he actually was struck by lightning! You know it would be funny if it wasn't that poor Bob was so badly hurt ..." Right? Does anyone seriously think otherwise?

At some point you have to say, he's done all these miracles, he's given you the Bible, you can believe it or not. In Luke 16:31, Jesus says, "If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead." I used to wonder what Jesus meant by this. For of course, if someone really came back from the dead, everyone would have to believe. How could they not? Then stories of near-death experiences came out, people who claimed to have died during surgery or in accidents and then been revived, and who talked about seeing a "being of light" and a heavenly -- or sometimes hellish -- place. Did this end the controversy, and everyone who heard became Christians? No. They said these people were making up stories or hallucinating. Maybe some people became convinced that there is life after death from such testimony, but I suspect it's few. I'm a Christian, I believed in life after death before I heard these stories, and they don't particularly convince me of anything. I don't know what to make of them.

If someone doesn't want to believe, no amount of evidence will convince him. God's not going to waste his time giving a 127th proof to someone who wasn't convinced by the first 126.


Did Jesus baptize or not in St. John's account?

It is obvious from the text of John 3:22 that Jesus was not the one actually performing the dipping, but his apostles.

The idea here is that the apostles were baptizing on his behalf.  Because they were baptizing in his name, it was, in essence, Jesus baptizing.

We, today, have the power to do the same thing:

Matthew 28:19 (NIV)

  Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit


The earth was indeed perfect at creation. In fact, the Hebrew word for good (towb) used to describe God's creation pre-sin is the same word used to describe the goodness of God in the Psalms:

Gen 1:31 ESV And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Psalm 25:8 NIV Good and upright is the LORD: therefore will he teach sinners in the way

The first creation was perfect, but when Adam sinned, everything died. The ground became cursed:

Gen 3: 17-18 ESV And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.

Thorns and thistles came when there were none. Pain and death came. Before sin there was no death, but climate and storms are another matter. Is a tornado or storm that causes no pain still a natural disaster? I'd think it'd just be weather.


How do protestants understand Jesus' statement that unless we eat the flesh of the Son of Man we will have no life?

I am aware of one protestant view that has not been brought up, so here it is for your consideration:

To interpret John 6:53 we examine the context, close to the beginning of the conversation, at John 6:35.

"He that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." In this verse Jesus sets up the interpretation for the "eating" and "drinking" analogy.

We "eat" to satisfy our "hunger"; we "drink" to satisfy our thirst. We partake of the benefit of His flesh and blood by "coming to Him" and "believing on Him".

By this interpretation, John 6:53 is not talking at all about communion. Communion reminds us of the sacrifice of Christ which is the price paid for our salvation (in remembrance of me, Luke 22:19). We partake of His sacrifice ("eat His flesh" and "drink His blood"), not by communion, but by coming to Him and believing on Him (John 6:35).

I have encountered this interpretation in every protestant church I attended for any length of time including congregational, Baptist, Foursquare, and Assembly of God.


If Jesus is "a god" do Jehovah’s Witnesses consider themselves to be polytheists?

No, of course Jehovah's Witnesses do not consider themselves to be polytheists. That is because they make sure they do not give any worship to Jesus Christ. It is strictly 'taboo' for any JW to pray to Jesus (as prayer is an act of worship), or to bow down on one's knees or to prostrate themselves in the name of Jesus (which is an act of worship). They speak of metaphoric 'bowing down' in Jesus' name, but it must never be literal. They speak of an attitude of respect to Jesus but ensure that that never becomes a worshipful attitude. They speak of obedience to Jesus' commands as a sign of their respect for him but at every point, their respect for, and honour of Jehovah God must always be greater than that which they have for Jesus Christ, because they maintain that Jehovah created Jesus as a separate being, distinct from himself. They know the Bible condemns polytheism, or even worship of more than one God, so they are at pains to stress that they never worship Jesus either as God, or as 'a god'.

To demonstrate their stance on refusing to pray to Jesus, consider their treatment of Acts 7 verse 59 which says, "While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit'." But JWs have been told that no, Stephen was NOT praying to Jesus. That is why their NWT renders this verse as, "And they went on casting stones at Stephen as he made appeal and said: 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit'."

Notice how the word 'prayer' is avoided? The Greek word for "calling upon" is in the text used by the JWs. However, all JWs know that Jesus was not physically present when Stephen called upon him after having had a vision of both God and Jesus. They know the resurrected Christ was in heaven. They also know that the only way you can call upon God or Christ, who are not physically present, is to pray to them. Here is what their Insight on the Scriptures says, Vol. II p 667:

  "The entire Scriptural record testifies that Jehovah is the One to
  whom prayer should be directed... Though some claim that prayer may
  properly be addressed to others, such as to God's Son, the evidence is
  emphatically to the contrary. True, there are rare instances in which
  words are addressed to Jesus Christ in heaven. Stephen, when about to
  die, appealed to Jesus, saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." (Ac
  7:59) However, the context reveals a circumstance giving basis for
  this exceptional expression. Stephen at that very time had a vision of
  'Jesus standing at God's right hand,' and evidently reacting as if he
  were in Jesus' presence, he felt free to speak this plea to the one
  whom he recognized as the head of the Christian congregation."

So although the JWs admit Stephen was calling out to Jesus in heaven, they refuse to say it was a prayer to Jesus.

I will not give further quotes on the other points, for I am quietly confident that JWs will be eager to provide ample quotes from their official web-site that will conclusively show that they are confident their refusal to worship Christ to any degree whatsoever does not contradict them giving him a merely titular ascription of being "a god". Although it is worship that differentiates deity from creatures, JWs believe that simply giving Jesus a title of "a god", while ensuring their respect for him always stops short of worship, overcomes this theological problem of the Bible calling Christ "the Mighty God" (Isaiah 9:6) and (in their NWT) "a god" in John 1:1, despite verse 3 stating that he "made everything that was made".

As for the specific question you ask: "is Jesus Christ a true god, or a false god?" - JWs would never say Jesus must therefore be a false god (given your points). They think Jesus is 'a mighty one' and would argue that 'god' in lower case refers to that, without that 'mighty one' requiring any worship. It might be worth asking a further question on why, then, Jehovah God is ALSO called "the Mighty God" in Isaiah 10:21, a few verses on from the Son being given that same accolade.


What are the various eternal destinies or after lives that are possible in LDS Mormon Doctrine?

LDS doctrine on the subject is found in section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants.  Referring to the circumstances in which he received this revelation, Joseph Smith stated:

  From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that
  many important points touching the salvation of man had been taken
  from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled. It appeared
  self-evident from what truths were left, that if God rewarded every
  one according to the deeds done in the body the term ‘Heaven,’ as
  intended for the Saints’ eternal home, must include more kingdoms than
  one.

Upon seeking clarification from the Lord, this revelation was received, regarding the nature of the eternal destiny of mankind.  It first speaks of the "sons of perdition," people whose choices have placed them outside of the Atonement.

  31 Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and
  have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the
  power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my
  power—

  32 They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it
  had been better for them never to have been born;

  33 For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God,
  with the devil and his angels in eternity;

  34 Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world
  nor in the world to come—

  35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having
  denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto
  themselves and put him to an open shame.

  36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and
  brimstone, with the devil and his angels—

  37 And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power;

  38 Yea, verily, the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due
  time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath.

So the sons of perdition are people who "know my power and have been made partakers thereof" and then "deny the truth and defy my power," and they will be consigned to hell for eternity, with Satan and his fallen angels.

After this, it moves on to a more pleasant topic, the fate of those who have not committed unpardonable sins, and defines three "degrees of glory," as they're commonly known in LDS theology:

  50 And again we bear record—for we saw and heard, and this is the
  testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth
  in the resurrection of the just—

  51 They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on
  his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being
  buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment
  which he has given—

  52 That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed
  from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of
  the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;

  53 And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of
  promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and
  true.

  ...

  58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God—

  59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things
  present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and
  Christ is God’s.

  60 And they shall overcome all things.

  ...

  70 These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of
  the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the
  sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.

The reward of the most faithful is commonly known as "the Celestial kingdom," or also "exaltation," and is the idea that people unfamiliar with LDS theology are thinking of when they hear that Mormons believe they can become Gods in the afterlife.

After this, the revelation speaks of the the eternal rewards for people who have not lived a Celestial-grade life:

  71 And again, we saw the terrestrial world, and behold and lo, these
  are they who are of the terrestrial, whose glory differs from that of
  the church of the Firstborn who have received the fulness of the
  Father, even as that of the moon differs from the sun in the
  firmament.

  72 Behold, these are they who died without law;

  73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the
  Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be
  judged according to men in the flesh;

  74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but
  afterwards received it.

  75 These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were
  blinded by the craftiness of men.

  76 These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness.

  77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of
  the fulness of the Father.

  78 Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial,
  and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun.

  79 These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus;
  wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God.

Those who inherit "the Terrestrial kingdom" can be thought of as people who were "good, but not great," and thus their reward was not as great as those who were more valiant in their faith.

And finally, it speaks of "the Telestial kingdom," the lowest of the three degrees of glory:

  81 And again, we saw the glory of the telestial, which glory is that
  of the lesser, even as the glory of the stars differs from that of the
  glory of the moon in the firmament.

  82 These are they who received not the gospel of Christ, neither the
  testimony of Jesus.

  83 These are they who deny not the Holy Spirit.

  84 These are they who are thrust down to hell.

  85 These are they who shall not be redeemed from the devil until the
  last resurrection, until the Lord, even Christ the Lamb, shall have
  finished his work.

  86 These are they who receive not of his fulness in the eternal
  world, but of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the
  terrestrial;

  ...

  99 For these are they who are of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas.

  100 These are they who say they are some of one and some of
  another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some
  of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch;

  101 But received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus,
  neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant.

  102 Last of all, these all are they who will not be gathered with the
  saints, to be caught up unto the church of the Firstborn, and received
  into the cloud.

  103 These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and
  whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie.

  104 These are they who suffer the wrath of God on earth.

  105 These are they who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire.

  106 These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of
  Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have
  subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work;

  ...

  111 For they shall be judged according to their works, and every man
  shall receive according to his own works, his own dominion, in the
  mansions which are prepared;

  112 And they shall be servants of the Most High; but where God and
  Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end.

People who have not lived righteous lives, and yet have not committed the unforgivable sin, will eventually be forgiven after they have suffered for their sins, and receive a small reward in heaven according to the quality of the lives they chose to live.

Section 76 is one of the longest chapters in the Doctrine and Covenants, and I've cut down the quotes a fair bit for brevity, but this covers the core of the LDS doctrine on the afterlife and the various different destinies available to mankind.


What theological teachings of Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, and the Local Churches differ from Reformed Theology

Thanks for the great question. This is an answer from what I know.
Reformed theology would hold to the definition of a church showing 3 marks:

the Word rightly upheld, preached and read
the sacraments (Lord's supper, baptism) rightly administered
Discipline and care rightly handled

There are a few issues with the place you are attending as it would, by reformed theology, be not even considered a church as it does not hold the Word preached nor is it read but rather another book is replacing the authority of the Word itself. I would also be concerned with the authority of the pastor as it seems they do not hold much function, which is also unbiblical.

It is a biblical model, even from apostolic times (the book of Acts) that the Word preached by an "appointed" minister (meaning they have been ordained or basically given the thumbs up that they have the gift of preaching given them by God) would preach and teach the Word, the Word would be opened and read aloud (even Jesus did this at the beginning of his ministry), and also the people knowing that the minister is appointed by God, the Great Shepherd, would be under his preaching/teaching as he is an under shepherd of the people.

I believe this type of gathering would cause greater harm to not only yourself and the people there, and I would strongly recommend finding a church with an appointed minister, where there is prayer and the Word in the service, administers the sacraments, and has elders that hold the minister accountable in order to care for the people of God.

I pray that you will find a good "Bible-believing" church and grow in Christ with his people.

Most of my statements are from Michael Horton's books who is a great teacher, asset to the faith and also a great guy to boot!

Please feel free to ask more questions
Dan


What are the differences between God and mankind?

The statement that your quoted from the Hindu believer has a Pantheistic notion in it. Contrast this with the way the Christian Holy Bible consistently teaches about God and His plan for humanity.

God is distinctly declared as the Creator of Heaven and Earth and the first human being. The account of the creation of the world starting from Genesis 1:1 would be a good starting point.
The names ascribed to God in the ancient Hebrew traditions (Old Testament) would be another field of study that can profoundly improve our understanding on the observable attributes of God that His chosen people ascribed to Him.
God reveals Himself in three persons, co-equal, co-eternal (the concept of Trinity) in order to carry out the plan of Salvation.
And lastly, and most pertinent when discussing Christianity with people of different faiths, is the fact that the Christian Bible is not a collection of wisdoms, it is not a collection of legends, it is not a collection of legalistic rules and regulations.  Instead, it use all those to weave a coherent blueprint and a model on how to connect ourselves to God, so we can participate in His plan using His strength.  This plan has a definite beginning, and it has a definite end.  It is not an cycle with indefinite number of iterations.

Of course, this doesn't even began to describe how rich the revelation of God in the Scriptures really is. This is just a starting point, a frame of mind to start a discussion.


Did Jesus command His Disciples to Worship Him?

TLDR:

The Disciples worshiped Jesus on at least two occasions (Matthew 14 & 28).
Studying these two stories is the most logical place to look to see if Jesus commanded them to worship him.
Their actions were God-worship, not mere respect.
The worship was permitted, not forbidden as idolatry (and punished).
The context of the scene (words and actions of Jesus and his disciples) indicate at the very least an invitation to worship, or more strongly a command to worship him.

Argument:

The disciples worshiped Jesus, and he did not correct them for doing so:

  16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which
  Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him,
  but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority
  in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make
  disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father
  and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all
  that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the
  end of the age.” (Matthew 28:16-20)

Barnabas and Paul, after healing a man, refused to accept the people's worship, because they knew they were not divine:

  8 Now at Lystra there was a man sitting who could not use his feet. He
  was crippled from birth and had never walked. 9 He listened to Paul
  speaking. And Paul, looking intently at him and seeing that he had
  faith to be made well, 10 said in a loud voice, “Stand upright on
  your feet.” And he sprang up and began walking. 11 And when the crowds
  saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in
  Lycaonian, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!” 12
  Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief
  speaker. 13 And the priest of Zeus, whose temple was at the entrance
  to the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates and wanted to
  offer sacrifice with the crowds. 14 But when the apostles Barnabas and
  Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out into the
  crowd, crying out, 15 “Men, why are you doing these things? We also
  are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you
  should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the
  heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them." (Acts
  14:8-15)

The Apostle John tried to worship an angel, but was rebuked for doing so and told to worship God alone:

  8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard
  and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who
  showed them to me, 9 but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a
  fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those
  who keep the words of this book. Worship God.” (Revelation 22:8-9)

King Herod received the worship of his subjects and did not stop them from doing so, and so the Lord struck him down because of it:

  21 On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes, took his seat
  upon the throne, and delivered an oration to them. 22 And the people
  were shouting, “The voice of a god, and not of a man!” 23 Immediately
  an angel of the Lord struck him down, because he did not give God the
  glory, and he was eaten by worms and breathed his last. (Acts
  12:21-23)

So to answer your question, Jesus made it clear by example and comparison with other Scripture that it was proper for him to receive our worship, but not earthly kings, angels or even his own followers. Following his commissioning of his disciples, Jesus was not struck down, but instead lifted up into heaven.

Jesus' statement that "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" is a call to worship by implication, because only God has that authority, and the proper response to an encounter with God is to offer worship.

Additional Support:

Lest there be any confusion as to the nature and degree of the Disciple's worship of Jesus, we have the story of Jesus walking on water:

  25 Shortly before dawn Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. 26
  When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified.
  “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in fear.

  27 But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! It is I. Don’t
  be afraid.”

  28 “Lord, if it’s you,” Peter replied, “tell me to come to you on the
  water.”

  29 “Come,” he said.

  Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came
  toward Jesus. 30 But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and,
  beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!”

  31 Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of
  little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?”

  32 And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33 Then
  those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the
  Son of God.” (Matthew 14:25)

In this instance it is unmistakeable that the worship was an admission of divinity; walking on water had long been viewed by many cultures in the ANE as a sign of divinity.

What is worship? It is a two-way communication. We bask in the glow of God's glory and reflect it through our lives. Worship is a process whereby God communicates some of His qualities to us, like a signet ring on wax or a relief on clay. Here Peter asks Jesus to call him, and Jesus commands him, "Come." This command enables Peter to temporarily walk on water. Jesus has communicated part of his divine nature to Peter, closing the loop in this act of worship. Thus Jesus' word to Peter, "Come", was a call to worship.


Jehovah's Witnesses's teaching on the Church

The word church has various meanings. It can be used to refer to an physical building. Witness churches are called Kingdom Halls. It can also be used to refer to a group of believers in a specific area. For sense of the word, Witnesses use congregation, which I believe is quite common for many branches of Christianity.

But the word church has another meaning, and it is this meaning I think you're asking about. The "church" as the united body of all believers. For this sense, Witnesses don't have a direct word. They do use the word Christian in a very narrow sense, to refer only to themselves. Perhaps that's their nearest equivalent. And yes, they do believe that "true Christianity" essentially died out after the First Century, and (with the exception of a few brief flames here and there) was reborn with them.

The church may also be the organisation, the institution, as distinct from the individual members thereof. For that sense, the Witnesses use various words, notably, the word organisation itself. They may also talk of the "Faithful and Discreet Slave", which is the teaching body of the organisation (basically, the group that define the doctrine).

The finer points of how the Faithful and Discreet Slave is distinct from the Governing Body have now escaped me. I used to know that. I've forgotten.


Was Emperor St. Justinian an Aphthartodocetist?

Historians widely agree that Justinian did indeed issue an edict imposing aphthartodocetism (the idea that Jesus's body was always incorruptible), citing the testimony you quoted from Evagrius Scholasticus.
One of the primary theological issues that Justinian faced was related to the nature of the incarnation of Jesus – advocates of the Chalcedonian Definition on one side,
and those supporting Monophysitism (or, more charitably, Miaphysitism) on the other.  Justinian made various efforts to achieve unity during his rule (cf. the Three-Chapter Controversy), and it seems that near the end of his life, he thought that one way to achieve that might be by imposing aphthartodocetism.  Adolf von Harnack writes:

[Justinian] could not find the right dogmatic formula for the World-Empire which he created; what he did settle was the specific formula for the patriarchate of Constantinople and its immediate belongings.  He, however, saw that himself; he wished to sanction Aphthartodoketism (564) which was in harmony with his own dogmatic views and which might perhaps win over the Monophysites.  His policy was a logical one, and the Emperor set about carrying it out with his wonted energy, beginning as usual by deposing the patriarch of the capital. (History of Dogma, IV, 251)

Similarly, J. A. S. Evans attributes political motives to Justinian on this matter, and traces several efforts to resolve the controversy leading up to the edict:

[Bishop Theodore Askidas] reminded the old emperor that there was more than one Monophysite sect, and if he could not win over the followers of Severus, why not approach the Aphthartodocetists?  The suggestion must have piqued the emperor's interest.  In 557, he had convoked Jacob Baradaeus and a large selection of his monks in Constantinople in another effort to solve the Monophysite problem, but the meeting had been fruitless.  On the eve of the rededication of Hagia Sophia, he issued an edict proclaiming the orthodoxy of Chalcedon.  But then, near the end of 564, he promulgated an edict affirming the incorruptibility of Christ's body. (Age of Justinian, 262)

Other historians more readily attribute this change to a mental decline; J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire, II (393), indicates that it "is generally considered an aberration due to senility."
Others hold that the change was compatible with his long-held beliefs:

[Justinian's] edict on the incorruptibility of Christ's body (564 or 565) is difficult to understand.  Even though the emperor's aphthartodocetic views most likely had a place within his Chalcedonian convictions, they show once again how until his very last breath he attempted to describe the union of the natures in Christ in a language that would be acceptable to (a major segment of) the anti-Chalcedonians. (Lucas Van Rompay, in Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian, 254)

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia, though calling him a "wonderful" and "great" man, is largely negative regarding his ecclesiastical polity.  The aphthartodocetism edict is not explicitly mentioned, but his various interventions in the Monophysite controversies earn him the labels "semi-Monophysite" and "a persecutor of the Church."
Despite all this agreement, there is at least one prominent dissenter, Asterios Gerostergios, an Eastern Orthodox thinker.  He defends Justinian's reputation, casting doubt on the reliability of Evagrius and arguing that such a significant edict would have been mentioned in a variety of other contexts if it actually existed.  For details, see this summary, or Gerostergios's book, Justinian the Great.
Summary
The argument from silence of Asterios Gerostergios does seem to have some merit, and as in many questions of early medieval history, we might desire that more evidence survived.  Nonetheless, while recognizing that absolute certainty is impossible, it is difficult to reject the consensus view – that Justinian did indeed issue an edict imposing aphthartodocetism.  What his mental condition and motives were at the time, however, is less certain.
As for the possibility of a deathbed rejection of aphthartodocetism, we lack evidence of events immediately surrounding his death.  But all indications suggest that Justinian pursued the enforcement of his edict until his death.


Which denominations would say that Jesus weeps for the souls in Hell?

The Scripture does tell us that Jesus can be sorrowful enough to cry:

  When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. 34 “Where have you laid him?” he asked.

  “Come and see, Lord,” they replied.

  Jesus wept.
  John 11:33-35

Jesus was on his way to see Lazarus. He had just discovered that he had died and all of his family was there weeping when Jesus arrived. Jesus was moved, as any normal person would be, and wept as well. You probably missed this because it is the shortest verse in the Bible. ;)

Jesus certainly has the emotional capacity to cry, but does He still cry concerning the souls in Hell (or will he depending on belief)?

We know the Lord wishes that all would be saved:

  God our Savior ... wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
  1 Timothy 2:4

  The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
  2 Peter 3:9

But in my opinion, this doesn't mean He cries about it when He thinks about those who are not.

However, the image of Jesus that Christianity paints is of a man with deep love for His children. It is hard to reconcile that Jesus would not cry over the souls in hell in light of the compassion and love that Christianity says He has.

We can say assuredly that not Jesus, nor anyone, will weep in the New Heaven, Earth, and Jerusalem for any sorrowful reason.

  Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God ... God himself will be with them and be their God.  ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’[cf. Isaiah 25:8] or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
  Revelation 21:1-4

So it certainly is possible that Jesus weeps now for the lost, and even makes sense given Jesus' loving nature and certain Scriptures provided above, but we cannot Biblically argue that He will always weep for them, for in the End, there will be no mourning, crying, or pain.

As for denominations that teach this, I think this is one of those items left to the one preaching, whether they want to bring it up or not. I'm sure some catechisms and confessions of faith mention that God wants none to be lost, but I don't think they do or would mention that losing any makes Jesus cry.


If an individual sins because God "hardened their heart", does that make God the direct responsible of the sin (i.e. a sinner)?

'I will harden' indicates that God's presence (the very presence of he who is I AM) causes a hardening of the wicked heart.
'I (being present) will (cause to) harden the heart of Pharoah.'
That the heart of the wicked hardens in the presence of I AM ( that is to say when Moses is present and God is with Moses) is entirely due to them.
It is their own culpability.
I think the burden of 'proof' or the necessity of 'evidence' is upon those who assert that God, who alone is righteous, is 'responsible' for sin.
If this be regarded as a merely philosophical question then it would be off-topic on this site.