Information on how the early Christians prepared and/or fled from the destruction of Jerusalem?

Information on how the early Christians prepared or fled from the destruction of Jerusalem?

Eusebius and Epiphanius of Salamis cite a tradition that before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 the Jerusalem Christians had been miraculously warned to flee to Pella.

  Flight to Pella

  The fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Epiphanius of Salamis cite a tradition that before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 the Jerusalem Christians had been miraculously warned to flee to Pella (Tabaquat Fahil) in the region of the Decapolis across the Jordan River. The flight to Pella probably did not include the Ebionites.

  The authenticity of this tradition has been a much debated question since 1951 when S. G. F. Brandon in his work The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church provided strong arguments against it, arguing that the Jewish Christians would have been allied to their compatriots, the Zealots; only after the destruction of the Jewish Christian community would Christianity have emerged as a universalist religion. The Christian-Zealot alliance has hardly been taken seriously in theology, but the historicity of the flight to Pella has been controversial ever since.

  Ancient sources

    The people of the Church in Jerusalem were commanded by an oracle given by revelation before the war to those in the city who were worthy of it to depart and dwell in one of the cities of Perea which they called Pella. To it those who believed on Christ traveled from Jerusalem, so that when holy men had altogether deserted the royal capital of the Jews and the whole land of Judaea…" — Eusebius, Church History 3, 5, 3

    This heresy of the Nazoraeans exists in Beroea in the neighbourhood of Coele Syria and the Decapolis in the region of Pella and in Basanitis in the so-called Kokaba (Chochabe in Hebrew). From there it took its beginning after the exodus from Jerusalem when all the disciples went to live in Pella because Christ had told them to leave Jerusalem and to go away since it would undergo a siege. Because of this advice they lived in Perea after having moved to that place, as I said." — Epiphanius, Panarion 29,7,7-8

    For after all those who believed in Christ had generally come to live in Perea, in a city called Pella of the Decapolis of which it is written in the Gospel that it is situated in the neighbourhood of the region of Batanaea and Basanitis, Ebion's preaching originated here after they had moved to this place and had lived there." — Epiphanius, Panarion 30, 2, 7

  So Aquila, while he was in Jerusalem, also saw the disciples of the disciples of the apostles flourishing in the faith and working great signs, healings, and other miracles. For they were such as had come back from the city of Pella to Jerusalem and were living there and teaching. For when the city was about to be taken and destroyed by the Romans, it was revealed in advance to all the disciples by an angel of God that they should remove from the city, as it was going to be completely destroyed. They sojourned as emigrants in Pella, the city above mentioned in Transjordania. And this city is said to be of the Decapolis." — Epiphanius, On Weights and Measures 15

As for how and when this happened, we may never truly know, even if it is true at all.

  A PROPOSED SCENARIO OF JERUSALEM CHRISTIAN ACTIONS AS THE ROMANS THREATENED THE CITY

  Did the Jerusalem Christians flee to Pella just before the Romans destroyed their city? There is no way to know for sure. We can only deal in probabilities. If we accept as reliable the accounts of Eusebius and others, the issue is settled. If, as did Brandon, one begins by doubting those records and seeks reasons for supporting that skepticism, the answer to the question will most certainly be, "No," for when evidence is incomplete, selected and biased reading and interpretations of data can usually yield the desired conclusion.

  Between these two are other options, including evaluating carefully both the primary sources and their critics. In addition, beyond the direct evidence there may be circumstantial, which although a bit oblique and supplementary, may be relevant. It is evidence of this type that we seek to add to the investigation of the Pella tradition.

  Perhaps the situation and unfolding events were something like what follows. The Jerusalem Christian community was centered on the southwest hill of Jerusalem, now called Mt. Zion. In all probability it was here they had eaten the last passover meal with Jesus, were together when the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost, and may have constructed their own synagogue. This location, although containing such "up scale" residences as the palace of the high priest, the Christians probably shared it with others who were a bit out of the mainstream of Jerusalem life Jewish groups, such as the Essenes.

  If indeed the Jerusalem Christians fled the city, we do not know whether they did so in mass, in small groups, or as individuals. Furthermore, the time of this exodus has been variously placed. Most likely are following the Jewish victory over Cestius Gallus (A.D.66/67), or in the period following the temporary withdrawal of Vespasian to await developments in Rome (A.D. 68/69). The latter would seem more logical to me. They would have already seen Jerusalem "surrounded by armies" (cf. Luke 21:20) and presumably been free to travel toward Jericho since the Tenth Legion had pretty much left the area and was already established on the Mount of Olives; in any case, at this point in time Roman military activities had been halted.

  They probably left the city through the Essene (or possibly the Tekoa) Gate, into Hinnon and on to the Kidron Valley. Although it is likely they would have avoided the Roman road, there were a number of more secluded routes through wadis and other paths open to them. This had been an escape route used before, for example by kings David and Zedekiah, and into the plain south of Jericho (the Buqeiah).

  Upon arriving in the Jordan Valley the friendly terrain to the north and the desire to move away from Jerusalem could have invited travel in that direction. As they neared Scythopolis they crossed the Jordan and settled in the region of Pella. Later, some remained in the Pella-Decapolis region and formed the nucleus of both the orthodox and heretical Christians found there in following centuries. Others returned not only to Jerusalem, to their old area on the southwest hill.

  Those who returned brought with them a bridge between the original Jewish Christian community and the predominantly Gentile church which had arisen by the beginning of the second century. The Jerusalem-Jewish Church, weakened though it was, provided continuity with the historical Jesus and the apostles for wider Church. There presence and their ties with the past made it unnecessary for Christianity to be "virtually reborn." The "Mother Church," frail from her experiences and limited by her environment, was back to help guide her children and grandchildren in the narrow way, the way of the truth and the faith which, through her had been "once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3). - Did Jerusalem Christians Flee to Pella?

Map of the Decapolis showing the location of Pella.

A more diverse series of archeological pictures of Pella, Jordan can be seen here.

  Pella (Ancient Greek: Πέλλα, Hebrew: פחל) is found in northwestern Jordan, at the modern town of Tabaqat Fahl, طبقة فحل) 27.4 km (17 miles) south of the Sea of Galilee. Pella represents one of circa ten Decapolis cities that were founded during the Hellenistic period and became powerful under Roman jurisdiction. With a history extending back into the Bronze Age, Pella expanded to its largest state during the Roman period. It is located in the Jordan Valley, 130 km (80 miles) north of Amman, and is half an hour by car from Irbid, in the north of the country. Today, the city's sizable collection of ruins are excavated by archaeologists, and attract thousands of tourists annually.

  First Christians: the "flight to Pella"

  From what is known as the "flight to Pella", around the time of the Roman siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, a Jewish sect of Nazarenes made their way to Pella and settled in the city, which thus became a Jewish Christian hub, during the early days of Christianity. According to Epiphanius, the disciples had been miraculously told by Christ to abandon Jerusalem because of the siege it was about to undergo. Epiphanius claims that after the destruction, some returned to Jerusalem. Similarly to Epiphanius, Eusebius of Caesarea recounts how Pella was a refuge for Jerusalem Christians who were fleeing the First Jewish–Roman War in the 1st century CE. Pella is alleged to have been the site of one of Christianity's earliest churches. According to Historian Edward Gibbon, the early Church of Jerusalem fleed to Pella after the ruin of the temple staying their until their return to Zion during the reign of Emperor Hadrian making it a pilgrimage site for early Christians and modern Christians today. - Pella, Jordan

They were fortunate to have fled, for at one point Titus was crucifying some 500 Jews a day after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, according to Josephus.

Image of mass execution by crucifixion, somewhat similar to the ones used by Romans.


Different types of Cross shapes significance?

I think you are referring to the Budded Cross.

The article says,

  A cross with three circles or discs on each arm in a Christian context
  represents the Holy Trinity but was probably also copied from earlier
  Celtic Druidry, where the circles or rings represent the three
  dominions of earth, sky and sea.

  There are several names for this cross, depending on the
  interpretation. These include Budded, Apostles', or Cathedral Cross,
  all implying a religious theme, and Treflée or Botonée1 in a heraldic
  context.

And the Christian Cross, the best-known religious symbol of Christianity.

More crosses here on Wikipedia


What are the Church Laws governing ingredients and shapes of altar bread in the Catholic Church?

Can.  924 §2. The bread must be only wheat and recently made so that there is no danger of spoiling.
[…]
Can.  926 According to the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, the priest is to use unleavened bread in the eucharistic celebration whenever he offers it.

Regarding the shape, canonist Dom Augustine, O.S.B., commentates on the 1917 Code Can. 815, the equivalent of 1983 Can.  924 quoted above:

As to the form of the bread, round hosts are used in the Latin Church, whereas the Oriental Church employs square hosts.9 The size of the host for Holy Mass and exposition in the Ostensorium should be from two to three and of the particles for distribution about one inch. The altar breads should be neither too thick nor too thin.10

Benedict XIV, Di Sac. Missæ, I, c. 6 [De Hoſtia, "On the Host"].

Prümmer, l. c. [Manuale Theologiæ Moralis], III, n. 171.

Also, round hosts are made with an iron, so there is no "waste while it is being cut from a larger bread". This baking machine makes hosts and particles:


When did "tithing" come to mean "giving 10% of your gross income to the Church"?

The Jewish Historian Alfred Edersheim seems to have done a fair bit of research on this subject. Basically, the subject is far more complex than a simple 10%, and would usually have amounted to more under Old Testament law. In fact, I am not sure I fully understand what Edersheim has explained—but that helps to convey just how complex it really was.
The basic idea of the tithe (i.e 10%) was bound up in the first fruit offerings of the land:

Two of these firstfruit offerings were public and national; viz. the first omer, on the second day of the Passover, and the wave-loaves at Pentecost. The other two kinds of ‘firstfruits’—or Reshith, ‘the first, the beginning’—were offered on the part of each family and of every individual who had possession in Israel, according to the Divine directions in Ex. 22:29; 23:19; 34:26; Numb. 15:20, 21; 18:12, 13; Deut. 18:4; and Deut. 26:2–11, where the ceremonial to be observed in the Sanctuary is also described. Authorities distinguish between the Biccurim (primitiva), or firstfruits offered in their natural state, and the Terumoth (primitae), brought not as raw products, but in a prepared state,—as flour, oil, wine, etc. The distinction is convenient, but not strictly correct, since the Terumoth also included vegetables and garden produce. (The Temple - Its Ministry and Services as they were at the time of Christ, by Alfred Edersheim (1825-1889), chap. 19, p. 379)

However, these first fruits and their offerings were complex in the traditional regulations and were largely based on being actually from the Holy Land:

They must be the produce of the Holy Land itself, in which, according to tradition, were included the ancient territories of Og and Sihon, as well as that part of Syria which David had subjugated. On the other hand, both the tithes and the Terumoth were also obligatory on Jews in Egypt, Babylon, Ammon, and Moab. The Biccurim were only presented in the Temple, and belonged to the priesthood there officiating at the time, while the Terumoth might be given to any priest in any part of the land. The Mishnah holds that, as according to Deut. 8:8 only the following seven were to be regarded as the produce of the Holy Land, from them alone Biccurim were due: viz. wheat, barley, grapes, figs, pomegranates, olives, and dates. If the distance of the offerer from Jerusalem was too great, the figs and grapes might be brought in a dried state. . . .
Of course, neither tithes, nor Biccurim, nor Terumoth, were to be given of what already belonged to the Lord, nor of what was not fairly the property of a person. Thus if only the trees, but not the land in which they grew, belonged to a man, he would not give firstfruits. (The Temple - Its Ministry and Services as they were at the time of Christ, by Alfred Edersheim (1825-1889), chap. 19, p. 379)

In the end, when all requirements were considered, the actual amount to be given was more than just the tithe, and would have been around 25% of the overall revenue of the community from the harvests that God caused to be enjoyed:

Thus the prescribed religious contributions of every Jewish layman at the time of the second Temple were as follows: Biccurim and Terumoth, say two per cent.; from the ‘first of the fleece,’ at least five shekels’ weight; from the ‘first of the dough,’ say four per cent.; ‘corners of the fields’ for the poor, say two per cent.; the first, or Levitical tithe, ten per cent.; the second, or festival tithe, to be used at the feasts in Jerusalem, and in the third and sixth years to be the ‘poor’s tithe,’ ten per cent.; the firstlings of all animals, either in kind or money-value; five shekels for every first-born son, provided he were the first child of his mother, and free of blemish; and the half-shekel of the Temple-tribute. Together, these amounted to certainly more than the fourth of the return which an agricultural population would have. And it is remarkable, that the Law seems to regard Israel as intended to be only an agricultural people—no contribution being provided for from trade or merchandise. Besides these prescribed, there were, of course, all manner of voluntary offerings, pious works, and, above all, the various sacrifices which each, according to his cirumstances or piety, would bring in the Temple at Jerusalem. (The Temple - Its Ministry and Services as they were at the time of Christ, by Alfred Edersheim (1825-1889), chap. 19, p. 379)

Edersheim makes it very clear that the Mosaic Laws did not apply to all income, and assumed an agricultural society, clearly dating some aspects of God's purposes for the Mosaic Law:

And it is remarkable, that the Law seems to regard Israel as intended to be only an agricultural people—no contribution being provided for from trade or merchandise. (The Temple - Its Ministry and Services as they were at the time of Christ, by Alfred Edersheim (1825-1889), chap. 19, p. 379)

When we look to the New Testament we can’t draw real parallels from the Old, for the intention was to support a government as well as the church.  In a sense this means that under the Old Testament, once taxes and church offerings were paid, 75% of most peoples income was left.  Of this, people could still make free will offerings.
As the original society under Moses in the desert would not have necessarily had any currency, most payments for other services were probably made with produce from the land: meats, etc. (although in some cases silver may have been in use). It is therefore somewhat natural that a tradition under the Old Testament of paying a generic 10% for the tithe on 'all that one earned' is understandable (Ref. Luke 18:12; Genesis 14:18-20), though not really arguable directly from scripture.
To answer the question more specifically by date, as it was first established within Christianity under Catholicism, I refer to a Catholic Encyclopedia that established it around 567 AD:

The payment of tithes was adopted from the Old Law, and early writers speak of it as a divine ordinance and an obligation of conscience. The earliest positive legislation on the subject seems to be contained in the letter of the bishops assembled at Tours in 567 and the canons of the Council of Maçon in 585. In course of time, we find the payment of tithes made obligatory by ecclesiastical enactments in all the countries of christendom.

By the "Old Law" the text means Mosaic Law. As far as the concept of gross versus net goes, this seems to be a more modern idea by hyper-fundamentalists, and I have not yet found its origin.


How should a Christian object to those who say Paradise may be a little boring?

If we could envision exactly what Heaven is going to be like, it wouldn't be Heaven, just as if we could comprehend God, He wouldn't be God.

Just as man should not create (in their own minds) a God made in their image, but understand that man was made in God's image.  So too we must not make Heaven in the image of the earth, but understand that earth reflects in part the image of Heaven.

When we think of playing a harp on a cloud in heaven and singing for eternity, I admit that it doesn't really sound like heaven--even though I love to sing and I think harps are really awesome.

Let me address your three points:

a) experience the same pleasures over and over again:  This is an earthly perspective.  There is no indication that we will be bound to pleasures that will lose their impact and result in boredom.  Rather, God being God certainly would have the capacity to give us eternal joy.  In fact, if God is infinite, it will take an eternity to get to know Him fully.

b) Looking down on others in Heaven:  Angels certainly have a special place in Heaven, having never known sin.  However, we have a special place as well, for we are the only ones for whom God the Son died.  God never became an angel, but He did become a man.  God's glory will be sufficiently wonderful to drown out all sin.  There will be no jealousy as we will all be overflowing with joy.

c) Separation from people we love:  Wherever you go in the world, it becomes evident that we were created for relationships.  However, we were not ultimately created for relationships just with each other, but for the ultimate relationship with the Ultimate Being.  So, our relationships with others are only shadows of the greater relationship we will experience.  Our joy of union with God will be far greater than all other unions.

God created us for Himself, and He will not merely satisfy us, but will give us abundant joy for eternity.  God is infinitely able to do immeasurably more than we ask or imagine.


What denomination uses church pews that face each other?

Arrangement of church pews is really not a function of denomination. The denomination I am most familiar with uses both forward-facing pews and inward facing pews .


Do non-Catholic traditions ever have family altars?

After some research via Google, I have found that, in general, Protestants think of the "family altar" as an act of family worship, rather than a physical place set aside for such things. The previous answer dealing with Protestants generally being iconoclasts sums that up quite well.

Wikipedia's "home altar" article, as of this writing, provides a picture of a family altar in "a Methodist Christian household," thereby indicating that some people from non-Catholic traditions set up physical places for family worship. The article also has references to Lutheran sources.


What did Jesus look like or did Jesus look different for certain people?

What did Jesus look like?
While the Bible doesn't give any detailed information as to Jesus' appearance, let's look at the facts:

Jesus was born of a Jewish woman, therefore he would have the characteristics of that particular nationality. He would blend in with the local people without standing out amongst a crowd. (John 7:10,11)
Jesus' hair would have been longish, probably around the shirt collar, but not long like that of women (1 Cor. 11:14)
Jesus would have a beard as was the custom for those following the Law of Moses (Lev. 19:27)
Being a carpenter for a time, Jesus had the physical traits of someone that did intensive labor. Let's not forget that Jesus did lots of walking during his 3 1/2 year ministry. (Matt. 9:35)

Some people have argued that Jesus was of African descent because of the description of Jesus in Revelation 1:14, 15. But the book of Revelation was presented "in signs" (Rev. 1:1) to the Apostle John, so the description of Jesus would have symbolic meanings. Take for example that Revelation also describes Jesus as having feet of bronze or copper (Rev. 1:15), but there is no race that has skin color like in that description.
Some people say that Jesus was weak or frail. Jesus was a man of action like when he overturned the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple. (John 2:14, 15) The only time Jesus needed help was after he had been whipped and beaten by Roman soldiers. (Luke 23:26)
If you would like more information on this topic, read the article "What Did Jesus Look Like?" on jw.org. This is just one of several "Bible Questions Answered".


The basic idea is that when Jesus spoke in parables, they were great in drawing people with open hearts to him while driving those with hard hearts into deep confusion.  Parables were a common mode of teaching among the Rabbis, but Christ used them in such a way that heaven shined down upon the most mundane every day practices of life. He also used them almost exclusively, which was not normal at all. Especially the more people began to reject him, the more he spoke strictly in parables and his parables took a greater tone of warning. They were deeply illuminating to the heart open to God. They were foolish nonsense, provoking mad frustration to those hard of heart. Therefore, they had a winnowing effect. They divided people. Some were left asking questions, seeking and knocking, others left stumbling and cursing questions.

In general, Christ's parables spoke about the nature of his kingdom.  How one was in it, or not, based on their nature, which would eventually show itself good or bad. Everything was about the nature of a person, not their works, but a good nature would grow up good, and a bad nature grow up bad. To enter into this kingdom of life, one had to believe in Christ, receive his seed, believe his word and be a new creature. In the end, the bad creatures, weeds, fish, would be tossed, burned, weep and gnash their teeth, etc. The good creatures by virtue of their being in the kingdom, would be congratulated, rewarded, etc. The language was vague enough to confuse anyone who was self righteous not knowing they needed faith and re-birth, but anyone who longed for forgiveness and felt the strings of their heart moved and warmed by Him whose words were eternal life, the same  were drawn in.

We can see this play out as when Christ started to say things hard to understand and receive, such as the need 'to eat his flesh', it was too much for many and they left him. The disciples were also confused but their hearts were drawn in and they could not leave him.

  From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
   “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
   Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. (John 6:66-68, NIV)

The same thing is at play when Jesus spoke to a religious leader who seems a bit on the fence between having what he had taken away, or entering into what he had being multiplied into new eternal rebirth:

  Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again. ’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
   “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked. (John 3:6-9, NIV)

Again Jesu spoke to a woman at a well who is on the fence and being drawn in.  Jesus implies that what she has will be multiplied into living waters of new eternal life:

  Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” (John 4:13-14, NIV)

In other words that which was a blessing to those open to God became judicial in judgment to those who were not open to God.  Like a magical filter his parables bought his sheep into the gate, and closed it in confusion to those who were not his sheep. His sheep were introduced into the gospel obtaining an eternal new birth. His enemies had no idea of anything he said and thought it was just meaningless babel. Even the form of knowledge they had of God was taken away when rejecting Christ, leaving them to cross their eyes is utter confusion.


Why is St. Philip the Evangelist called "the evangelist"?

In what way St. Paul uses the word "evangelist" may not be in the sense of writing a Gospel.

  "What is an evangelist?"

  An evangelist is someone who proclaims good news; in other words, a preacher of the gospel or a missionary. A person with the gift of evangelism is often someone who travels from place to place to preach the gospel and call for repentance. The human authors of the four Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—are sometimes called “the Evangelists” because they recorded the ministry of Jesus Christ—“good news,” indeed.

  Ephesians 4:11–13 states, “Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” In Acts 21:8 Philip is named as an evangelist, and in 2 Timothy 4:5 Paul exhorts Timothy to do the work of an evangelist. These are the only three uses of the word evangelist in the entire Bible. Other people could be considered “evangelists” in that they preached the good news, including Jesus Himself (Luke 20:1) and Paul (Romans 1:15), but Philip is the one person specifically called an evangelist in Scripture.

  Philip had been one of the seven deacons chosen so that the apostles could do their work of teaching and prayer (Acts 6:3). Evidently, Philip had settled in Caesarea and had lived there for some 20 years before Paul arrived in Acts 21. Philip’s previous evangelistic work was in Samaria (Acts 8:4–8). He “proclaimed the Messiah” to the Samaritans (verse 5) and performed miracles, including casting out demons and healing paralytics. It is noteworthy that Philip performed water baptism in the name of Jesus, but the baptism of the Holy Spirit did not occur until the apostles came to Samaria.

  Peter and John’s presence in Samaria and the Spirit’s indwelling of the believing Samaritans (Acts 8:17) confirmed Philip’s ministry there. As an evangelist, Philip had preached the gospel, and, when the Samaritans believed it and received the Spirit, they were welcomed into the church. Where there had previously been division and animosity between Jews and Samaritans, there now existed the spiritual bond of love (Colossians 3:14). Philip’s trailblazing efforts laid the foundation for his hearers to receive the Holy Spirit by faith. The evangelist’s pre-work unto salvation is what those called evangelists have done ever since.

  Philip’s ministry as an evangelist continues in Acts 8 as he is led by an angel to go the desert road to Gaza. On the road he meets an Ethiopian eunuch—a court official to the queen of Ethiopia. Philip opens the man’s understanding of the Word of God, and the eunuch is saved. Philip baptizes the man, and the Holy Spirit snatches Philip away (Acts 8:39). Philip later “appeared at Azotus and traveled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until he reached Caesarea” (verse 40). Everywhere he went, Philip shared the gospel. That’s what evangelists do.

There may be only a few historical hints as to why St. Philip is called the evangelist. It is not impossible that the term evangelist had anything to do with writing a gospel. It may be, in fact, that that he had a great influence on the evangelization of the Ethiopian nation, as well as to the fact that he preached the Gospel in many areas. Thus he was a true evangelist. In modern days do we not hear Billy Graham being referred to as an American "evangelist".

But first let us look at the New Testament:

  Philip bore a Greek name. He is first mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (6:5) as one of "Seven Deacons" who were chosen to attend to certain temporal affairs of the church in Jerusalem in consequence of the murmurings of the Hellenists against the Hebrews.

  After the martyrdom of Saint Stephen he went to "the city of Samaria", where he preached with much success, Simon Magus being one of his converts. He afterwards was told by an angel of the Lord to go to the road between Jerusalem and Gaza. There he instructed and baptized the Ethiopian eunuch; next he was "caught away" by the Spirit and "found at Azotus" (Ashdod), and then "pass[ed] through he preached in all the cities till he came to Caesarea" (Acts 8).

  Here some years afterwards, according to Acts 21:8–9, where he is described as "the evangelist" (a term found again in the New Testament only in Ephesians 4:11; [2 Timothy 4:5), he entertained Paul the Apostle and his companion on their way to Jerusalem; at that time "he had four daughters which did Prophecy". - Philip the Evangelist

In Catholic tradition he converted the Ethiopian eunuch of Queen Candace of Ethiopia and preach the Gospel wherever he went.

  Probably an Hellenized Jew. One of the seven Jerusalem deacons mentioned in the canonical Acts of the Apostles. Preached and performed miracles in Samaria, converting many including the magician Simon Magus. Commanded by an angel, he travelled from Jerusalem to Gaza. Converted and baptized the eunuch of Queen Candace of Ethiopia. Transported to Azotus, he preached throughout the region, finally returning to Caesarea where he lived with his four daughters, virgins with the gift of prophecy. Met with Saint Paul the Apostle on his last journey to Jerusalem. Some traditions say be became bishop of Tralles (modern Aydin, Turkey).

St. Philip the Deacon was a true evangelist.


Was that Pentecost in the Acts also a time of the year of jubilee?

As much as the Jubilee is important in Scripture, there is no evidence that one was ever actually declared in Israel's history.

This is noted as such by Jeffrey Fager and D.P. O'Brien in unrelated papers.

As such, there is no base from which to calculate the 50th year. More to the point for this question, there is no archeological or historical evidence of such a proclamation in the first half of the 1st century. (None later either, but since we don't know for certain when the Resurrection happened ( estimates range from 30 to 33 to 36 AD), I would be willing to consider any such declaration.) Unfortunately, there is none to be found.

That said, Jesus himself assuredly was the Jubilee. He says as much in Luke 4, when he preached on Isaiah 61:

  He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

  “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
     because he has anointed me
     to proclaim good news to the poor.
  He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
     and recovery of sight for the blind,
  to set the oppressed free,
     19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”[f]

  20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

The "Good News" is the Gospel that Jesus has redeemed his own. Man may have been lax in keeping the Jubilee, but God was faithful in declaring it nonetheless.

The Jubilee itself is heavily bound up wit the idea of redemption:

  Corollary to this provision was the right of redemption (ge˒ullâh) attached to the sale of any land by a Hebrew. One did not have to wait for the Year of Jubilee to recover one’s land; rather, it could be reclaimed at any time by the gō˒ēl (redeemer), a kinsman of the original owner, or by the owner himself, upon payment of a sum proportionate to the number of harvests remaining from the time of re-purchase to the next Jubilee Year (Lev 25:24–28). In any case, the land was to revert to its original owner at the time of the Jubilee. The primary theological basis for the “release” of slaves, debts and land was Yahweh’s ownership of both the people and the land

In presenting himself as the "Redeemer," Jesus himself is setting up the analogy of God reclaiming his own - the reason behind the Jubilee.  As such, we can state, Jesus is our Jubilee, because though we had been slaves to sin, God restored the rightful order.

  Luke’s narration of Jesus’ sermon in Nazareth represents a particular development in the eschato logical use of Jubilee Year themes: Jesus himself is presented as the anointed (messianic) herald of the long-awaited Year of Jubilee.

  The term “release” (aphesis) represents the primary theological and verbal connection with the levitical proclamation of Jubilee. The classical Greek employment of aphesis was in the legal sense of a “release” from office, marriage, obligation, debt or even punishment. The word was not used, however, in religious contexts. In the LXX, of the approximately fifty instances of aphesis, twenty-two are in Leviticus 25 and 27, where it translates in most cases the Hebrew yôḇel, “Year of Jubilee”; in other cases, most notably Leviticus 25:10, it translates derôr, “release.” Derôr, in fact, seems to have been the technical term of the prophets to indicate the Year of Jubilee, that is, “the year of release,” or “liberty,” as Jeremiah 34:8, 15, 17; Ezekiel 46:17; and Isaiah 61:1 indicate.

  Green, J. B., McKnight, S., & Marshall, I. H. (1992). Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (396). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

In paying for our sin on the cross, Jesus pays the redemption price for the world he created. In calling us sons and slaves, "joint heirs with Christ," we are free. As such, the Jubilee is for us.


Why must we obey the ten commandments if Jesus died for our sins?

I think your answer lies in The Threefold Uses of the Law, and more specifically, Romans 7:1,11,24

  1 Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." ... 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. ... 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!

In brief, the Law was meant to show us our sin. While it is required that you obey The Law, you are, by your nature, unable to (Romans 8:7). This is the hopeless estate of man. Jesus saves us by accomplishing two things:

He perfectly obeys the Law, providing obedience that we are missing and
He suffers the penalty for our sin.

That is termed Christ's active and passive obedience, active obedience being obeying the whole moral law of God (not only the Ten Commandments) and passive obedience being his obedient suffering on the cross.

The natural reaction, as was the reaction of Erasmus to Luther, is, if we are saved by Christ's work, and need not obey the Ten Commandments, then do we not then give license to evil behaviour? This is the argument in Romans 6:1, and the answer is, "By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?"

What Paul says in Romans 6:2 is that if we are truly changed by Holy Spirit, we have spiritually died with Christ and been raised to new life in Christ, then our nature (that nature which causes us to sin) will remain in our flesh but replaced in our spirit, and so we are regenerate and changed, still struggling with sin, but hating sin. We see this in Romans 7:25.

May I say, you've touched on the heart of the Gospel, but provoked some of the deeper theological nuances surrounding it. May I encourage you to find someone you can sit with in a coffee shop and do a study of Romans? Maybe pick up Martin Luther's commentary on Romans?


On the body of Satan and Holy Ghost and angels according to Mormons

1) We believe that Satan does not have and will never have a physical body.  Isa. 14:12:

  How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how
  art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

And then, D&C 76:25-27:

  And this we saw also, and bear record, that an angel of God who was in
  authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the Only
  Begotten Son whom the Father loved and who was in the bosom of the
  Father, was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son, and was
  called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son
  of the morning.  And we beheld, and lo, he is fallen! is fallen, even
  a son of the morning!

And finally, D&C 29:36-38:

  And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold,
  the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me
  thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of
  heaven turned he away from me because of their agency; and they were
  thrust down, and thus came the devil and his angels; and, behold,
  there is a place prepared for them from the beginning, which place is
  hell.

We discussed hell and Perdition answering your last set of questions.

The LDS Church believes that all people existed spiritually before the Earth was created.  During that "premortal existence" a council in heaven was held where our Heavenly Father presented his plan for our progression.  (We believe Job 38:4-7 also refers to this council.)  Lucifer's rebellion against our Father's plan sparked the War in Heaven referred to in Rev. 12:7-11.  Having been cast out, he and his followers (a third of the host of heaven) are denied entrance to the Earth and participation in our Father's plan.  Therefore, Lucifer and his followers will not receive bodies.

2) D&C 130:22 teaches the following:

  The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son
  also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a
  personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in
  us.

We know very little about the person we refer to as the Holy Ghost.  Being a part of this Plan, as Christ is, Church dogma (vs. doctrine) suggests that He will eventually have the privilege of a mortal body, resurrection, and exaltation.  However, even saying that is simply speculative.  There is simply no scripture or prophetic commentary that I'm aware of on the matter.

3) Remember that "heaven" is a bit more complicated in the LDS faith.  As for where the idea originates, or where the spirits come from, let's start with one verse, D&C 107:20 states:

  The power and authority of the lesser, or Aaronic Priesthood, is to
  hold the keys of the ministering of angels, and to administer in
  outward ordinances, the letter of the gospel, the baptism of
  repentance for the remission of sins, agreeable to the covenants and
  commandments.

As for where these ministering spirits come from, consider this: before the Earth was created, and speaking only within the realm of this Earth and not on behalf of any other creation of our Heavenly Father (about which we know practically nothing), those of His children destined for this world were all spirits.  Lucifer fell with a third the host, leaving 2/3 of the host destined for this world who would actually come to it (having "kept their first estate," Jude 1:6 and Abraham 3:26-28).  From the creation of Adam until (perhaps just before) the end of the world there will be spirit children of our Father waiting their turn to recieve mortality on this earth.  Excluding Lucifer and his followers (and describing this very simply... there's a lengthy discussion here), people will be receiving resurrection beginning with Jesus and ending with Judgement.  Therefore, spirits (call them angles if you like) are available to do the Father's and the Son's bidding until the very end.


What is the Biblical Basis of Eastern Orthodox Christians that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone?

John 15:26 seems to be the basis upon which the Eastern Orthodox Church believes the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.  Here is a partial quote from an article regarding the Eastern Orthodox teaching about the Filioque, although it should be noted that it makes no reference to any biblical text:

The position of the Eastern Orthodox Church regarding the Filioque controversy is defined by the Bible, teachings of the Church Fathers, creeds and definitions of the seven Ecumenical Councils and decisions of several particular councils of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
The Eastern Orthodox interpretation of the Trinity is that the Holy Spirit originates, has his cause for existence or being (manner of existence) from the Father alone as "One God, One Father"...  The position that having the creed say "the Holy Spirit which proceeds from the Father and the Son", does not mean that the Holy Spirit now has two origins, is the position the West took at the Council of Florence, as the Council declared the Holy Spirit "has His essence and His subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration.”  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_teaching_regarding_the_Filioque

Although there has never been a specific conciliar statement in the Orthodox Church which defined the filioque as heresy, it was denounced as heretical by the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs.  Here is an extract from a useful article that gives objections to the filioque on doctrinal grounds:

It is contrary to Scripture, particularly in John 15:26: "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me." Thus, Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit's procession in terms of the Father.
The justifications for including the filioque in the Creed—bolstering the divinity of the Son and emphasizing the unity of the Trinity—are redundant, given the original wording of the Creed. That is, the Son already is described as "light of light, very God of very God," and so forth. The Spirit also "with the Father and Son together is worshiped and glorified." Additionally, the Creed itself begins with a statement of belief in "one God."
The filioque distorts Orthodox Triadology by making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. Traditional Triadology consists in the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Positing that something can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit's procession) but not the other is to elevate those two Persons at the expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed.
Given the previous objection, the repercussions to the acceptance of the filioque into church life are potentially massive. Because how we relate to God is significantly affected by what we believe about him, false beliefs lead to damaging spirituality. One objection often raised about Filioquist theology is that it undermines the role of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Thus, with his role being denigrated, his traditional ministries are effaced or replaced. The Church's unity becomes dependent on an office, spirituality becomes adherence to the letter of the law rather than its spirit, sacraments come to be understood in terms of validity, and a spirit of legalism prevails.  https://orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque#Objections_on_doctrinal_grounds

Another source of information I found explains the background and history to the schism and made this observation:

Finally, the theology of rationalistic Western Scholasticism predominated among the Latin theologians and bishops and so obscured the biblical, patristic perspective long advocated by the East, in which the Spirit is said to proceed "from the Father" (as in John 15:26) or, more rarely, "from the Father through the Son" (as in some of the Fathers). The Eastern bishops had not imbibed the rationalist intellectualism of the West, and so were unconvinced by the highly abstract and convoluted arguments of the Scholastics. Hence, the agreement of Florence, intellectually, represented in many respects an imposition of Scholastic theology.  https://orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque#Attempted_reunions_and_the_Filioque_after_the_Schism

I found a non-Wiki source of information which may be helpful in explaining the Eastern Orthodox view regarding the "monarchy of the Father" as described by Fr. John Behr: https://solzemli.wordpress.com/2010/06/05/the-trinity-scripture-and-the-greek-fathers-by-fr-john-behr/


What will be the indication that God accepted Jesus' sacrifice on our behalf

The answer is found in Acts 17:30-31:

  “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all
  men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He
  will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained.
  He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

Jesus' resurrection from the dead after dying as a sacrificial lamb is proof that God has accepted Him. Also there is Hebrews 10:12:

  But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat
  down at the right hand of God,

Jesus sitting at God's right hand also vindicates His sacrifice. God has a place for Him right at His side.


Do Protestants appreciate the significance of Mary's genealogy?

In my church we interpret the Jeremiah reference to mean that the royal line of David will cease to rule any physical kingdom of this world. This has been fulfilled; no descendant of David now rules as a king in the geographical region known then as Judah.

Jesus' kingdom is not of this world (He said so to Pilate), and so the passage does not prohibit Him from being the King of that kingdom.

For this reason, Mary's ancestry is moot with regard to this issue.


Is the Israel of the NT the modern country?

Not at all. Israel itself has many meanings in the OT:

Israel = Jacob, son of Isaac
Israel = The nation of Israel (all 12 tribes of Israel)
Israel = The northern tribes of Israel (as opposed to Judah)
Israel = The people of God

The most common usage in the Old Testament is that it's referring to the nation of Israel (the full nation until Northern Israel went into Exile and then Judah). But although Israel were the people of God, many of them weren't really. We see this because of their sinful rebellion and God punishes them through two exiles. Their hearts were hard and they frequently chased after foreign gods.

And yet, we do find a portion of Israel, called the remnant or True Israel, who serve God as the nation were supposed to. We see this when Elijah is hiding after having slayed the priests of Baal and God tells him that he has preserved 7000 people faithful to him (1 Kings 19:18). In fact, all through the Old Testament, the idea of the faithful remnant is present. The remnant is really what the whole nation was supposed to be (a people who loved God and devoted themselves to honouring Him).

And so we come to the new Testament. Paul gives a great teaching on this in Romans:

  Romans 9:6-8 (NIV)
   6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

He makes the distinction I've explained above - not all Israel are Israel, i.e. not all of the nation of Israel are God's people (see one meaning of Israel applied to the first reference and another to the second). God has always kept Himself a faithful remnant and indeed, this is how it is for us as Christians. God's People (the New Israel) who are defined as people who accept God by faith, regardless of whether they are Jew or Gentile (Romans 3:21-31).

So returning to your verse:

  Romans 11:25-26a (NIV)
   25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way all Israel will be saved.

Christians everywhere are the new Israel, the People of God, and they comprise Jews and Gentiles. It has nothing to do with the modern country of Israel.


How does the Catholic Church respond to the claim that its authority to interpret scripture is based on circular reasoning?

The teaching of both Roman and Eastern traditions is that the Bible can only be understood in the context of culture and traditions which birthed it.

  The reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression. (CCC 110)

Understanding Paul but ignoring those who knew him (like Ignatius, Polycarp, or the contents of the Didache) would be like studying Luther but claiming anyone who knew him was a quack. All of those documents testify to a church with a defined set of bishops, given the authority to rule over and teach the Church (strikingly similar to the Episcopai Paul talks about in the New Testament).

The Church claims itself to be "the pillar and foundation of truth" (CCC 171 citing 1 Tim. 3:15). The Roman Catholic Church cites 1 Timothy as an example for people who view the Bible as authoritative (note: the Bible does NOT claim that title), but the Church would be the pillar and foundation even if Paul had never said that. In fact, there is a very, very long list authors, going back to the very beginning of Christianity who testify to the Church.

All of that said, you can still find testimony of the authority of the Church and the validity of her practices in scripture, but that is a different from saying "we interpret the Bible to endorse us therefore it endorses us".

As a counter argument, you might reply: The Bible speaks of deacons, presbyters, and episcopai. These were men selected and ordained by the Apostles for the purposes of administration and evangelization. These early authors claim to be or to know deacons, presbyters, and episcopai. They claim to have served under the Apostles. (we'll ignore the fact that presbyter came into English as "priest", and episcopai came into English as "bishop"). Their instruction and testimony is a valid source of instruction in matters of faith.


Can a Mormon reach salvation if they do not pay tithes?

First, the word salvation needs to be defined.  In the LDS church, salvation "means to be saved from physical and spiritual death." (See Salvation and Exaltation by Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.) In the LDS church, members strive for exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom, which is the highest glory one can obtain in the next life, and is usually also considered part of "being saved" in LDS rhetoric.  In order to be saved, you have to have lived "a life of obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel and service to Christ." (See: The Guide to the Scriptures: Salvation.)

In order to receive full celestial glory (or exaltation) after this life, you must receive the ordinances of the temple: "The principal purpose of temples is to provide the ordinances necessary for our exaltation in the celestial kingdom." (See True to the Faith: Temples.)

One of the questions in the interview to receive a temple recommend asks if you are a full tithe payer. Therefore, to enter the temple, "The person must certify that he or she is . . . paying a full tithing." (See: Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple).

In the temple you make sacred covenants that require you to live worthily to enter the temple. "The ordinance consists of a series of instructions and includes covenants we make to live righteously and comply with the requirements of the gospel." (See: True to the Faith: Temples.)  Therefore, one must keep the commandments, one of which is tithing, in order to be saved and exalted.  See Tithing.

(All links are to www.lds.org: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints)


How did Paul know so much about Melchizedek?

The writer of Hebrews approached the subject of Melchizedek through a combination of different avenues.

1) What’s listed explicitly in the text, through both direct information from scripture (the King of Salem/Peace), and through translation of his name (King of Righteousness).

2) The way Melchizedek acted, playing the part of a priest by blessing God’s people.

3) The way Melchizedek was treated, Abraham giving him a tithe indicating his superiority to Abraham.

4) The reference to the “Priestly Order of Melchizedek” in the Psalms.

Taking the above into account, The writer of Hebrews is anticipating the objection to Jesus’ priesthood on the grounds of Him being from the line of Judah, not Levi. The writer is pointing to this “other order” that wasn’t from the line of Levi (because Levi was from Abraham, and Melchizedek is clearly outside of the line of Abraham).

The author develops this point further by both literary reference and literary license. Because the character of Melchizedek just appeared and disappeared in the Torah, it’s “as if” he didn’t have a beginning or end, “as if” his priestly order has always been. Because Abraham tithed to Melchizedek and was blessed, and because the superior always blesses the inferior, then logically the priestly order of Melchizedek must be greater than the priestly order of Levi (Melchizedek > Abraham > Levi).

The writer of Hebrews didn’t have any special knowledge of Melchizedek, he just expounded on the available information as the Holy Spirit led him, both through his own understanding and the clear messianic nature of Psalm 110, which is referring to Jesus the Messiah.


What are the major differences between evangelical Christianity and Mormonism?

The "Evangelical" movement spreads across an incredibly wide range of beliefs, so it will be hard to nail this down, but a few things come to mind that ought to have broad acceptance and make at least some form of answer possible. For convenience in the rest of this answer, please treat the word "Evangelical" merely as broadly representing "Most Evangelicals".

Mormons believe men can become Gods, or become like God on this earth. Evangelicals believe God is the singular, unique, and supreme being, and any human transcendence takes place after death or Jesus' return.
Mormons see Jesus as a separate entity from God the Father. Evangelicals view God the Father and Jesus as parts of the same entity. It's hard to understate how important this point is, especially in light of the first point: the Mormon view withholds from Jesus some part of God's place as the unique divinity.
Mormons believe a prophet lead a group of Jews out of Jerusalem to the New World (America) around 600BC, where for a time they flourished. Evangelicals do not.
Mormons believe a prophet to that group created a certain set of gold tablets, which Joseph Smith later translated. Evangelicals believe these tablets are utter bunk.
Mormons believe Jesus incarnate visited the North American Continent. Evangelicals do not.
Mormons believe in the writings and teachings of Joseph Smith, that they are related directly or almost directly from God. Evangelicals believe Joseph Smith to be somewhere in between a deliberate con-artist, charlatan, and mentally unstable, and point to serious concerns over the credibility of Joseph Smith's claim to 8 witnesses.
Mormons believe the Apostle John is still alive. Evangelicals (with some exception) do not.
Yes, Mormons have allowed and supported polygamy. Evangelicals, at this time, do not, but there are places in the world and times in history where this does not hold.
Mormons believe in something called Pre-mortal Life. Evangelicals do not.
Mormons practice Baptism for the Dead. Evangelicals do not.
Mormons practice a ritual known as "Endowments". Evangelicals do not.
Mormons believe all men will come to glory, but non-believers will come to less glory than practicing Christians... but there is no hell. Evangelicals believe in eternal punishment for non-believers and all those who refuse to submit to the will of God.

The root question here, though, is whether or not Mormons are themselves even Christian. To understand this, you need to look at it from both sides. In a broad sense, for our purpose here one is a Christian when one acknowledges the person of Christ as their creator, savior, and Lord. Everything else — all the denominations, splits, and arguments — are just details.

With that in mind, the Non-mormon Christian perspective is that Mormons have been lead astray, and have allowed the teachings of Joseph Smith and his successors to supersede and in many cases replace those of Christ... and so they no longer follow Christ supremely, but (perhaps unwittingly) follow the teachings of Joseph Smith instead. Moreover, since Mormons refuse to grant Jesus full unity with God the Father, but hold him separate from God the Father, it is offensive to mainline Christians to watch Mormons hold up the teachings of Joseph Smith above or before the level of Christ, yet still use the name of Christ to describe themselves.

The Mormon perspective is Joseph Smith's teachings are Christ's teachings; Joseph Smith was merely His mouthpiece. They hold both the Old and New Testaments to be scripture (just not all scripture). To be considered "not Christian" is offensive to Mormons, because they still believe Christ died for their sins, just as "regular" Christians do.


Why didn't Mary tell Joseph what Gabriel had said to her?

If we look at the part from Matthew, it is clear that Mary knew she was pregnant, or was getting pregnant before Joseph did. Joseph thinks about putting her away before he has a dream where he is told to stay with her. Matthew 1:19:

  19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make
  her a public example, was minded to put her away privily

Joseph is thinking of putting her away because he is a just man, he knows the scripture that says in Deteronomy 22:22-27 that, at least Mary, is in trouble.

  22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then
  they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and
  the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
  23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a
  man find her in the city, and lie with her;
  24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and
  ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she
  cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his
  neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
  25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man
  force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall
  die.
  26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel
  no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his
  neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
  27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and
  there was none to save her.

Mary might, very likely, have told Joseph about the visitation of Gabriel. If she told, it did not matter for Joseph to worry. He knew that the Law forbids Mary to have had sex before they are married. The thought of putting Mary away is because no one will believe that Mary was pregnant from the Holy Ghost (yet). This makes being pregnant for very dangerous for Mary, and perhaps also for Joseph.


It means "We Have a Pope!"

Usually the media declares this as soon as it sees white smoke, but the proper announcement is actually given by the Cardinal Protodeacon a short time later. Here is the English text of the full announcement, from the recent election of Pope Francis:

  I announce to you a great joy: We have a pope!
  The most eminent and most reverend lord, Lord Jorge, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, Bergoglio, who has taken for himself the name Francis.

From Wikipedia:

  Habemus Papam! ("We Have a Pope!") is the announcement given in Latin by the Cardinal Protodeacon, the senior Cardinal Deacon, upon the election of a new pope. The announcement is given from the central balcony of St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. After the announcement, the new pope is presented to the people and he gives his first Urbi et Orbi blessing.

The practice of giving this announcement actually goes back to the election of Martin V in 1417. At that time, several people had claim to the papacy, so when this was resolved with the election of Martin V, there was great joy, since the people finally had a pope. From New Short History of the Catholic Church, quoted on news.va:

  Pope Gregory XII, of the Roman line, was persuaded to resign in July. John XXIII also abdicated, under pressure. Benedict XIII, of the Avignon line, adamantly refused to resign and was eventually deposed by the council. Thereby the path was cleared for a fresh election and in November 1417 Oddo Colonna was duly elected by the council and took the name Martin V.

The announcement looked like this:


According to Catholicism, is it a sin to participate in gambling such as State Lottery?

Is gambling always a sin according to Catholicism?

The short answer is no.

  In its moral aspect, although gambling usually has a bad meaning, yet we may apply to it what was said about betting. On certain conditions, and apart from excess or scandal, it is not sinful to stake money on the issue of a game of chance any more than it is sinful to insure one's property against risk, or deal in futures on the produce market. -  Catholic Encyclopedia

There is at least one patron saints of gambling: St. Cajetan.

  St. Cajetan (known as St. Cayetano in Spanish-speaking countries) is the Patron Saint of Gamblers. Cajetan, born in 1480, was a lawyer and the son of a wealthy family. Driven by a desire to reform the Church, he traveled to Rome, became a priest, and founded a religious order. He used his family fortune to create hospitals that served both the physical and moral needs of the poor. He also established pawn shops and credit unions to provide loans to the poor.

  Cajetan's connection to gambling is obscure. Popular lore says the people would ask him for a favor, and bet him a rosary that he couldn't come through. Since he always came through, he was able to get people to pray more. Based on what I know of saints, this feels like a pious retrofitting of a reason to a patronage, and it just doesn't sound likely.

  It's more probable that his loans helped people get out from under the predatory interest rates of loan sharks, and many of the these loans were the result of gambling debts. Then, as now, a compulsive gambler could destroy his family, so it seems more likely that Cajetan probably helped problem gamblers get back on the right path both financially and morally. - Who Is The Patron Saint of Gaming?


Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Unfaithful Wife

It would appear that the two don't relate at all. I suspect that these verses in the resource that you've linked to are as a result of a transcription error as they don't appear at all in this version nor even in the version that studylight claims for it's source.


Gregorian Chant - Is it merely a form of music, like Hymns, or is there a deeper meaning?

During the St. Gregory I papacy (590–604) this form of music was collected and codified, and was (and still is) strictly linked to the liturgy.

In this sense, this is not just a style of music, but it goes together with the Mass and the prayer of "The canonical hours", consisting of eight prayer services: Matins, Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline.

Gregorian Chant purpose was hence to accompaign the liturgy, but the liturgy itself was build together with the chant. In this sense it has a deeper meaning. It's part of the liturgy.

There are the following good links you could view, which give more detail about the chant.

Gregorian Chant @Britannica
Gregorian Chant @catholic encyclopedia

In general, Gregorian Chant is part of the longlasting Church tradition. It is now still commonly used by Order of Saint Benedict and other monastic orders. In this sense you can find a deeper meaning, because it recalls all the monastic tradition ellements: the silence, the prayer of the hearth.. and others.

I hope this answers to your question.


What exactly does it mean that Jesus Christ is the son of God?

I'll try to answer this from several different views - the main three (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox) and also the LDS view, since the LDS view is significantly different from the other three, and deserves a distinct treatment.

The mainstream Christian view (Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic) is covered by Apologetics Press in this article:  What Does it Mean to Say Jesus is the "Son of God"?.  The answer, for most Christians, has its roots in the Jewish understanding of the terms.  Bear in mind that this refers to the title "Son of God", and doesn't negate the teaching that Jesus is God.

An excerpt from the article:

  The earliest Christians were Jews who were familiar with at least two
  distinct applications of the term “son of God.” In the first place,
  the term had a general application to all Israelites. When their
  ancestors were held in Egyptian bondage, Moses was sent to Pharaoh
  with these words: “Thus says the Lord: Israel is My son, My firstborn.
  So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me” (Exodus 4:22-23;
  see also Hosea 11:1). Through the years, Yahweh loved, protected,
  comforted, and chastened Israel, just as a loving parent would nurture
  and discipline children (Malachi 2:10; Isaiah 66:13; et al.).

  The second usage was more specific. Historically, the term had a royal
  connotation for many nations of the Ancient Near East. It was
  commonplace for Egyptian, Babylonian, Canaanite, and Roman rulers to
  be called “son of God” (Fossum, 1992, pp. 128-137). These kings even
  were deified and surrounded by legends about their miraculous
  births—often including stories of gods copulating with humans
  (Sanders, 1993, pp. 243-245). This royal connotation also was known in
  Israel, although they did not deify their kings (O’Collins, 1995, p.
  117).

  When the New Testament writers referred to Jesus as “Son of God,” they
  sometimes employed the term in ways that echoed these two common uses.
  After those who threatened the life of the child Jesus died, Joseph
  was given instructions in a dream to return from Egypt to his
  homeland. When Matthew reported this event, he said it fulfilled Hosea
  11:1: “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called
  my son” (see Matthew 2:15). In other words, Jesus was God’s Son as an
  Israelite, and in a real sense, the True Israelite.

The link above is a fair Protestant understanding.  The Catholic teaching is the same, and though I can't currently find a reference, i believe it is the same in Eastern Orthodoxy.

Also, in the mainstream Christian view, Jesus, in His human incarnation, was conceived supernaturally (without sex) in the womb of Mary, enabling her virgin birth.  This would certainly set Him apart as different from the rest of us.  In a sense, he is the Son of God because God was the one who caused Mary to conceive.  (I'm probably saying that badly).

As for God having a unique love toward Jesus, in Gill's commentary on Matthew 3:17

  in whom I am well pleased. Jehovah the Father took infinite delight
  and pleasure in him as his own Son, who lay in his bosom before all
  worlds; and was well pleased with him in his office relation, and
  capacity: he was both well pleased in him as his Son, and delighted in
  him as his servant, Isaiah 42:1 he was pleased with his assumption of
  human nature; with his whole obedience to the law; and with his
  bearing the penalty and curse of it, in the room and stead of his
  people: he was well pleased with and for his righteousness, sacrifice
  and atonement; whereby his law was fulfilled, and his justice
  satisfied. God is not only well pleased in, and with his Son, but with
  all his people, as considered in him; in him he loves them, takes
  delight in them, is pacified towards them, and graciously accepts of
  them. It would be almost unpardonable, not to take notice of the
  testimony here given to the doctrine of the Trinity; since a voice was
  heard from the "father" in heaven, bearing witness to "the Son" in
  human nature on earth, on whom "the Spirit" had descended and now
  abode. The ancients looked upon this as so clear and full a proof of
  this truth, that they were wont to say; Go to Jordan, and there learn
  the doctrine of the Trinity. Add to all this, that since this
  declaration was immediately upon the baptism of Christ, it shows that
  his Father highly approved of, and was well pleased with his
  submission to that ordinance; and which should be an encouraging
  motive to all believers to follow him in it.

  Also from the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

  And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is—Mark and Luke give it in the direct form, "Thou art." (Mr 1:11; Lu 3:22).

  my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased—The verb is put in the
  aorist to express absolute complacency, once and for ever felt towards
  Him. The English here, at least to modern ears, is scarcely strong
  enough. "I delight" comes the nearest, perhaps, to that ineffable
  complacency which is manifestly intended; and this is the rather to be
  preferred, as it would immediately carry the thoughts back to that
  august Messianic prophecy to which the voice from heaven plainly
  alluded (Isa 42:1),

The LDS view is a bit different - LDS doctrine includes the idea that God is actively procreating in Heaven, and produces "spirit children".  These spirit children choose the human lives they will lead, so all of us pre-existed in Heaven with our actual spiritual father.  In LDS theology, Jesus was the first, and chose to be perfect and to suffer as he did to redeem man, as was God's plan.  Lucifer was another child of God, who wanted to offer salvation by removing the penalties of the law, thus destroying our free agency.

See Pre-Mortal Life - Mormon Wiki


According to Catholicism, what is an imprimatur?

Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat

"Imprimatur" is Latin for "let it be printed."  An imprimatur is a bishop's permission to print a religious book.  The bishop is always the local ordinary of the author who wrote the book.  The Catholic Code of Canon Law, canons 822-4, requires pastors to help guide the faithful in their use of social communication and particularly books.  The imprimatur is one way that charge is carried out.

An imprimatur is always preceded by a "nihil obstat," which is Latin for "nothing stands in the way."  This is the judgment that the religious book contains no significant doctrinal errors.  Both the imprimatur and the nihil obstat are negative judgments insofar as they are not meant to positively approve the contents of the book, but are merely meant to say that it is not disapproved.  It sometimes happens that imprimaturs or nihil obstats are revoked after a period of time due to a discovery of doctrinal errors in the work.

Answering Specific Questions

"What is the scope of an imprimatur?

The scope covers the entire book as published, but not new versions of the same book.  It is a practice which is only carried out for religious texts because it is a judgment about how the book comports with the doctrines of the Catholic Church, doctrines which involve faith and morals.  It is a negative assessment insofar as it is not meant to approve the book or any proposition in the book.  It is not an endorsement (see above).

"What does a work having an imprimatur mean for that work?"

It means that the local bishop believes the work is fit to print.  See above for more detail.

"What does it mean for the body of doctrine itself?"

As far as the deposit of faith of the Church is concerned, it means very little.  Per canons 822-3, it is a service to the faithful, not a means of developing or promulgating doctrine.  Although it is a judgment about the presence of errors in a work, imprimaturs and nihil obstats can be revoked, as noted above.  It is also a diocesan-based initiative in the sense that each diocese has a bishop and at least one censor (a theologian approved to render a nihil obstat), so the opinion represents the decision of a single diocese rather than the whole Church.

Newman on St. Alphonsus Liguori

St. John Henry Newman writes about the beatification process of St. Alphonsus Liguori, part of which was an examination of Liguori's writings in a way that would be very similar to the examination carried out by those authorized to give the imprimatur or nihil obstat.  Although this process is more precise, thorough, and authoritative than an imprimatur or nihil obstat, I believe it may help shed some light on your question at a deeper level.  Please forgive the length:

  It is supposed by Protestants that, because St. Alfonso's writings have had such high commendation bestowed upon them by authority, therefore they have been invested with a quasi-infallibility. This has arisen in good measure from Protestants not knowing the force of theological terms. The words to which they refer are the authoritative decision that "nothing in his works has been found worthy of censure," "censurâ dignum;" but this does not lead to the conclusions which have been drawn from it. Those words occur in a legal document, and cannot be interpreted except in a legal sense. In the first place, the sentence is negative; nothing in St. Alfonso's writings is positively approved; and secondly it is not said that there are no faults in what he has written, but nothing which comes under the ecclesiastical censura, which is something very definite. To take and interpret them, in the way commonly adopted in England, is the same mistake, as if one were to take the word "apologia" in the English sense of apology, or "infant" in law to mean a little child.

  Now first as to the meaning of the form of words viewed as a proposition. When they were brought before the fitting authorities at
  Rome by the Archbishop of Besançon, the answer returned to him
  contained the condition that those words were to be interpreted, "with
  due regard to the mind of the Holy See concerning the approbation of
  writings of the servants of God, ad effectum Canonisationis." This is
  intended to prevent any Catholic taking the words about St. Alfonso's
  works in too large a sense. Before a saint is canonised, his works are
  examined and a judgment pronounced upon them. Pope Benedict XIV. says,
  "The end or scope of this judgment is, that it may appear, whether the
  doctrine of the servant of God, which he has brought out in his
  writings, is free from any soever theological censure." And he remarks
  in addition, "It never can be said that the doctrine of a servant of
  God is approved by the Holy See, but at most it can [only] be said
  that it is not disapproved (non reprobatam) in case that the revisers
  had reported that there is nothing found by them in his works, which
  is adverse to the decrees of Urban VIII., and that the judgment of the
  Revisers has been approved by the sacred Congregation, and confirmed
  by the Supreme Pontiff." The Decree of Urban VIII. here referred to
  is, "Let works be examined, whether they contain errors against faith
  or good morals (bonos mores), or any new doctrine, or a doctrine
  foreign and alien to the common sense and custom of the Church." The
  author from whom I quote this (M. Vandenbroeck, of the diocese of
  Malines) observes, "It is therefore clear, that the approbation of the
  works of the Holy Bishop touches not the truth of every proposition,
  adds nothing to them, nor even gives them by consequence a degree of
  intrinsic probability." He adds that it gives St. Alfonso's theology
  an extrinsic probability, from the fact that, in the judgment of the
  Holy See, no proposition deserves to receive a censure; but that "that
  probability will cease nevertheless in a particular case, for any one
  who should be convinced, whether by evident arguments, or by a decree
  of the Holy See, or otherwise, that the doctrine of the Saint deviates
  from the truth." He adds, "From the fact that the approbation of the
  works of St. Alfonso does not decide the truth of each proposition, it
  follows, as Benedict XIV. has remarked, that we may combat the
  doctrine which they contain; only, since a canonised saint is in
  question, who is honoured by a solemn culte in the Church, we ought
  not to speak except with respect, nor to attack his opinions except
  with temper and modesty."
  Then, as to the meaning of the word censura: Benedict XIV. enumerates a number of "Notes" which come under that name; he says,
  "Out of propositions which are to be noted with theological censure,
  some are heretical, some erroneous, some close upon error, some
  savouring of heresy," and so on; and each of these terms has its own
  definite meaning. Thus by "erroneous" is meant, according to Viva, a
  proposition which is not immediately opposed to a revealed
  proposition, but only to a theological conclusion drawn from premisses
  which are de fide; "savouring of heresy," when a proposition is
  opposed to a theological conclusion not evidently drawn from premisses
  which are de fide, but most probably and according to the common mode
  of theologising, and so with the rest. Therefore when it was said by
  the revisers of St. Alfonso's works that they were not "worthy of
  censure," it was only meant that they did not fall under these
  particular Notes.

  But the answer from Rome to the Archbishop of Besançon went further
  than this; it actually took pains to declare that any one who pleased
  might follow other theologians instead of St. Alfonso. After saying
  that no priest was to be interfered with who followed St. Alfonso in
  the Confessional, it added, "This is said, however, without on that
  account judging that they are reprehended who follow opinions handed
  down by other approved authors."

  And this too, I will observe, that St. Alfonso made many changes of
  opinion himself in the course of his writings; and it could not for an
  instant be supposed that we were bound to every one of his opinions,
  when he did not feel himself bound to them in his own person. And,
  what is more to the purpose still, there are opinions, or some
  opinion, of his which actually has been proscribed by the Church
  since, and cannot now be put forward or used. I do not pretend to be a
  well-read theologian myself, but I say this on the authority of a
  theological professor of Breda, quoted in the Mélanges Théol. for
  1850-1. He says: "It may happen, that, in the course of time, errors
  may be found in the works of St. Alfonso and be proscribed by the
  Church, a thing which in fact has already occurred."

Sources

Wikipedia - Imprimatur
Wikipedia - Nihil Obstat
"What are Imprimi Potest, Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat?" by Fr. Bartunek
Apologia pro Vita Sua, by John Henry Newman (Section 8 of the appendix)
Code of Canon Law, Canons 822-4


Mormon perspective on "Heavenly Father", "Heavenly Mother" and "Holy Ghost"

The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct beings.
In Latter-day Saint theology, Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct individuals. Doctrine and Covenants 130, a revelation received by Joseph Smith, states the following:

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. (D&C 130:22)

Heavenly Father had a glorified physical body from the before the world was created. Jesus Christ, however, did not have a physical body until his mortal ministry (Ether 3:16). Now, as a resurrected being, He has a glorified physical body like Heavenly Father's.
We don't know a lot about Heavenly Mother (pretty much everything we know is in the article you linked above), but from what we do know, we can presume that her physical nature is similar to Heavenly Father's – already with a glorified physical body from before this world was created. We know from the scriptures that once we receive a resurrected body, the spirit and body will never again be divided (D&C 138:17). Heavenly Mother could not have been born physically again as Mary (we can only have one body at a time!). Mary, despite her honored calling, was a spirit child of heavenly parents like the rest of us.
Latter-day Saints pray to Heavenly Father, in the name of Jesus Christ.
Latter-day Saints worship both Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (especially in hymns, where either may be addressed). But when we pray, we only pray to Heavenly Father, and we do it in the name of Jesus Christ. From an article on LDS.org:

The Church's first article of faith states, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." These three beings make up the Godhead. They preside over this world and all other creations of our Father in Heaven.
The Mormon view of the members of the Godhead corresponds in a number of ways with the views of others in the Christian world, but with significant differences. Latter-day Saints pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. They acknowledge the Father as the ultimate object of their worship, the Son as Lord and Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit as the messenger and revealer of the Father and the Son. But where Latter-day Saints differ from other Christian religions is in their belief that God and Jesus Christ are glorified, physical beings and that each member of the Godhead is a separate being. ("Godhead," LDS.org)

Elohim is a name or title that refers to Heavenly Father.
Usually the name Elohim is used to refer to Heavenly Father, and Jehovah refers to Jesus Christ (especially the pre-mortal Jesus Christ). From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (not an official Church publication, but generally a reliable resource):

Elohim appears in the Hebrew Bible as a common noun identifying Israel's God. ... It was also frequently used interchangeably with Jehovah, the proper name for Israel's God. ... Latter-day Saints use the name Elohim in a more restrictive sense as a proper name-title identifying the Father in Heaven. ("Elohim," Encyclopedia of Mormonism)


Was any transgender person ever ordained as a Catholic priest?

The short answer is no.

  According to the Catholic Church's moral doctrine, homosexual attraction is disordered, and homosexual acts themselves are sinful. However, the Church does allow the ordination of men who may have, in the past, experienced same-sex attraction, but only on the condition that they have lived without engaging in "homosexual culture" or acts for several years, and that have no "deep-seated homosexual tendencies". Priests in the Latin Church are required to live by the Church's teachings, and most make a vow or promise of celibacy.

  A 2006 survey suggests that Roman Catholic church-goers in the US were almost evenly split on whether homosexual men should or should not serve as priests or bishops.

  A 2000 document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith concludes that sex-change procedures do not change a person’s sex. "The key point," said the document, "is that the transsexual surgical operation is so superficial and external that it does not change the personality. If the person was a male, he remains male. If she was female, she remains female." However, those who have undergone such a procedure are prevented from ordination or admission to consecrated religious life. - Homosexuality and Roman Catholic priests (Wikipedia)

The Vatican is very clear on this matter:

  Consequently, the document instructs bishops never to alter the sex
   listed in parish baptismal records and says Catholics who have
   undergone "sex-change" procedures are not eligible to marry, be
   ordained to the priesthood or enter religious life, according to a
   source familiar with the text. - Vatican says 'sex-change' operation does not change person's gender

Nevertheless some breakaway Catholic groups have ordained such persons as seen here and here. These ordinations are invalid in the eyes of the Catholic Church.


How were missionaries able to convert native populations?

The power of the Holy Ghost

In "Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service" (the manual used by LDS missionaries) it states (in Chapter 4)

  The power of the Holy Ghost. The witness that comes to sincere
  investigators before baptism comes through the power of the Holy
  Ghost. “The power [of the Holy Ghost] can come upon one before
  baptism, and is the convincing witness that the gospel is true. It
  gives one a testimony of Jesus Christ and of his work and the work of
  his servants upon the earth” (Bible Dictionary, “Holy Ghost,” 704).
  The Holy Ghost testifies of truth. All people can know the
  truthfulness of the Book of Mormon through the power of the Holy
  Ghost. “By the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all
  things” (Moroni 10:5).

This applies to both native and non-native populations that missionaries have taught or are currently teaching.

Of course, this is not the only method used by Christian missionaries throughout history. Some Churches in the past have relied on coercion, unfortunately. But sincere and lasting conversion can only come via the power of the Holy Ghost.


Why did the high priests try Jesus on charges of Blasphemy if He fulfilled their prophecy?

The Jewish priests expected the Messiah to come in like a Lion with great fanfare and overwhelming military might for subduing the enemies of Israel.  They did not expect the Messiah to be born in humble circumstances or to grow up as a common craftsman.

Jesus threatened the authority and the lifestyle that the priests had grown accustomed to, as they grew very rich while helping the Roman authorities to maintain control over Israelite-controlles towns.  Several times in the Gospels (Mat 23:1-4, Luke 11:37-44), Jesus directly rebukes the priests on multiple issues.

  ... the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law. Matthew 7:28-29

Many people were putting their trust in the teachings of Jesus instead of the priests.

It must have been difficult for the Jewish Priests to consider that the promised Messiah would come as a threat to themselves, God's representatives to His own people. They viewed him as being opposed to the established authority that controlled the Temple and the People, which would likely seem contrary to what they might expect from the long-awaited Messiah.


Why does God promise descendants for Hagar?

God's promise to Abraham was that he would have descendants as numerous as the Stars, what he did not promise is that they would all be his chosen people only that Isaac would.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation unless otherwise noted.

  Genesis 12:7  And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.

This is not the promised land it is the middle east, (or what is now the Arabic nations), this is the promise God made to Abraham:

  Genesis 15:1 through 6  After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

(This should also answer your other question concerning Isaac)

  Genesis 15:13 through 16  And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

Even though this was many years before Jacob became Israel it is clearly the Nation of Israel that God is referring to. This not only shows that God is precognizant of events, but that he has a particular path upon which he intends his blessings to flow.

As for showing compassion to Hagar let's take a look at that:

  Genesis 16:7 through 13  And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?

By that last statement it is evident that she has not served God, since she is asking why are you looking out for me, have I served you in some way I am not aware of? Also sending her back to be subjected to Sari after the way Sari treated her doesn't seem much like  compassion to me.

  Genesis 16:3 through 6  And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes. And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee. But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.

So it was Sari who caused Hagar to be cast out into the wilderness to start with, and that after setting up Hagar to bear Abraham's child in her place since she could not have children of her own.

  Genesis 16:1 and 2  Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.

The descendants of Ishmael are the Arabic Nations, the descendants of Esau are the Palestinians, and the descendants of Jacob is the Nation of Israel: and this is the fulfillment of the covenant God made with Abraham. There was no promise made to Hagar, and matter of fact she was always harshly treated by her mistress. So I fail to understand why you feel that God had compassion on Hagar.


What Scriptural basis has been used in Christianity to support the idea that a fetus posseses the soul?

Jeremiah 1:5

  "Before you were formed in the womb, I knew you."

This conflicts with Exodus 21:22

  22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.

(The implication here is that a fetus is treated as property, not life)


Why did ancient catechumens delay baptism as long as possible?

In the first centuries CE, religious instruction was at first given after baptism. In later centuries, believers were given increasingly specific instructions before being baptized, especially in the face of heresies in the 4th century.
By the fourth and fifth centuries CE, baptism had become a several-week-long rite leading up to the actual baptismal washing on Easter. During this time, catechumens attended several meetings of intensive catechetical instruction, often by the bishop himself, and often accompanied by special prayers, exorcisms, and other rites. By then, postponement of baptism had become general, and a large proportion of believers were merely catechumens (Constantine was not baptized until he was dying); but as baptisms of the children of Christians, using an adaptation of the rite intended for adults, became more common than baptisms of adult converts, the number of catechumens decreased.
The motivation for postponing baptism was likely that baptism was believed to forgive sins, so the issue of sins committed after baptism arose (the general practice of confession was not established until the 11th century CE).


How did the phrase "getting to know Jesus" come to be ubiquitous among Evangelicals (i.e. Campus Crusade for Christ)?

How did the phrase “getting to know Jesus” come to be ubiquitous among Evangelicals (i.e. Campus Crusade for Christ)?

"Getting to know" someone is indicative of a progressively deepening relationship. It is a phrase that would come naturally to a ministry to youth that makes a distinction of an active personal relationship with Jesus in contrast to the frequently held view that many denominations present Jesus as a system of rules or rituals that you are compelled to follow. There is Biblical support for this deeper Christian life.

  1 John 5:20  And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given
  us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in
  him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God,
  and eternal life.

  Philippians 3:10  That I may know him, and the power of his
  resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made
  conformable unto his death;

  Revelation 3:20  Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man
  hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup
  with him, and he with me.

The phrase would resonate with those Christians seeking more from their Christian life than checking off denominational criteria from a list. The "house church" movement can be seen as also attempting to live the Christian life in a more relational as opposed to institutional or organizational way.

I would say that the phrase came to be more widely used because there is market for those who seek to know Jesus better than some alternatives allow.