What is the precise manner of expressing the relationship of the humanity (human nature) to the divine person of the Son?

When we say God is one essence with three persons, the Greeks would say that God is one essence with three substances (hypostasis).

  In the Latin church, substantia was employed to translate hypostasis and together with essentia to translate ousia: “That which must be understood of persons, according to our usage, is to be understood of substances, according to the Greek usage: for they say three substances (hypostaseis), one essence, in the same way as we say three persons, one essence or substance (essentiam vel substantiam)” (Augustine, On the Trinity 7.4)

‘Substance’ means ‘that which stands under’ that is, in the sense of an underlying substratum. The idea is that God is one in the essential divine attributes but the three persons are spiritually 'differing personalities' of which their persons, or hypostatic character, is incommunicable to each other.

  hypostasis - term employed in trinitarian and christological discussions. The Greek hypostasis can have a range of meaning. In keeping with its etymological signification, it means “to stand under,” hence its usage as equivalent to the Latin substantia (substance) and essentia (essence), or to the Greek ousia. It appears to mean “substance” or “essence” in its use in Heb. 1:3 (though not all translators agree). Likewise, the Nicene Creed of 325 uses it as synonymous with ousia when it condemns those who say that the Son is a different hypostasis or ousia from the Father. On the other hand, the word can also be used to designate an individual instance of an essence, that is, a person in a trinitarian or christological context. This range of meaning occasioned confusion in the earlier trinitarian debates, exacerbated when translating between Greek and Latin. Thanks in part to the work of the Cappadocian fathers in the fourth century, the term came to be restricted to the personal distinctions in the Godhead, rather than being used to designate the essence itself. Hence, the final Greek form of the trinitarian formula became “one ousia, three hypostases,” equivalent to the Latin-based formula “one substance/essence, three persons.” The expression hypostatic union is used in christological discussions. See also essentia and hypostatic union and monophysitism and subsistantia. (Shedd, W. G. T. (2003). Dogmatic theology (A. W. Gomes, Ed.) (3rd ed.) (956). Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub.)

When applying the concept of essence and substance to the Incarnation, Christ’s person is the Unity or Essence and his two natures (divine and human) are substances of his person. Just as we could say ‘the nature of essence of God subsists in three persons’, so we could say:

  ’The humanity subsists in the Divine Person of the Son’, or ‘Christ subsists in both a human and divine nature’.

On the other hand, ‘The divine person of the Son subsists in the humanity’ can’t be true at all. This statement would make the humanity of Christ analogous to the essence of the Trinity and making the divine nature a distinct expression of humanity! This therefore has no theological meaning that makes sense.

Something to be careful about is that these terms are just used to express different distinctions of one person. In the Trinity it refers to the distinction of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in One person. In the Incarnation the Divine and Human nature are distinguished in the Christ after the incarnation. However, we must remember that although the Divine nature is a sense a hypostasis of Christ, it is not in anyway really ‘standing under’ anything. It is only used in this way to say these natures stand under the Christ as a person logically. However, clearly it is the divine nature and not the human that is the root of Christ’s person, or ‘standing over’ it as it were before the incarnation. The second person of the Trinity is the root into which the human nature was grafted, not the other way around. Therefore the person of Christ is in itself kind of a hypostasis of God for he is still the Eternal Son, even though his divinity could be said to be a ‘hypostasis’ on account of his person taking upon humanity through the Incarnation. In this way both the Trinity and the Incantation use hypostasis or subsistence in a non-contradictory way.


How should other churches respond to a  pastor and congregation who live contrary to the Gospel?

In the words of Jesus:

  Matthew 18:15-17 (NIV)
  15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

So, if they won't listen to your reproach, just treat them like any other pagan:

That is, pray for them and love them like you love everyone else.

  Matthew 5:43-48 (NIV)
  43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.


According to Calvinists, is each person "dead in sin" at birth, or only after committing a sin?

Reformed catechisms make it clear that all of Adam's (ordinary) descendants are conceived and born spiritually dead.  First, a translation of Q&A 7 of the Heidelberg Catechism:

Q. Then where does this corrupt human nature come from?
A. The fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise. This fall has so poisoned our nature that we are all conceived and born
in a sinful condition.

And the less readable but more thorough Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q&A 16 and 18:

Q. 16. Did all mankind fall in Adam's first transgression?
A. The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity; all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.
Q. 18 Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?
A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell consists in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.

That is, everyone is born into this sinful condition as a result of Adam's sin, and that sinful condition entails corruption of the "whole nature" as well as all the actual sins that are committed as a result.
Thus the phrase "dead in our sins" (cf. Eph 2:5) shouldn't be understood restrictively.  The unsaved are indeed dead in their sins, but they aren't spiritually dead exclusively because of their own sins – their spiritual deadness is rooted in Adam's sin.


How do Christians exercise self-control in the abstinence of food during fasting?

First, and foremost, fasting is a wonderful discipline which teaches you to subject your flesh to the desires of your heart.  It is an exercise in which you will struggle. The truth is is, our flesh may have been sacrificed (Rom 12:1) and crucified (Gal 2:20), but it is still with us! (Rom 7).

As an exercise, it is primarily an exercise in willpower.  It is the conscious decision, for a set period of time, to force your body to do what your mind and spirit know is best.  In way, it is much as Douglas Adams described flying -

  Flying is the art of attempting to hit the ground and missing!

In the case of fasting, it means that every time you are tempted to eat during the prescribed period, you take that thought captive (2 Cor 10:5), consciously decide to not act on the impulse, and instead turn to God. Fasting for more than a few hours means repeating this a lot.  In the same way that jumping jacks and pushups are hard work, so too is fasting!

For a more thorough treatment of the topic, the classic book on the subject is Richard Foster's Celebration of Discipline. He'll give many more practical applications of how to do this. (What to eat, what you'll your experience, how to deal with the hunger pains, etc...)

As one example (and I forget if this Foster or someone else), your first 24-hour fast should be from lunch of day one, skip dinner, sleep (when you'll be most hungry), and skip breakfast. Eat a light lunch.  Also, be sure to drink lots and lots of water during the day.


Why do some Christains feel the obligation to remove their hats during prayer?

One of my churches used this passage when requesting all men remove their hats during times of prayer:

1 Cor. 11:4

  Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered,
  dishonoureth his head.

In certain cultures, it's possible that the hat is removed and head is bowed as a sign of respect and not necessarily from this verse.


When was the first African American ordained in a US Presbyterian denomination?

You are correct that John Chavis, although he is reported to have been the first college-educated Black/African in America, was never ordained. He was licenced to minister.

It appears that John Gloucester, the founder of the first African American Presbyterian Church in the US, was the first African American Presbyterian ordained. His ordination was on April 13, 1810, in Tennessee, after college level studies around the turn of the century, followed by the founding of the first African American Presbyterian church in 1807, a short assignment in North Carolina, and his return to his Philadelphia young church. As he was licensed only to preach, and not lead, he was allowed to return to Tennessee to complete his required studies for ordination.

My source for research was BlackPast.org. John Gloucester's full story is detailed here.


Anne and Joachim are the parents of Mary - is this a Catholic dogma?

The Catholic Church is ambiguous about the very existence of Saints Anne and Joachim. In the apocryphal Infancy Gospel of James, believed to have been written around 150 CE, they are described as the parents of Mary, mother of Jesus and, although the Infancy Gospel of James is non-canonical, this became Christian tradition. However, since the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke name two different fathers for Joseph, theologians since the eighth century have argued that the genealogy in Luke is actually the family tree of Mary, and that Heli is her father, in which case Joachim ceases to exist.

Anne and Joachim are regarded as saints in the Catholic Church although, like all the earliest saints, they were never formally canonised. Anne  is the patron saint of Christian mothers and of women in labour, and Joachim is the patron Saint of fathers, grandfathers, grandparents, married couples, cabinet makers and linen traders. Nevertheless, these honours fall short of dogma. The Catholic website, http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=22, states that there is no historical evidence of Anne and Joachim, and any stories about Mary's father and mother come to us through legend and tradition.


The Divine Substance (a.k.a. God) is supremely rational, as long as we understand the term rational to mean “capable of intellectual knowledge.”

As I mentioned in my answer to the O.P.’s question regarding person and substance, the Divine Substance (God) is perfectly identical with each one of the Persons.

The Persons are really distinct from one another, because they consist of the very relations of origin that subsist in the Godhead. However, there is no real distinction between Person and Substance. (In God, individual and universal substance coincide perfectly.)

(It is important to recall that the notions of person and substance—which strictly speaking apply only to creatures—are applied very improperly to God. That is why theses affirmation sound strange to us.)

As I mentioned in my previous answer, substance can have two slightly different connotations. For an Aristotelian like me, “substance” primarily means individual, concrete beings, like trees, flowers, stones, and human beings. Secondarily it can mean the common or universal kind of thing something is: for instance, tree-kind, flower-kind, stone-kind, and mankind. (For a Platonist, the priority is reversed—but for our purposes the fundamental idea is the same.) Also, “substance,” “essence,” and “nature” are basically synonyms for the ancient Greeks.

Now, Boethius’ definition for person, as the O.P. correctly mentions, is “individual substance with a rational nature.” We are, therefore, dealing with the two meanings of substance that I just mentioned above. Boethius is affirming, in effect, that a person is a concrete being that belongs to a particular genus or kind of being: namely those with the capacity for intellectual (rational) knowledge.

Boethius’ definition, as I mentioned, applies properly to creatures. God is beyond creaturely genera and species. However, He does possess to an infinite degree the capacity for intellectual knowledge (i.e., He is omniscient).

Therefore, both the Divine Nature or Substance (a.k.a. God) and the Divine Persons (who are, as I have mentioned, each perfectly identical to the Divine Nature) are not only rational but supremely rational.*

Hence, irrationality has no part whatsoever in God. Moreover, God is one Substance: the Persons do not divide the one Substance in any way whatsoever. In no way can He be considered three Substances.

* Note that in classical Scholastic lingo the term “rational” can be taken in a strict sense and in a broad sense. In the strict sense, “reason” and “rationality” refer to the particular kind of intellectual knowledge that we human beings possess. Our intellects are discursive; that is, we have to use concepts, enunciations, and argumentations to arrive at knowledge. Not all intellects are like that, however. For instance, angelic intellects are intuitive. In the broad sense, however, “rational” is a synonym for “intellectual.” That is what Boethius means by it.


"Nominal Christian" means being a Christian in name only. It's not really in dispute that there are nominal Christians. There are many people around the world who would mark "Christian" (or Catholic, Anglican, etc) on the census who never attend any church event, participate in any other Christian ministry, or really think about God at all. Many Western countries are now largely post-Christian; they've inherited a Christian background to their culture and morals, etc., but God and the Christian religion play a small part in most people's lives.
There's a spectrum of spirituality: people who attend Christmas and Easter services but nothing else; people who attend more regularly because they're expected to, but who ignore all the Christian content; people who participate broadly but whose personal and private spiritual lives is empty; people who pray publicly in church because they've learnt what to say, but never privately and never with any actual meaning or true intention. The term "nominal" might be applied to any of these groups at times, and it would arguably be fair to do so.
But saying that a specific individual is a nominal Christian is pretty judgemental. Yes we're to judge people by their spiritual fruits, but we can never truly know anyone else's heart. Saying it directly to someone is also not likely to provoke them to pursue a deeper faith. Instead we'd want to evangelise them like we would someone who makes no claim to be a Christian, by communicating properly with them, asking them about their lives, and explaining and witnessing to how Jesus can reconcile them to God, filling the spiritual void in their lives carved out by their sin.


Did Jesus' disciples believe Jesus was God or a prophet?

Matthew 16:16 is perhaps the most prominent answer to this question.

  Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
  Matthew 16:16 ESV

So, the disciples became convinced by the miracles, the teachings, and the character of Jesus through His ministry that Jesus was the very Son of God.

Yet, it wasn't when Jesus died that their belief and understanding became solidified, but after His resurrection.  The disciples were fearful prior to that.  In fact, many were hiding while He was being crucified.  All fled at His arrest, even though Peter made one valiant act in His defense.

If Jesus had only died, Christianity would not exist.  It was the resurrection that turned "unschooled, ordinary men" into bold witnesses of Jesus who willingly faced persecution and death for their teaching that Jesus is Lord.


Can a Uniate (Eastern) Catholic priest celebrate the Mass according to the Latin Rite?

Priests and bishops of the Eastern Churches in full communion with the Bishop of Rome may concelebrate at any celebration of the Eucharist in any rite, including the Latin Rite, provided they have the permission of the diocesan bishop or eparch.

The Code of Canon Law is silent on this issue, but the Code of Canons of Oriental Churches (CCEO) says,

  A concelebration between bishops and presbyters of different Churches sui iuris [of which the Latin Church is one] for a just cause, especially that of fostering charity, and for the sake of manifesting unity between the Churches, can be done with the permission of the eparchial bishop, while observing all the prescriptions of the liturgical books of the principal celebrant, having removed any liturgical syncretism and wearing the appropriate vestments and insignia of his own Church sui iuris (Can. 701).

Except for concelebration, as mentioned, priests and bishops may not simply celebrate the Eucharist using a different rite from their own, unless they receive an indult from the Holy See. This is commonly called becoming “bi-ritual.” (The Syro-Malabarese eparchy of Adelaide, Australia, made a good summary of how to deal with the pastoral situation of members of an Eastern Church living in a predominantly Latin-Catholic area.)

In practice, it is quite common for Eastern priests to receive the indult to celebrate in the Latin Rite (but not vice-versa, probably because the Latin Rite is generally simpler to learn, and because the Latin Church is so pervasive), and married priests from an Eastern Church are in no way impeded from receiving it.

So in summary: any Eastern priest may concelebrate in the Latin Rite, with permission from the diocesan bishop, and likewise, any Eastern priest may solicit from the Holy See an indult to celebrate in the Latin Rite as the principal celebrant (just as a Latin-Church priest may do, in order to celebrate an Eastern Divine Liturgy).

Whether that priest is married is not a consideration.


What Bible verses deal with a man stealing bread and having to pay double?

It's Exodus 22. There's nothing specifically about bread, but it covers theft and double restoration.

Exodus 22:4 (KJV):

  If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double.

Exodus 22:7 (KJV):

  If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man's house; if the thief be found, let him pay double.


Perfect relationship between Trinity and other relationships in heaven - Catholic

In creatures, relations are extrinsic to the essence of the creature. For example, my essence* is humanness, but my relation to my father, mother, wife, friends, or even to God is not humanness; it's not my essence. However, in the Holy Trinity, the Divine Relations are the essence of God Himself. This is a consequence of the Trinity being supremely simple.
*Essence or quiddity is the answer to the question: "What is it?" ("Quid est?")
St. Thomas Aquinas writes, answering the question "Whether relation in God is the same as His essence?,"

…in God relation and essence do not differ from each other, but are one and the same.

cf. Fr. Gilles Emery, O.P.'s The Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas ch. 5 "Relations" (p. 78 f.)
Thus, it is clear that since God is infinitely perfect, and He is His Trinitarian relations, these relations are infinitely perfect.
When we behold the Beatific Vision in heaven, we do not become God; we maintain our individuality. We will know God as perfectly as His grace enables us us know him,* but not as perfectly as He knows Himself.
*There are hierarchies in heaven; not all saints (i.e., those in heaven) are equally close to God. The Blessed Virgin Mother is closest in her relation to her Son.
St. Thomas Aquinas writes in his Compendium Theologiæ cap. 106 ("Fruition of Natural Desire in the Beatific Vision [in Heaven]"):

…the most perfect way of attaining likeness with God: to know God in the way He knows Himself, by His own essence.
Of course, we shall never comprehend Him as He comprehends Himself. This does not mean that we shall be unaware of some part of Him, for He has no parts. It means that we shall not know Him as perfectly as He can be known, since the capacity of our intellect for knowing cannot equal His truth, and so cannot exhaust His knowability. God’s knowability or truth is infinite, whereas our intellect is finite. But His intellect is infinite, just as His truth is; and so He alone knows Himself to the full extent that He is knowable; just as a person comprehends a demonstrable conclusion if he knows it through demonstration, but not if he knows it only in an imperfect way, on merely probable grounds.
This ultimate end of man we call beatitude. For a man’s happiness or beatitude consists in the vision whereby he sees God in His essence. Of course, man is far below God in the perfection of his beatitude. For God has this beatitude by His very nature, whereas man attains beatitude by being admitted to a share in the divine light, as we said in the previous chapter.

Also, the classic work on how there are hierarchies in heaven is Dionysius the Areopagite's On the Heavenly Hierarchy.


According to premillenial view, What is the point of the Millenium reign?

There are two main purposes to the millenial reign:

First, to show the world that the true problem isn't the devil (since he will locked away for 1000 years) but rather, the real problem is our evil hearts. Under the perfect and utopian rulership of Jesus, people will still choose to rebel and hate Him and wage war against Him.

Second, to prepare the earth for the coming of the Father. The Father doesn't come to earth until the end of the 1,000 years.


What is the standard length of assignments for Catholic priests in parishes?

Canon Law permits a particular conference of bishops to establish guidelines for the length of pastor appointments. But being guidelines, a bishop may make adjustments according to the needs of a particular diocese, parish or even the  priest in question.

  Do priests have term limits?

  Not exactly. Canon (church) law permits a conference of bishops to establish guidelines for the length of pastor appointments. In the United States, that term is six years, renewable for another six years. A pastor may be moved prior to that time, or may be kept on longer, depending on the bishop’s assessment of the pastoral needs within the parish and diocesan-wide. - Clergy Appointments


According to Catholic Church tradition, where, when, how and by whom did the devotion of the Stations of the Cross begin?

If you are asking specifically about The Stations of The Cross as we know them today in the West, that is to say: the practice of placing symbolic artwork around a worship space depicting the events of Jesus' final hours and the practice of moving about from station to station in prayer, you can probably pin it on The Franciscans (and by extension St. Francis of Assissi) sometime near the end of the 17th century in central Europe.

Taken in this regard The Stations are a symbolic representation of a physical, bodily pilgrimage to the purported locales of said events, which may have begun within a generation or two of Christ's crucifixion.

  Tradition asserts that the Blessed Virgin used to visit daily the
  scenes of Christ's Passion and St. Jerome (c.  347 – 420) speaks of the crowds of
  pilgrims from all countries who used to visit the holy places in his
  day. (The Catholic Encyclopedia - 1907)

Fast forward to The Middle Ages and The Crusades. (The military campaigns enjoined by The Catholic Church to re-establish Christian access to said holy places.)

  In 1342, Pope Clement VI, by the Papal bulls Gratiam agimus and Nuper
  charissimae declared the Franciscans as the official custodians of the
  Holy Places in the name of the Catholic Church. (The Bull of Clement VI - 1342)

Then, in central Europe during the 15th and 16th centuries, Franciscans started to create outdoor sculptures and shrines that would replicate these holy places of Jerusalem. These were usually placed, often in small buildings, along the approach to a church, as in a set of 1490 by Adam Kraft, leading to the Johanneskirche in Nuremberg. (1)

But to get to what - I think - is the crux of your question:

  Realizing that few persons, comparatively, were able to gain these by
  means of a personal pilgrimage to the Holy Land, Innocent XI, in 1686,
  granted to the Franciscans, in answer to their petition, the right to
  erect the Stations in all their churches, and declared that all the
  indulgences that had ever been given for devoutly visiting the actual
  scenes of Christ's Passion, could thenceforth be gained by Franciscans
  and all others affiliated to their order if they made the Way of the
  Cross in their own churches in the accustomed manner.

  Innocent XII
  confirmed the privilege in 1694 and Benedict XIII in 1726 extended it
  to all the faithful. In 1731 Clement XII still further extended it by
  permitting the indulgenced Stations to all churches, provided that
  they were erected by a Franciscan father with the sanction of the
  ordinary.

  At the same time he definitely fixed the number of Stations
  at fourteen.

  (The Catholic Encyclopedia - 1907)

(1) Schiller, Gertrud, Iconography of Christian Art, Vol. II, p. 82, 1972 (English trans from German), Lund Humphries, London, ISBN 0-85331-324-5


Into what eschatological category do the teachings of the Catholic Church fit?

The eschatological summary which speaks of the "four last things" (death, judgment, heaven, and hell) is popular rather than scientific. For systematic treatment it is best to distinguish between (A) individual and (B) universal and cosmic eschatology, including under

  (A):
  death;
  the particular judgment;
  heaven, or eternal happiness;
  purgatory, or the intermediate state;
  hell, or eternal punishment;
  and under

  (B):
  the approach of the end of the world;
  the resurrection of the body;
  the general judgment; and
  the final consummation of all things.

  The superiority of Catholic eschatology consists in the fact that, without professing to answer every question that idle curiosity may suggest, it gives a clear, consistent, satisfying statement of all that need at present be known, or can profitably be understood, regarding the eternal issues of life and death for each of us personally, and the final consummation of the cosmos of which we are a part.

From:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05528b.htm


Are (or were) sacraments necessary for salvation in the Catholic religion?

Catechism of the Catholic Church | THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS OF THE
  CHURCH

  1210 Christ instituted the sacraments of the new law. There are seven:
  Baptism, Confirmation (or Chrismation), the Eucharist, Penance, the
  Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders and Matrimony. The seven sacraments
  touch all the stages and all the important moments of Christian
  life:1 they give birth and increase, healing and mission to
  the Christian's life of faith. There is thus a certain resemblance
  between the stages of natural life and the stages of the spiritual
  life.

  1211 Following this analogy, the first chapter will expound the three
  sacraments of Christian initiation; the second, the sacraments of
  healing; and the third, the sacraments at the service of communion and
  the mission of the faithful. This order, while not the only one
  possible, does allow one to see that the sacraments form an organic
  whole in which each particular sacrament has its own vital place. In
  this organic whole, the Eucharist occupies a unique place as the
  "Sacrament of sacraments": "all the other sacraments are ordered to it
  as to their end."2

  1 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III,65,1.
  2 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh
  III,65,3.

The Church is a body, the Mystical Body of Christ. With this understanding, it is easy to see why not all are required to receive all the sacraments, with the ones received coming at different stages in one's Christian life, even when all the sacraments are vital for all the faithful, for the building up of the Body of Christ. cf. [Ep 4:1-16 (RSVCE)] and above: the sacraments at the service of communion and the mission of the faithful.].

For the individual, the sacraments one must (e.g. the three sacraments of Christian initiation) and can receive (e.g. marriage, holy orders, or anointing of the sick), ought to be received at the proper time for their Christian life.

Please note that in Catholicism, a lay person can be called to single life i.e. not married, not a priest, and not called to religious life.


The idea you are paraphrasing is ex opere operato, the idea that the sacrament is in itself efficacious and does not depend on the intention of either the minister or the recipient. Not all denominations hold to it. Those that do, probably have nuances in their application of it. The historical origins of this viewpoint go back to the Donatist Controversy in the 4th century. Back then the schism was between ex opere operanti and ex opere operato.

Here are a couple of links explaining them both in more detail:

Ex Opere Operato (New Catholic Encyclopedia)

Ex Opere Operanti (New Catholic Encyclopedia)


Which denominations believe in eternal marriage?

Christian denominations that believe that human marriages are, or can be, eternal:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
The General Church of the New Jerusalem (Swedenborgian)
The General Conference of the New Church (Swedenborgian - Great Britain)
The Lord's New Church Which Is Nova Hierosolyma (Swedenborgian)
The New Church in Australia (Swedenborgian)
The New Church of Southern Africa (Swedenborgian)
The Swedenborgian Church of North America


Are Jehovah's Witnesses allowed to marry outside the faith?

I feel that the previous answer might be a bit one sided.

0) First of all, persons who are not baptised as a JW, but only raised as a JW, are free to live their lives as they see fit (there is no infant baptism among JW's). They are not considered as JW's and the society can not officially sanction any of their life style choices. The same goes for disfellowshipped persons or persons who disassociated themselves from the JW's.

So many persons who are raised as a JW, do not consider themselves JW's (although the outside world might perceive them this way) and they live with partners whom they choose 'freely' (of course one has to take into account some pressure from family, peer pressure and pressure from society in general, which limits the free choice of most persons).

1) Since many JW's are married and belong to a different religion before they get baptized as a Jehovah's Witness, interfaith marriages are not so rare among JW's (typically only the wife converts to JW's).
In those situations Paul's advice to the Corinthians apply. Basically he advises to stick with your partner (1 Cor. 7:10-16). So in that case, JW's are married with non-witnesses and have to do everything in their power to make the marriage work.

2) Persons who are unmarried adults and baptised as a JW, are encouraged to marry only other baptised JW's (of a different gender). Again this is based on the advise of Paul to the Corinthians.

1 Cor. 7:39: '...she is free to be married to whom she wants, only in (the) Lord'.
2 Cor. 6:14-15: 'Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers. For what fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what sharing does light have with darkness? (...) Or what portion does a faithful person have with an unbeliever?'

Baptised male JW's who do not follow this advise, might lose some 'privileges' (e.g. they may not teach the audience in public anymore).
It is however not a disfellowshipping offence to date or marry a non-JW.

I do not know if there are any official sanctions against female JW's who marry non JW-men (the position against women is more relaxed, I think).
When they do marry, the same advice as given in 1 Cor. 7:10-16 apply.

3) Many persons who are baptised as a JW, fade away and become inactive (this means they do not go knocking on doors anymore for a period of 6 months or more).
According to some studies 2/3 of the children who are raised as a JW, do not consider themselves as a JW when they reach adulthood (this is apparently the lowest retention rate of all the religions).

Most of time, the inactive single persons are also free to do whatever they like, because the congregation of JW's will probably not keep track of what they are doing.

It is also possible that two partners are baptised and only one of them (very often the husband) becomes inactive (and has a different outlook on life, becomes agnostic, atheistic,...). In that case, the same advice as given in 1 Cor. 7:10-16 applies.
Often the JW partner is quite disappointed in the decision of the partner and this can put a strain on the marriage, but in many cases the relationship continues as usual. Also the relationship with other JW's can continue as usual, however some JW members might not be so cordial anymore with a person who has become inactive. So sometimes situations might arrive where e.g. JW's give a party and only invite the JW partner and not the 'inactive' mate.

It is also not very uncommon that young persons who are raised as a JW (and baptised) marry each other and once they are married both stop practising the religion.

So in these cases you have relationships between real JW's (who go door to door and to all the meetings) and only 'name' JW's (inactive ones who do basically nothing).

The bottom line is that JW's are allowed to marry outside the faith, but it is discouraged.


Do the scriptures indicate the physical appearance of the Israelites?

We will literally never know without a time machine. However, given the region and it's history, as well as the people living there today it's reasonable to assert that they were a mix of all types of skin tones ranging from the typical Israeli today to the darker toned Northern African people today.

The closest example to a "typical" Hamitic person is this picture of a Bashirin Hamite from Augustus Henry Keane's Man, Past and Present (1899). So if you went with Keane's findings, that'd be your closest answer. However, as I mentioned above, it's not unreasonable to assume they were the typical Israeli/Northern African tone.


Is there tradition in Judaism about seeing God through nine mirrors?

I don't know about Judaism, but I did run across something that sounds like what you're looking for.  It's not nine mirrors, but two mirrors, the first with nine facets, and that we can't see God directly or clearly through either of the individual facets, or even in the first mirror.

  A TALE OF TWO MIRRORS An Exposition of I Corinthians 13:8-13

  An Examination of the Biblical Basis of the Charismatic Movement

  by B. L. Turner

It can be found at http://ncbible.org/resources/Tale2Mirrors.html

Note that it is from a Cessationist point of view, a view rejected by those in the Charismatic Churches.

It's an interesting read.  It speaks of two mirrors.  The first has nine facets.  Each of these facets represents a gift, through which we see God, but not fully or partly.

  The complete mirror consisted of a mosaic of nine pieces, that is, the
  nine gifts. Paul asked a series of rhetorical questions which make it
  quite certain that no one person had all the segments of that first
  mirror. He asked, “Are all workers of miracles? Have all gifts of
  healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?” (I Corinthians
  12:29-30). If the advocates of today’s Tongues Movement could impose
  their will, all Christians would indeed speak with tongues even though
  that was never the divine intention. Because no one person had all the
  segments of that mosaic mirror, sometimes Christians in New Testament
  times could not use that part of the mirror which they did possess.
  Paul’s command about that issue makes the point clear. He charged, “If
  any man speaketh in a tongue...let one interpret: but if there be no
  interpreter, let him keep silence in the church.” (I Corinthians
  14:27-28) Obviously, had every recipient of those special gifts
  received all the parts of the mirror, that is, all the gifts, an
  interpreter would always have been present.

  To have used one isolated part of that mirror would simply not have
  given a complete enough reflected image to have been spiritually
  beneficial or useful. Therefore, it would only have been a novelty or
  a curiosity. It would have qualified, perhaps, at least, for a short
  while, as an amusement to the idly curious, such as the Athenians who
  sought only to hear or tell some novel thing. (Acts 17:20-21) The use
  of one isolated part of the mirror would not have contributed to the
  edifying of the church. Since that was the purpose for which the gifts
  had been given (I Corinthians 14:5), such a perverted use of those
  gifts was understandably prohibited.

The second mirror is Scripture, which is, per the teaching, teh perfect mirror, which allows us to make sense of what we see in the first.

  From James’ statement it is clear that it is the word of God, not the
  temporary spiritual gifts which shows the entire image as it truly is
  and gives complete insight into spiritual reality. If there is any
  lack of perception where the Scripture is available, it is not because
  the reflected image is defective. It is because people make a habit of
  going away (The verb form “goeth” in the older English translations of
  James 1:24 expresses the habitual or continuous present tense of the
  verb) and do not habitually continue to look into the word. Similarly,
  the eth ending of the verbs “looketh” and “continueth” in James 1:25
  express the continuous present tense of each verb.

The teaching ends with this:

  A Tale of Two Mirrors, then, becomes a story of one beautiful,
  complete and perfect mirror which exists and is available to anyone
  who wishes to know the truth. It is the written form of the perfect
  law of liberty, that is, the New Testament. The other mirror used to
  exist, but even then it was partial and inadequate. Therefore we
  should not regret its removal nor seek to have it restored, especially
  since no one can restore it anyway. The alleged restorations are
  totally anti-scriptural and are, therefore, fraudulent with no more
  reality than a mirage.

  Every sincere seeker who uses the Perfect Mirror will be able to see
  the whole picture, the true picture, the past picture and the future
  picture. Let us, therefore, press on unto perfection! Let us not try
  to become heirs of those gifts which have passed away, but heirs of
  “the gift” (Acts 2:38-39) which will abide as long as God is calling
  sinners to himself, the gift without which, according to Rornans 8:9,
  no one is a true Christian.


According to the Catholic Church, when Jesus speaks, is he is speaking as a Man or God or both?

TL;DR

In short, when Jesus spoke, he did so as both man and God. However, his speech was an action of his human nature, not his Divine Nature.

Regarding the passages that seem to imply a subordination of Jesus to the Father, there is no “official” way to interpret them, but any interpretation must, of course, be consistent with the dogma of the perfect equality and consubstantiality (homoousios) of the Persons of the Father and the Son.

Background: Jesus Christ is true God and true man

As other posters have correctly mentioned, the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ is the Divine Person of the Word (or Son), and that, through the Incarnation, he assumed a human nature. (In this, the Catholic Church shares the exact same faith as all the Eastern Orthodox churches). As the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) puts it,

  The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man (no. 464).

A full treatment of dyophysism (the orthodox view that Christ has two natures) is given in numbers 464-483.

What is a “nature”?

A word must be said about the terms “nature” (Greek: physis) and “Person” (Greek: hypostasis) which are borrowed from Aristotelian philosophy.

“Nature” (physis) in Aristotelian philosophy is a synonym for “essence”  or “substance” (ousia, or more precisely, to ti en einai), which means “what a thing is simply because it exists”—in other words, a being that is both concrete and independent, as opposed to an accident or a constituent principle. (See Metaphysics 7, 3.)

Aristotle, however, calls essence physis when he considers it as the origin of of a thing’s actions. A man’s human nature is what produces his speech, his movements, and his thoughts—all of the actions (both spiritual and corporeal) characteristic of a man. (See Metaphysics 5, 5.)

Synthetically, “nature” (along with “essence” and “substance”) answers the question “What is it?” but the term emphasizes the role of the substance as origin of action.

Hence, when the Church Fathers asserted that Christ possesses a perfect human nature, they were simply saying that Jesus is man, and possesses every aspect of manhood (a human body and a human soul, with the capacites that go with them: intellect, will, and all the bodily capacities). Moreover, this human nature is what produced all of the actions that are charistic of human beings (human knowledge, human love, speech, laughter, eating, drinking, sleeping, and so on).

Likewise, when they assered that Christ posseses a Divine Nature, they mean that he is also fully God. That Divine Nature, moreover, is the origin of all the actions characteristic of God: creation, redemption, forgiveness of sins, miracles, and so on.

What is “Person” (“Hypostasis”)?

In Greek philosophy, hypostasis is the term that emphasizes the concreteness of a thing. Whereas “nature” and “essence” can sometimes (as a secondary meaning) be used as generic terms—just as even in modern parlance “human nature” can refer to what all human beings have in common—“hypostasis” always refers to the concrete individual. (See Summa theologiae Ia, q. 29, a. 2.)

In Trinitarian theology, the term hypostasis was assumed by the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa) to refer to what Western Christians call the Persons of the Trinity.

A Person or Hypostasis is a subject who can refer to himself as “I” and can answer the question “Who?”

It took some time for the Church to understand that the Hypostasis of the Word (or Son) is the very same Hypostasis of Jesus Christ (CCC 468).

Communicatio idiomatum

When we ask, “What is Jesus Christ?” the answer is, “God and man.” However, when we say “Who is Jesus Christ?” the correct answer is “God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity.”

Because his human nature is so closely united to his Divine Person—a union we call the hypostatic union, because the principle of unity is the very Person (Hypostasis) of the Word—we can attribute with all properness every one of Jesus’s actions to either one of his natures.

For example, it is perfectly correct to say “Jesus the man created the universe.” Likewise, it is perfectly correct to say “God spoke to the crowds in parables” or even “God died on the Cross on Good Friday.” This is possible because there is only one personal subject in Jesus: the Person (Hypostasis) of the Son.

This common attribution is what the Church Fathers called the communicatio idiomatum (which could be translated as the “communion of properties”).

However (recalling that nature is always the origin of a thing’s actions), Jesus’ actions originate from different natures.

Jesus the man created the universe, certainly, but he did it through his Divine Nature. God spoke and even died, but He did so in His human nature.

Jesus spoke as God and as man

In summary—and responding to the original question—Jesus Christ certainly spoke as both God and man.

He spoke as God, because he is a Divine Person, and that Person is the only personal subject in him. He spoke as man, because he possesses a complete human nature (including human body, human soul, and all the capacities proper to a man).

However, when he spoke, the origin of his speech—what directly produced the speech—was his human nature. Of course what he revealed in that speech came from his Divine Nature.

(Note that the ultimate origin of Christ’s human nature and the actions produced by it is, of course, his Divine Nature, because even Christ’s human nature—not his Divine nature!—was created.)

Regarding passages that seem to imply subordination

But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even … the Son (Mt. 24:36)

Although there are many possibilites, the most plausible explanation for this saying (in my opinion) is that it was a Semitic hyperbole. In essence, Jesus is emphasizing (for modern audiences, to a ridiculous degree) that under no circumstanes will he reveal the day or the hour of his Second Coming.

Hence, this saying is to be taken figuratively. It is not intended to be a theological assertion about the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son, nor of the degree to which Jesus in his human nature shares in divine knowledge.

In other words, in my opinion, Jesus did know, but refused to reveal it.

In this opinion, I am following that of the of the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament. (See the footnote for Matthew 24:36.)

The Father is greater than I (John 14:28)

This could be understood in two plausible ways:

Jesus is referring to his current condition, in which he voluntarily “empties himself” (in the words of Phil. 2:7) by taking on a human nature. He will do greater works when he ascends into heaven. In other words, he is saying, in essence, “The Father is greater than I, as you are seeing me now, in my human nature.” (Keep in mind that in general Jesus chose not to use precise theologial or philosophical language.)
When Jesus says the Father is “greater,” he is referring to the order of the Persons in the Trinity, not their consubstantiality. It is true that the Father is first, being the ultimate origin of the Processions.

As is typical in the Gospel of John, he may very well have meant both things at once.

(Again, I took this interpretation from the commentary on this verse found in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible.)


Does God have the capacity to sin? Can God sin?

God cannot sin, not because He lacks the free will to do so, but because it would be inconsistent with His character and His nature.

From http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/rock.html

  The word "omnipotent" is never used in the Bible, but has been
  inferred primarily by one of God's Hebrew titles, "Shadday," which is
  most often translated "almighty."1 However, the Bible never claims
  that God can do all things. In fact, the Bible makes a point that
  there are things that God cannot do. The Bible says that God cannot
  commit sin.2 God cannot lie.3 Therefore, biblical omnipotence does
  not mean that God can do all things. God cannot do anything that is
  contrary to His holy character. However, God can do anything that He
  determines to do. This is a true meaning of omnipotence - the
  ability to do anything that one sets out to do.

Technically, God could sin if His nature were not perfect - if He chose to, but because His nature is Holy, Perfect, Flawless, to sin would be contrary to His nature.  He would never "set out" to do it,even if it is conceivably within HIs power to do so.

A pastor (I can't remember which) once put it like this:  "If I were to say I can't eat rotten garbage, that doesn't mean that it would be physically impossible for me to do so.  I have the physical capability to pick it up, put it in my mouth, chew, and swallow.  However, I say I cannot do it because it is so repulsive to me.  In this same way, it is possible for God to be omnipotent, yet be unable to sin."


What does the Book with Seven Seals contains?

@Allen Fuller's answer is a good summary of what people think is contained in the Seven Seals. The key is in the wording: they are called seals. The meaning is sealed up, hidden.

Consider what the angel told Daniel:

  “The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is
  true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future.”
  (Daniel 8:26)

One commentator (Ellis Skolfield) believes that Daniel rearranged the chapters of his book to make the pattern more complicated, to deter others from gaining full understanding until God so wills.

Consider what another angel told John:

  And when the seven thunders spoke, I was about to write; but I heard a
  voice from heaven say, “Seal up what the seven thunders have said and
  do not write it down.” (Revelation 10:4)

In this case, John was told to not even write it down.

I believe that the Seven Seals are just that - messages that are not for our eyes. Until it is all over, we won't be told what is in them. At best, their contents will be revealed very close to the end, to guide believers when times are darkest.


In reading your question, I don't think the issue at hand is God's omnipresence at all. Frankly it's not a terribly important doctrine in the first place and while I think one could make a case for it from Scipture, I think it's a little forced. Much more importantly, the Scripture states the reverse quite plainly, that all things are in and held together by God/Christ.

  Colossians 1:16-17 (ESV)
  16  For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17  And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

This includes hell. The problem with your question is not the doctrine of omnipresence, but the doctrine of hell. You state:

  After all, hell is by definition, that one place that God is not.

But where does that idea come from in the Bible? The problem with hell is that God is there! It is where God pours out his eternal judgement on all things evil. This is a part of his nature and God's wrath will be a very present reality of hell for all eternity. While we can't paint an exact picture of hell, we do have have some fairly vivid and specific descriptions of the way God is involved in punishment:

  Revelation 14:9-11 (ESV)
  9  And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10  he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11  And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”

What is different about it there is that it is a place separated from his grace. Neither the general grace that rains on the just and the unjust alike on this earth nor his specific graces experienced by believers will be experienced there. Folks will be separated from those aspects of God. He is only holding back his hand for a time.


What is the Biblical basis for the idea of accepting one's "station" in life?

I take "station" to mean more of one's social status. As far as that goes, I give you:

  1 Corinthians 7:21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it:
  but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.

So, there's no obligation to stay in your station if you can be made free from it.

Similarly, I would say there's no obligation to stay with any person--aside from a spouse and even that is given some room in the Bible (Proverbs 21:9). But as regards friends and acquaintances, we have no obligation. In fact, I can only think of verses that say otherwise:

  Proverbs 14:7 Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou
  perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.

  1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep
  company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or
  covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an
  extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

  2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our
  Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that
  walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of
  us.

I think so many people's lives are ruled by what your friend said. Their mantra is "I feel like..." instead of an actual Bible principle.


Are these historical records about Jesus' appearance accurate?

These sorts of records are dubious to say the least.

For the first case Josephus would never have claimed Jesus to be the Messiah, as he seems to have here:

  Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.( Josephus, F., & Whiston, W. (1987). The works of Josephus: Complete and unabridged. Peabody: Hendrickson.)

In fact Josephus seems to deliberately not refer to Jesus at all accept in a very minimalistic way. I can’t remember but I think only 2-3 times does Josephus refer at all to Jesus or events at that time. This would be more believable and understandable as Josephus was a historian that was opposed to Christianity. Jesus would have been a black eye to his valued history and pride of his treasured nation, which he himself fought as a soldier to defend. It is therefore nearly unanimously understood by Christians that Josephus’s text was exaggerated or otherwise corrupted by a monk/scribe or who have you.

Many think there was an original smaller reference by Josephus, but trying to decipher what it may have been is impossible. One good theory is found in a tenth-century Arabic copy but even this seems (to me) to have words that are too kind for what Josephus would have thought about Jesus:

  At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. Many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.( Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker Reference Library (254). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
  )

The other quotes that make Jesus seem like a European with ‘blue eyes’ and ‘blonde hair’ is clearly corruptions and falsifications of historical documents. Whether they are entire fabrications or just corruptions of earlier records are somewhat beside the point. It is simple outrageous nonsense. The Bible says that there was nothing about Jesus that attracted men to him. If he was walking around like a European runway model it would fly right against the few biblical descriptions of his appearance. Not only so but it would have attracted so many comments about such strange look for a Jew. Our only expectation of his physical appearance is that he looked like an ordinary Jew. That means he would have most likely had olive skin and dark hair.

  For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Is 53:2–3).

If there are a few Jews that have blonde hair and blue eyes then I suppose it is a possibility but very doubtful. Also his hair was probably short. He was not a hippie like many movies make him out to be. It was considered shameful for men to have long hair by Jews in biblical times unless under a Nazarene vow like Samson, which Jesus was not under.


What is the most important tradition in the Catholic Church?
The important Tradition is the Seven Sacraments as it is the Church instituted means to attain salvation of souls.

Seven sacraments of the Catholic Church
The Catholic Church teaches that there are seven sacraments or rites through which God can communicate his grace to an individual. Catholic Christians believe that the sacraments are channels for God’s grace - every time they take part in a sacrament, they receive more grace.https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zh4f3k7/revision/1

But in light of schism that happened post Vatican II, the most important tradition will be the very powerful words of Jesus to St.Peter and Apostles united to Peter.
What is that Tradition based on the gospel coming from the very words of Jesus Himself? The Apostles or College of Bishops united to the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Truth it cannot err.

The Promise of the Holy Spirit
…12I still have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it. 13However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come. 14He will glorify Me by taking from what is Mine and disclosing it to you.-John16:12-14

And with regards to schism, the schismatic who are saying and spreading that a Pope is teaching errors as they continue to accuse Pope Francis of heresy. Based on Jesus powerful promised of protection, the Pope cannot teach errors or commit heresies when teaching "faith & morals". Believing the Dubia Cardinals and Schismatic Bishops and their followers that a Pope can teach heresy will make Jesus a liar in Luke22:32.

"But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith will not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”-Luke22:32

More on this teachings on PASTOR AETERNUS.

THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER
IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_en.html


Does transubstantiation teach that the Son regularly returns physically?

He can't "incarnate again" because His sacred humanity and divinity cannot be separated since when He assumed flesh in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mother Mary.
Council of Toledo (685 A.D.), Denzinger 283:

In this Son of God we believe there are two natures, one of divinity, the other of humanity, which the one person of Christ so united in Himself that the divinity can never be separated from the humanity, nor the humanity from the divinity.In quo Dei Filio duas credimus esse naturas; unam divinitatis, alteram humanitatis, quas ita in se una Christi persona univit, ut nec divinitas ab humanitate, nec humanitas a divinitate possit aliquando seiungi.

cf. pt. 2, ch. 1, §3, "Thesis II: The Logos never even for an instant dissociated Himself from His manhood." of Christology: A Dogmatic Treatise on the Incarnation by Pohle

Christ is present after consecration not as though He departed from heaven and returned to earth but "after the manner of substance" (secundum modum substantiæ).


How can Jesus be both root and offspring of David if he was only a man and did not pre-exist his incarnation?

Well,
Though I believe Jesus preexisted his birth, I can provide away the verse be true without him doing so.
When considering Jesus as the root of David When you think "root of David" you may be thinking in reference to David's past human birth. However, Jesus has created for us a new birth in the resurrection. Indeed Jesus, himself born again, is declared begotten of God at his resurrection:

Acts 13:32-33 32 And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, 33 this he has fulfilled to us their children by RAISING Jesus, AS ALSO IT IS WRITTEN in the second Psalm,
“‘You are my Son,
today I have begotten you.’

And indeed we do not fully become adopted into the family of God until our physical bodies are recreated:

Romans 8:23 23 And not only the creation but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

We are new creatures in Christ when we are reborn first spiritually but ultimately physically at the resurrection when God brings forth the New Heaven and New Earth.

2 Peter 3:13 13 But according to his promise we are waiting for new
heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Indeed we must be so recreated for our very physical existence is far too corrupt for the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 15:50-57 50
I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 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
imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body
must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on
immortality. 54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the
mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is
written:        “Death is swallowed up in victory.” 55 “O death, where
is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” 56 The sting of death
is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who
gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

This victory over death by our resurrection and rebirth is obtained through the person of Jesus the firstfruit of the new creation:

1 Corinthians 15:20-23 20 But in fact, Christ has been raised from the
dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a
man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his
coming those who belong to Christ.

Jesus has become to us through the new creation the new Adam,

1 Corinthians 15:45-49 45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam
became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46
But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then
the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the
second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are
those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are
those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man
of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

And because Jesus is the new creation Adam, we have a new creation genealogy that begins with Christ as the root.
Hebrews makes it clear that this benefit not only applies to New Testament Christians but that also the salvation of the Old Testament saints (including David) similarly rest on the new life in Jesus. Notice how the Hebrew writer speaks of the Old Testament saints this way:

Hebrews 11:39-40 39 And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

So they are made perfect the same way that we are, in the resurrection, in order to inherit the promises of the kingdom.
Therefore, the root of their new birth in the new creation, as resurrected saints, is the reborn, resurrected, & recreated Jesus himself and, in that way, Jesus can be the root of his ancestors he does not predate except by predating them and us all in the New Creation as God's firstborn.


Can blood disinfect a house from plague according to Leviticus?

Edit: per above comment, see here: Is Leviticus 14 describing a cure for leprosy?

Leviticus 14:1-9

  14 And the Lord said to Moses,

  2 This shall be the law of the leper on the day when he is to be
  pronounced clean: he shall be brought to the priest [at a meeting
  place outside the camp];

  3 The priest shall go out of the camp [to meet him]; and [he] shall
  examine him, and if the disease is healed in the leper,

  4 Then the priest shall command to take for him who is to be cleansed
  two living clean birds and cedar wood and scarlet [material] and
  hyssop.

  5 And the priest shall command to kill one of the birds in an earthen
  vessel over fresh, running water.

  6 As for the living bird, he shall take it, the cedar wood, and the
  scarlet [material], and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living
  bird in the blood of the bird killed over the running water;

  7 And he shall sprinkle [the blood] on him who is to be cleansed from
  the leprosy seven times and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let
  go the living bird into the open field.

This very likely has nothing to do with literal sanitation, but like many things of the law, its a reflection of heavenly things, heavenly benefits, and quite often the things involved are symbolisms * although the people of their day took it literal.

Looking at verse 2-3 it appears this is a ritual  upon being pronounced clean - not on the cleansing itself.

The law is a reflection of heavenly things:

Hebrews 8:5

  5 [But these offer] service [merely] as a pattern and as a
  foreshadowing of [what has its true existence and reality in] the
  heavenly sanctuary. For when Moses was about to erect the tabernacle,
  he was warned by God, saying, See to it that you make it all [exactly]
  according to the copy (the model) which was shown to you on the
  mountain.


This is an artifact of the translation you are using. There is no verb in the Greek text of the verse. Consider this version:

  the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan,  the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. [Luke 3:37-38 NKJV]

Notice that the NKJV (like many other translations)  places the son in italics. This indicates that the words were added to make to text read more like English. Some other translations go further and add something like 'who was'.

The Greek version is more terse, reading something like "... Enosh of Seth of Adam of God"

The passage in no way suggests that Adam is no longer of God.


There are two ways to look at this. The first is that Gideon is testing God. The second is that Gideon is reluctant and doubting, but ultimately willing to accept.

From my understanding, 'testing God' is when a person makes a demand of God just to see if he will fulfill it, not so much to get assurance that God really means for the person to do what it seems like he does. This is treating God like a genie or essentially, controlling God for your own pleasure. Not only does this not benefit God or fulfill his will, it also does not benefit the person, encouraging them to be manipulative and self-willed instead of obedient and courageous.

Since God knows the heart, he can kind of cheat on this - he may let one person seemingly test him a hundred times, but another person he rejects even a single test. But this is because he knows the disposition and the intent which may be hidden from the observer and even potentially the person themselves. Therefore, it may be that Gideon's original motivation was not so good, but God knew he'd come around.

Note, this does not contradict the notion that 'God is not a respecter of persons' - that refers to God treating people differently based on their rank or situation in life. It is clear many times that God treats people differently based on the disposition of their heart. The Psalmist says, 'To the pure I will be pure, to the deceiving I will be deceptive.'


What word did Jesus use for God in Aramaic?

The normal generic word for God is "alaha"/"aloho" (ܐܠܗܐ), which is linguistically related to the Hebrew word for God "elohim".

The translation of the tetragrammaton, YHWH, on the other hand, is "maria"/"morio" (ܡܪܝܐ), usually decomposed as mar-yah, Lord-Yah ("mar", lord, also being used by syriac speaking churches as a title for saints/doctors of the Church: "mor Ephrem" = Saint Ephrem). (Note: this word has nothing to do with the proper name Maria, coming from the Hebrew Mariam)

To answer your question, Jesus would almost certainly have used one of the two, or both at the same time as it is commonly done in Syriac: Maria Alaha.

Last remark: The arabic word Allah, used also by Arabic Christians, is no more no less related to the Aramaic Alaha than to the Hebrew Elohim. The three share a common linguistic root, which is nothing exceptional, so no point being dragged on sterile arguments concerning this point.

Concerning the cry on the cross (quote from Psalm 22:1), the Peshitta (the earliest christian Aramaic translation) translate it using the word alaha, with the first person possessive suffix -i : alahi (ܐܲܠܵܗܝ ܐܲܠܵܗܝ ܠܡܵܢܵܐ ܫܒܲܩ̣ܬܵܢܝ̱ ). The original Hebrew Psalm used "Eli". Since the scriptor of the Greek gospel may not have been fluent in Aramaic, or used to transliterate Aramaic with Greek characters, it may be expected that the transliterations are approximates, hence a possible : eloi/alohi confusion.


If Christ Has Been Given All Authority Why Does He Need to Make Intercession For Us?

The authority given to the resurrected and glorified Christ includes his role as mediator for sinful humans, just as he also has the roles of Priest and King.
Since ascending to heaven, sinful humanity still needs intercession, because they cannot approach a holy and righteous God.  The authority granted to the Son of God includes his role as intercessor in order to help us in our weakness to draw close to God.
We know that although Christ’s work to secure the salvation of the elect was completed on the cross, as evidenced by His cry “It is finished!” (John 19:30), his care for his redeemed children will never be finished.  He is, after all, the Good Shepherd, and his Father has entrusted the elect into his care.  This work will continue until the end of the age when all things are handed back to his Father.

For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. (Romans 5:10)

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. (1 John2:1)

Here is a short extract from a Protestant article https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-interceding.html that shows why it is necessary for Jesus to intercede on our behalf:

After Jesus ascended to heaven and was seated at the right hand of God the Father (Acts 1:9; Colossians 3:1), He returned to the glory He had before His incarnation (John 17:5) to carry on His role of King of kings and Lord of lords—His eternal role as the second Person of the triune God. While this old earth continues to be “won” for Christ, Jesus is the Advocate for Christians, meaning He is our great Defender. This is the intercessory role He currently fulfills for those who are His (1 John 2:1). Jesus is always pleading our case before the Father, like a defense lawyer on our behalf.

Only Christ Jesus has the authority to intercede on our behalf so that we may draw close to God:

Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:25)

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. (1  Timothy 2:5)

That authority is part of his role as Advocate, Priest and King.


Seeking source of a Calvin quote regarding wine in communion

I went to StudyLight.org and checked John Calvin's commentaries on Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22 and 1 Corinthians 11; the four passages I thought would be most likely to include Mr. Calvin's reasoning for his preference of wine or grape juice for Communion.  I found no remarks.


Yes Saint Thomas had been to India and there are enough of evidences which seems to substantiate those claims. There are christian communities in South Western India (Kerala State) which trace back their ancestry to conversions that happened during that time.A substantial part of the Christian community in that Indian state has Syrian Christian lineage. It is said that they had come over to India from Syria and Iraq during the early part of Islamic persecution. Some claims are also made about Christians coming there in the First Century along with the Traders along the Spice route.
The RC church does not have much history in this part, but grew rapidly among the populace following the Portugese conquest of south India. Demographically a majority of RC population in India, can trace back their lineage to Hindu communities in South India unlike the Syrian Christians who are predominantly of the Orthodox and Marthoma church folds.


Which traditions practice paedocommunion?

The Orthodox practice paedocommunion and the Roman Catholics used to but don't anymore. I can't speak to your second point though.


Simply - you participate in a bigger population, many of whom do not accept Christ (or do so as a historical figure only). Nothing more, nothing less. I don't see it as sacrilege, but personally I also don't have an opinion on the change. I'm not a believer, but AD vs CE is of little significance to me. In reality, it is exceptionally rare that I refer to things outside the last few centuries, so I rarely use any suffix.


What's God's justification of not allowing the choice of personal annihilation?

When God created Adam, Genesis 2:7 He breathed in his nostrils His breath. Since God cannot die so does our soul. For that reason God created eternal hell. He has given us ample opportunity to correct our way of life even sacrificed His Son that we can have redemption through.

  I understand everyone deserves hell because of sin, but God allowing eternal suffering of the very humans God loves so much who never truly knew Jesus makes zero sense to me.

Jesus said that

  ‘This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.’ ( Matthews 24:14 )

So everybody will know about Jesus whether they accept this message 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 or not.

Isaiah 29:21 We cannot complain that God why did He made me? We are part of His plan. Just keep in your prayers and God might show you, your purpose of life. And regarding getting confirmation, you just need to have faith in Christ scarifice.

  For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;  ( Ephesians 2:8)

And this verse confirms the redemption and salvation.

  For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life . John 3:16


The question is not whether or not to trust people, but whether or not to put your trust in people.  Obviously, people are quite capable of telling the truth.  However, trusting in people to meet your needs is where the problem comes in.  People are mortal and finite with limited power.  Indeed, they have "only a breath in their nostrils".  This may be suggesting that everyone is living breath to breath.  If you put your trust in your parents to provide for you or get you out of trouble, you should be aware that there is no guarantee that they will be alive tomorrow or will have the power to help you.

God, however, is infinite and self-existent.  He will be around tomorrow and has all power to meet your needs whenever and however He chooses.  Thus, it is prudent and wise to look to God and trust Him for your needs and life--not a fellow human being whose life is but a vapor that appears for a little while and then is gone.


The blue mantle of Mary seems to have originated around the year 500 AD and is of Byzantine origin. Most sources seem to point to this date as the Byzantine origin of the color blue of Mary's mantle.

  Why Does the Blessed Virgin Mary Wear Blue?

  In many artistic portraits of the Blessed Virgin Mary, she is depicted wearing a blue mantle. Why blue?

  In first century Galilee, Mary’s clothing would probably not have much color. It would have been more flaxen-wool colored. Villagers may have used available plants to produce some modest dyes. Purple and blue were reserved for the rich and ruling classes because plants for those dyes were more rare. Red was used for the Roman army because plants producing red dyes were readily available.

  As Mary has appeared throughout the centuries, she has worn different colors and styles of clothing.

  •Our Lady of Fatima (1917) appeared to the children wearing a gown and mantle of white with gold trim and a crown.

  •Our Lady of Lourdes (1858) appeared to Bernadette wearing a simple gown and mantle of white with a blue sash.

  •Our Lady of Guadalupe (1531) appeared to Juan Diego wearing a gown of rose and a mantle of blue with gold stars.

  Fr Johann Roten SM, director of the Marian Library-International Marian Research Institute at the University of Dayton (a Catholic college) wrote: “Mary’s dark blue mantle, from about 500 AD is of Byzantine origin and is the color of an empress.”

  Blue has been a color associated with royalty, peace, and nature (sea and sky). So it makes sense that artistic renditions of Mary portray the Queen of Heaven and Earth in blue.


Who is the king described in 2 Kings 8:1–6?

This is Jehoram, King of Israel. The woman sojourns to The land of the Philestines to avoid the famine, and then returns to Israel.

A good exegesis and commentary of this, from the perspective of Gehazi, can be found here:
http://biblehub.com/topical/g/gehazi.htm

More is written about Jehoram starting in 2 Kings 3:

  1 In the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Ahab became king over Israel in Samaria, and he reigned twelve years.
  2 He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, though not like his father and mother, for he put away the pillar of Baal that his father had made.
  3 Nevertheless, he clung to the sin of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which he made Israel to sin; he did not depart from it. - 2 Kings 3:1-3 ESV

It should be noted that the subject of Jehoram is a little confusing,since there were 2 Jehorams, but Jehoram, King of Judah (also known as Joram) did not come into power until after this event.  This confusion between Jehorams and the dating conventions has been addressed very well by Edwin Thiele:
http://www.thischristianjourney.com/thischristianjourney/generalpages/joram_jehoram_problem.htm


Were we to remain in the Garden of Paradise forever if Adam had not sinned?

There are two considerations here. First is that Catholics do not view the creation story as strictly literal. When we talk about the "garden of Eden', that certainly could have been a real place, but more importantly, it is symbolic of the harmonious existence humans held with the qualities of original justice, original holiness, the preternatural gifts, and the supernatural gifts. Were we to remain trapped in a walled off garden forever? No. Did God intend for us to enjoy the aforementioned gifts He gave us in the beginning for our entire extent in this world? Yes.

Second, one of the many titles Catholics give to Mary is "New Eve" because Mary embodies everything Eve meant to be before she chose against God. Mary is held to never have died;however, she is not here on Earth either. Catholics hold that Mary, after her time on Earth, was assumed body & soul into Heaven. It is reasonable to believe that had Eve never sinned, she and Adam would also been granted Heaven and spared death.

In short: that resource is correct with respect to Catholic beliefs.


Why were both criminals that were crucified with Jesus abusing him in Mark, and not in Luke?

This potential discrepancy is addressed in Apologetics Press' question: Did Both Thieves Revile Christ?

Possible resolutions to the discrepancies between the accounts:

Possibility #1: Initially, both thieves reviled Christ, but then one of them repented.

  After hearing Jesus’ words on the cross, and seeing His forgiving
  attitude, the one thief may have been driven to acknowledge that Jesus
  was indeed the Messiah. How many times have we made a statement about
  someone or something, but then retracted the statement only a short
  while later after receiving more information?

Possibility #2: The discrepancy could be due to a figure of speech called a synecdoche

Merriam-Webster definition: a figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole (as fifty sail for fifty ships), the whole for a part (as society for high society)…or the name of the material for the thing made (as boards for stage)
Note that the doctrine of plenary inspiration does allow for figures of speech, even as it applies to inerrancy.

Also, from the article in the portion relating to the possibility that this is a synecdoche:

  It is feasible that Matthew and Mark were using the plural in place of
  the singular in their accounts of the thieves reviling Christ on the
  cross. Lest you think that such might be an isolated case, notice two
  other places in Scripture where the same form of synecdoche is used.

  Genesis 8:4 indicates that Noah’s ark rested “on the mountains of Ararat.” Question: Did the ark rest on one of the mountains of Ararat,
  or did it rest on all of them at the same time? Although the ark was a
  huge vessel, it obviously did not rest on the many mountains of
  Ararat; rather, it rested on one.
  In Genesis 21:7 Sarah asked, “Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse children? For I have borne him a son in his old
  age.” Anyone who knows much about the Bible will remember that Sarah
  had but one child. In certain contexts, however, one might use a
  synecdoche and speak of one child (as did Sarah) by using the word
  children.


I did some Google search for you. I found these online resources. Some are Unicode, some are not.

Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Vaticanus
Textus Receptus
Westcott and Hort
Ivan Panin Greek New Testament edition


Posture when singing the Marian antiphon in the Evensong of the Divine Office of the Personal Ordinariates?

The Ordinariates' official office book is currently in preparation, but there does exist the Customary of Our Lady of Walsingham of the UK Ordinariate [the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham].

That contains the Order for Evening Prayer which is very similar to the Evensong of the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England. It contains the rubric

  The Anthem to the Blessed Virgin Mary follows the final office of the day (see pages 151 and 928).

The latter page shows the plainsong settings of the Latin texts; the former lays out a usual translation, the versicles/responses and the collects. There is no indication of posture at all.

The Customary also includes an Order for Compline which is very similar in structure to the Bloomfield office linked in the question (albeit in English, of course), including the responsories* and the prayer Vísita, quǽsumus Dómine, habitatiónem istam. There is no indication of posture.

It's also the case that there is no indication of posture in the [modern] Divine Office for Compline (or, indeed, at all). In the Bloomfield version, indications of posture appear to be lacking — the Order implies standing up to Deus in adjutorium, but omits the customary sitting for the psalms, and anything after that. I can't see where the OP assertion comes from.

In short, there is no indication of posture in any of the Office books. I've never experienced kneeling for the final anthem (either in the Church of England or since joining the Catholic Church in the Ordinariate), and in my opinion the words don't really lend themselves to that.

* The Customary Order for Compline also includes Keep me as the apple of an eye / Hide me under the shadow of thy wings which is not included in the Bloomfield version.


To the question as to why casting out demons was not enough to prove to some that he was the Christ, some believed that such power was not from God:

  33 And when the demon had been cast out, the mute man spoke. And the crowds marveled, saying, "Never was anything like this seen in Israel."
  34 But the Pharisees said, "He casts out demons by the prince of demons." - Matthew 9:33-34 ESV

While the Pharisees witnessed these miracles, they did not believe that they came from God.  He of course also multiplied bread, walked on water, healed deformities, and resurrected the dead, but there were still many who refused to believe.  The understanding of who is and who is not able to truly believe is debated among Calvanists and Arminians, and is beyond the scope of your question, but the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man provides some additional context as to why no sign would be given:

  27 And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house-
  28 for I have five brothers-so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.'
  29 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.'
  30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'
  31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'" - Luke 16:27-31 ESV

The sign that the Pharisees wanted was one from heaven.  They simply did not see Jesus's own miracles as being divine.  Much like Jonah, Jesus is delivering a message from the Father, rather than the Father sending a sign.

In short, no sign would have changed the minds of the Pharisees, and none would be given because all that is necessary for true faith was already being provided, as the disciples and followers demonstrated.


Why is Good Friday not called Black Friday?

In the past Good Friday has been called Black Friday in some regions because of the black vestments that were once employed by the clergy on this day.

Wikipedia has this to say about Good Friday:

  Good Friday is a Christian holiday commemorating the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and his death at Calvary. It is observed during Holy Week as part of the Paschal Triduum on the Friday preceding Easter Sunday, and may coincide with the Jewish observance of Passover. It is also known as Holy Friday, Great Friday, Black Friday.


Discrepancy between Yahweh (Christian Bibles) and Eh-yeh (Torah)

Here is a basic answer:

In Exodus 3:14, אֶֽהְיֶה (eh-yeh, a form of the Hebrew verb "to be") is used as part of what today would be considered a folk etymology of the most sacred Hebrew name of God, called the "Tetragrammaton": יהוה as it appears in the original unpointed (no vowels) Hebrew manuscripts. Eh-yeh is not itself the commonly used name for God in the Hebrew Bible. It is used in Exodus 3:14 only to give meaning to the Tetragrammaton, which is the common, but very sacred, name for the God of the ancient Hebrews. The force and basic meaning of the etymology in Exodus 3:14 is that God is called יהוה from the verb "to be": God is the one who is or who, in more modern philosophical terms, is the ultimate reality and the self-existing (uncreated) being.

In the Hebrew Bible, this name is usually pointed (given vowels) as: יְהֹוָה or Yĕhovah in English pronunciation. It is translated as "Jehovah" in some English Bibles.

However, that pronunciation is not based on how it was originally pronounced at the time the Hebrew Bible was written. As the Rabbi pointed out to you, when יְהֹוָה appears in the Hebrew Bible, Jews regularly read it as "Adonai" instead. The Hebrew for Adonai is אֲדֹנָי. And that is where the vowel pointings commonly used for יְהֹוָה in today's Hebrew Bibles come from (with a slight variation due to how various Hebrew letter combinations take vowels).

In other words, the word that is traditionally transliterated into English as "Jehovah" (or as "LORD" in small caps in the KJV and other traditional English bibles) is actually a combination of the consonants from the Tetragrammaton יהוה and the vowels from the Hebrew word "Adonai," which means "Lord."

You see, the Tetragrammaton was, and still is today, considered too sacred to be pronounced by most religious Jews. So when they encounter it in the Bible, they say "Adonai" instead. And the vowels, which were added later, reflect that substitution of "Adonai" for the Tetragrammaton when reading.

Because of this tradition of not pronouncing the Tetragrammaton, which stretches back over two thousand years, we do not know for sure how it was originally pronounced. "Yahweh" is what most scholars now think was the original pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton—which is why that pronunciation is commonly used in scholarly circles and among some groups of Christians.


Oaths generally refer to something you will/won't do. We are unable to control what will happen in the future, and therefore don't know if we will be able to keep that oath ("you cannot make even one hair white or black"). Paul, in this situation, was writing about what already happened. He already experienced it so he knows it is true. He doesn't need to have control over anything but his hand (or the hand of his scribe) so he can know he is keeping his "oath." This is why I believe there is nothing wrong with Paul's statement, but it still may very well go against Jesus' teaching because Paul wasn't perfect.

In applying it to our lives, I believe we should avoid making statements such as Paul's even if we know it to be true since we are to give God our best rather than flirt with the line of right and wrong.


What did Pilate mean by asking "What is truth?"

History records that Pilate was not the most even tempered of men. Considering this, I find that it is quite probable that the words would have been intended more as mockery than anything else.

Traditions related to Pilate are a good deal more vague. While the apocryphal "Passion (or Gospel) according to St. Peter" exonerates him, the majority of writings which come from the post-apostolic writers suggest that the writings of Philo may very well be correct as to the nature of his character.

Of course, there is no way to know, but it seems far more probable that he was not acting as Christ's friend in that conversation.


No.  The age of the earth is not clearly stated in the Bible.

However, according to young-earth creationists (like myself), it can be derived, assuming that the word "Day" in Genesis means a literal day, and that the genealogies are accurate.

Adding up the genealogies can give an age of about 6,000 years, but there are some gaps in the genealogies, and even among young-earth creationists, there is room for 6,000-10,000 years of history.  The most literal interpretation puts the age at about 6,000 years.

Of course, there are those that hold to the day-age theory (the days in Genesis can be interpreted as "time periods") and the Gap theory (there is a gap between the creation of the universe and the arrival of man).  These each throw age estimation out the window, and allow for a much older earth.  Also, there are those who believe in theistic evolution, or that the Genesis account is not to be taken literally.  These also throw the young earth idea out the window.

As far as other references in the Bible, again, nothing direct but Jesus did say:

  Mark 10:6 (KJV) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Young-earth Biblical literalists (such as myself) would say that this is indication that Jesus Himself considered Adam and Eve as having been created "at the beginning of creation", ruling out the gap and day-age theories.  Again, there is much disagreement on this.


How to reconcile God telling Jeremiah to preach to people that won't listen while also saying not to cast your pearls before swine

TL;DR -- Context lets them coexist without contradiction.

The longer version:

God's word to Jeremiah in the first passage represented specific instructions for a specific mission.  At the base level of common sense, it would be a mistake to interpret those instructions as any kind of a generalized principle -- any more than God's word to Noah means that we're all commanded to build arks.

In contrast, Jesus' words state a general principle for His followers -- one that we should follow, barring any strong reasons to the contrary.  (One thing to keep in mind for example: how can a human being know whether the person he's speaking to is a "dog"?  Unless God steps in by the power of the Holy Spirit to give insight into a person's heart & character, we humans can only judge by our limited and faulty impressions of an outward appearance.)

The only consistent rule in biblical morality is complete obedience to God's will, whatever it may be at any given moment.  God can and does give us basic moral rules and principles, but ultimately we are bound to follow His every command, even if it goes against one of those general moral rules/principles.  One example would be the general prohibition against killing (Genesis 9:6, Exodus 20:13), which had exceptions for cases such as warfare (e.g. Joshua 6 and the destruction of Jericho).


It's called that because it was written as a letter to Hebrews.  Most of the Epistles are titled after the group they were written to.  (Corinthians was written to the Church at Corinth, etc.)

From http://christianity.about.com/od/newtestamentbooks/a/Book-Of-Hebrews.htm

  Date Written:

  Hebrews was written before the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction
  of the Temple in 70 A.D. Written To:

  Hebrew Christians who were wavering in their faith and all future
  readers of the Bible.

There's more similar information all over, including Wikipedia.


Your second quote isn't a "but" from the first. The whole point of Biblical staements about peace and joy is not that once you become a Christian, you will no longer have any problems in life and so you will have no reason to be anxious. Rather, it is that a Christian should be at peace regardless of what difficulties or trials he faces in life, because our hope is not in this life, but in eternity.

That's not to say that Christians DO consistantly maintain inner peace. But that's because our faith is weak. Just like we SHOULD never sin, but we DO sin all the time.


What is the Scriptural Basis Against the Trinity

I can't argue from my own personal conviction, so these might not be the strongest arguments unitarians would assert. As much as it pains me not to offer the counterarguments, I will give them their say.

God is One

Critics of trinitarianism will point to there being almost no mention of any "persons of the Godhead" in the Old Testament (exceptions: Ge 1:26, Ge 11:7), and many instances of there being only one God. They will describe the three "persons" of the Trinity as being three separate gods because they are not a single, identical individual.

From the New Testament, they point to passages that suggest a fundamantal disunity between Jesus and God.

  John 17:3
  "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

  Mark 13:32 (NASB)
  "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

  1 Timothy 2:5 (NASB)
  For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, ...

  1 Corinthians 8:6 (NASB)
  yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

  Ephesians 4:5-6 (NASB)
  one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

Some will also point to statements of Jesus submitting to the Father as proof of disunity.

Not-Biblical

Some will argue that the word "trinity" is not used in the New Testament, and that the Trinity is not equated with God in the same way that Jesus is.

Some will assert that the idea was not present in the early church.

Some will assert that because every mention (or some sort of numerical majority) of God does not simultaneously mention Jesus and the Holy Spirit, the Biblical authors cannot be asserting trinity.

Illogical

Some will argue that it just doesn't make sense (1+1+1=1?) and that God is not a god of confusion, and so since the idea of the Trinity is less emphatically asserted in the text (compared to Jesus' divinity, the need for Salvation, etc.), it is not an idea that ought to be embraced.

Some will argue that any time the Father knows something that Jesus doesn't, it makes no sense for Jesus to be God. Similarly, any time Jesus <verb> to the Father, such verbs are not reflexive and thus a trinitarian interpretation doesn't make sense.

Resources

Testimony of Scripture Against the Trinity
Oneness Versus Trinity
lots of links to oneness and trinity articles
Response to "Should You Believe in the Trinity?"
(It's anti-unitarian, but it does at least present their assertions fairly.)
Exposing Weak Arguments Against the Trinity
and the Deity of Jesus
(Again, this is anti-unitarian, but it does put forward the common assertions.)