Is confirmation part of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) doctrine?

Chapter 57 from The Book of Church Order--part of the PCA's doctrinal standards, along with the Westminster Confession of Faith--(a link to such in pdf format can be found here) is titled "The Admission of Persons to Sealing Ordinances".

Children who have been infant-baptised are not to take part in communion:

  57-1.  Believers’ children within the Visible Church, and especially
  those  dedicated to God in Baptism, are non-communing members under
  the care of  the Church. They are to be taught to love God, and to
  obey and serve the  Lord Jesus Christ. When they are able to understand
  the Gospel, they should  be earnestly reminded that they are members
  of the Church by birthright, and  that it is their duty and privilege
  personally to accept Christ, to confess Him  before men, and to seek
  admission to the Lord’s Supper.

Each congregation (represented by a council of elected elders) decides when such a person is ready to received communion:

  57-2.  The time when young persons come to understand the Gospel
  cannot  be precisely fixed. This must be left to the prudence of the
  Session, whose  office it is to judge, after careful examination, the
  qualifications of those who  apply for admission to sealing
  ordinances.

At this time a public profession is recommended but not necessary:

  57-4.  It is recommended, as edifying and proper, that baptized
  persons,  when admitted by the Session to the Lord’s Supper, make a
  public profession  of their faith in the presence of the
  congregation. But in all cases, there should be a clear recognition
  of their previous relation to the church as  baptized members.

So the PCA does have a process of confirmation however it is not necessary public and it is at the discretion of the congregation (via the elders) as to the nature of confirmation - whether classes are required, who will be admitted, whether there will be a ceremony. In practice many churches do require and offer classes for confirmees.


The question assumes a literal young-earth, literal creation and Adam and Eve as the literal first and only people interpretation of Scripture, so this answer comes from that view.

The common response from pretty much every Apologetic YEC organization is that they married their sisters. There were no other women in the world. And besides that, there were no laws forbidding marriage between brothers and sisters, but had there been; only God was in authority at the time, and he already knew.

As explained on  ChristianAnswers.Net

  ...Even though only these three males are mentioned by name, Adam and Eve
  had other children. In Genesis 5:4 a statement sums up the life of
  Adam and Eve—“And the days of Adam after he had fathered Seth were
  eight hundred years. And he fathered sons and daughters.” This does
  not say when they were born. Many could have been born in the 130
  years (Genesis 5:3) before Seth was born....

Also from biblestudy.org

  ANSWER: The debate over who became the wife of man's first two
  children has gone on for centuries. The short answer is that the
  brothers had to marry their sisters. Man was, at first, only two
  people, Adam and Eve. The couple's first three children were Cain,
  Abel and Seth: "After he begot Seth, were eight hundred years; and he
  had sons and daughters" (Genesis 5:4).

  How many sisters were potentially available for Cain and Abel to
  marry? The Bible does not reveal exactly how many children Adam and
  Eve produced. It is safe to assume, however, that since Adam lived 930
  years, he had PLENTY of time to take full advantage of God's command
  to procreate and fill the earth!

And the answer to the prohibition against Incest is consistent among apologetic groups.

For future research, I recommend a Bing or Google search on "Who did Cain marry".  You'll find that the answers that you find from those who hold the literal interpretation of Genesis, the answer is consistent.


How do Arminians understand the doctrine of Unlimited Atonement in a way that does not make God unjust?

The Wesleyan Arminians recognised the problem implied by your analogy and resolved it by proffering the Governmental Theory of Atonement.

Applying this resolution to your analogy

Christ has 'made' the payment at the cross - and He can't unmake the payment because the cost to Him was real) - but rather than a completed individual transaction on behalf of each sinner (the penal substitution theory of atonement), it is like setting up a massive trust fund which has enough for all but must be applied effectually for each case.

Analogy as an Answer

The individual application is like writing a check against the trust fund for this amount and presenting this to the individual concerned (i.e. preaching the gospel to them).  They can receive or reject this offer.  Furthermore, after receiving, they can still tear up the check or lose it through negligence (again this is according to Wesleyan Arminianism).  They will receive the check, hang on to it and present it when it falls due if they identify as Christ's (i.e. put their trust in Him, confess Him as Lord and continue to walk in obedience to Him).  Actual payment falls due at the judgment where those found outside of Christ have either rejected their checks, lost them or effectively torn them up through their unbelief.


How does Proverbs 2:21-22 not disprove "once saved, always saved"?

It is problematic to spiritualize verses too quickly.  Recall that the Proverbs were written by Jewish people living in the Jewish homeland of Israel under the Mosaic Covenant--not the New Covenant spoken of by Ezekiel and identified by Jesus at the Last Supper.

This proverb is speaking about upright and wicked people living in the land of Israel at that time.  Proverbs are general wisdom also--not incontrovertible truths.  Some upright people died young, and some wicked people live to be quite old.

So, again, this is a general proverb that identifies that those who live righteously are often rewarded with long life.  The wicked, however, often receive God's judgment in various forms or are just exposed to greater risks for various reasons.

This has nothing to do with the New Covenant.


How do we know the words accredited to Jesus were the words Jesus actually spoke?

We do not have the verbatim words of Jesus because Jesus mostly spoke Aramaic and the New Testament was written in Greek.

It is not important whether what we have is verbatim or not. What is more important is what the message tries to convey. A single idea can be conveyed in many languages without losing its original message.

We can also be rest assured that we have the right message passed down to us through the ages because the scripture was written with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and God is faithful in protecting his Message from coruption.

  For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets,
  though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy
  Spirit. (2 Peter 1:21, NIV)


Seeming paradox arising from idea of eternal life

If we consider Jeremiah 1:4&5 we are told that God forms the child in the mother's womb. Therefore if God forms the child it is he who determines who will and who will not be born. Not always is pregnancy the result of intimacy, and so that alone should be enough evidence that the birth (or intended birth) of any child is a decision made by God, and not by us. We must never assume God is not in charge of all facets of life, or that we mere mortals can in any way determine anything.

Please note in 1st Samuel that Hannah was barren and that God gave a child after she implored him and also vowed to give Samuel back to the Lord.

We are entrusted with children by God, and we should as did Hannah, endeavor to give them back to God by doing our best to have them give their lives to Christ.


Why did the disciples have to be silent about the supernatural event of the Transfiguration? (Catholic perspective)

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew, writes on v. 17:9:

  Afterwards, the command to delay the revelation of this vision is related; hence, he says, And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying: Tell the vision to no man. But what is the reason for this? There are three reasons. The first is that, as Jerome says, it was going to be that Christ would suffer and that the Jews would be scandalized; “Unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock” (I Cor. 1, 23): wherefore, if they had heard this, they might have been more scandalized: hence, they would have reckoned Christ’s suffering to have been unimportant. Remigius expounds this verse as follows: it was because if He had made this vision known, He would never have accomplished what He desired to happen, and so, He would have thwarted His desire; for it is stated in Luke 22, 15: “With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you.” Hilary expounds this passage as follows: He commanded silence because it was not fitting that spiritual glory be made known except through spiritual visions; but they were not yet spiritual; “As yet the Spirit was not given” (Jn. 7, 39).

The Catholic Haydock Commentary says:

  Ver. 9. Tell the vision to no man, till the miracle of his resurrection has prepared the minds of men for the belief of this. Expose not an event so wonderful to the rash censure of the envious Pharisees, who calumniate and misrepresent my most evident miracles. Jesus Christ also gave a lesson here to his followers to observe the closest secrecy in all spiritual graces and favors.


How widespread was the observance of the Jewish Sabbath among Christians during Early Christianity (A.D. 30–324)?
The Sabbath was the consecration of one day of the weekly period to God as the Author of the universe and of time as seen in the book of Exodus.

12 This, too, was the Lord’s word to Moses: 13 Give the sons of Israel a warning from me, Be sure that you observe the sabbath day.1 It is a token between us, that is to last all through the ages which lie before you, reminding you that I am the Lord, and you are set apart for me. 14 Keep my sabbath; it has a binding claim on you, on pain of death for all who violate it. The man who does any work on that day is lost to his people. 15 You have six days to work in; the seventh is the sabbath, a day of rest set apart for the Lord, and if anybody works on that day, his life must pay for it. 16 It is for the sons of Israel to observe my sabbath and honour it among themselves, age after age. It is an undying covenant, 17 a perpetual token between me and the Israelites; the Lord spent six days making heaven and earth, and on the seventh he rested from his labours. - Exodus 31:12-17

Christ, while observing the Sabbath, set himself in word and act against this absurd rigorism which made man a slave of the day. He reproved the scribes and Pharisees for putting an intolerable burden on men's shoulders (Matthew 23:4), and proclaimed the principle that "the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" (Mark 2:27). He cured on the Sabbath, and defended His disciples for plucking ears of corn on that day. In His arguments with the Pharisees on this account He showed that the Sabbath is not broken in cases of necessity or by acts of charity (Matthew 12:3 sqq.; Mark 2:25 sqq.; Luke 6:3 sqq.; 14:5). St. Paul enumerates the Sabbath among the Jewish observances which are not obligatory on Christians (Colossians 2:16; Galatians 4:9-10; Romans 14:5).

4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. - Matthew 23:4

The gentile converts held their religious meetings on Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2) and with the disappearance of the Jewish Christian churches this day was exclusively observed as the Lord's Day.

7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. - Acts 20:7
2 On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. - 2 On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.

So we can see that even in Apostolic Times, the first day of the week as replacing the Saturday Sabbath Day (7th day) at least for gentile converts.
But how widespread was the observance of the Jewish Sabbath among Christians during Early Christianity?
Certainly some of first Christians were mainly Jewish and thus observed the seventh-day sabbath with prayer and rest, but as the gentile converts grew, they gathered on the first day, Sunday, reckoned in Jewish tradition as beginning, like the other days, at sunset on what would now be considered the Saturday evening. At the beginning of the second century Ignatius of Antioch (Epistle to the Magnesians 9:1: “If, then, those who had lived according to the ancient practices came to the newness of hope, no longer keeping the sabbath but living in accordance with the Lord’s day [μηκέτι σαββατίζοντες ἀλλά κατά κυριακήν ζῶντες], on which our life also arose through him and his death…) approved non-observance of the Sabbath.
The Coptic Churches in Egypt and Ethiopia certainly maintained this practice until the Council of Nicea. Not surprising since they maintain many Jewish traditions to this day and also claim to possess the Arc of the Covenant.

W. B. Bishai has attempted to shed some light on the development of the custom of observing Sunday as a rest day in addition to the seventh-day Sabbath in early Coptic (and related) Christianity. He suggests that it may have been under the influ- ence of the first Council of Nicea (A.D. 325)that this situation first came about:

It seems possible that Sabbath observance among the Copts in Egypt and Ethiopia may have passed through three stages: I) Only the seventh-day Sabbath observed from apostolic times until the Council of Nicea;  Sunday and the seventh-day Sabbath both observed-from the Council of Nicea until perhaps a century or two later; and 3) only Sunday designated as a day of public worship-a practice still observed today (p. 31).

Some Notes on the Sabbath in Early Christianity

Outside of this unique setting the observation of the Sabbath on Saturdays seems a rather rarer occurrence.
One of the most popular arguments against the doctrine of the Sabbath is the purposed silence of the Early Church fathers on the issue.

Sunday was the first day of the week according to the Jewish method of reckoning, but for Christians it began to take the place of the Jewish Sabbath in Apostolic times as the day set apart for the public and solemn worship of God. The practice of meeting together on the first day of the week for the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is indicated in Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; in Apocalypse 1:10, it is called the Lord's day. In the Didache the injunction is given: "On the Lord's Day come together and break bread. And give thanks (offer the Eucharist), after confessing your sins that your sacrifice may be pure". St. Ignatius (Ep. ad Magnes. ix) speaks of Christians as "no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also Our Life rose again". In the Epistle of Barnabas (xv) we read: "Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day (i.e. the first of the week) with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead".
St. Justin is the first Christian writer to call the day Sunday (I Apol., lxvii) in the celebrated passage in which he describes the worship offered by the early Christians on that day to God. The fact that they met together and offered public worship on Sunday necessitated a certain rest from work on that day. However, Tertullian (202) is the first writer who expressly mentions the Sunday rest: "We, however (just as tradition has taught us), on the day of the Lord's Resurrection ought to guard not only against kneeling, but every posture and office of solicitude, deferring even our businesses lest we give any place to the devil" ("De orat.", xxiii; cf. "Ad nation.", I, xiii; "Apolog.", xvi).
These and similar indications show that during the first three centuries practice and tradition had consecrated the Sunday to the public worship of God by the hearing of the Mass and the resting from work. With the opening of the fourth century positive legislation, both ecclesiastical and civil, began to make these duties more definite. The Council of Elvira (300) decreed: "If anyone in the city neglects to come to church for three Sundays, let him be excommunicated for a short time so that he may be corrected" (xxi). In the Apostolic Constitutions, which belong to the end of the fourth century, both the hearing of the Mass and the rest from work are prescribed, and the precept is attributed to the Apostles. The express teaching of Christ and St. Paul prevented the early Christians from falling into the excesses of Jewish Sabbatarianism in the observance of the Sunday, and yet we find St. Cæsarius of Arles in the sixth century teaching that the holy Doctors of the Church had decreed that the whole glory of the Jewish Sabbath had been transferred to the Sunday, and that Christians must keep the Sunday holy in the same way as the Jews had been commanded to keep holy the Sabbath Day. He especially insisted on the people hearing the whole of the Mass and not leaving the church after the Epistle and the Gospel had been read. He taught them that they should come to Vespers and spend the rest of the day in pious reading and prayer. As with the Jewish Sabbath, the observance of the Christian Sunday began with sundown on Saturday and lasted till the same time on Sunday. Until quite recent times some theologians taught that there was an obligation under pain of venial sin of assisting at vespers as well as of hearing Mass, but the opinion rests on no certain foundation and is now commonly abandoned. - Sunday (Catholic Encyclopaedia)

Sabbatarians or Sabbatarianism is the name, as appears from its origin, denotes those individuals or parties who are distinguished by some peculiar opinion or practice in regard to the observance of the Sabbath or day of rest. In the first place it is applied to those rigorists who apparently confound the Christian Sunday with the Jewish Sabbath and, not content with the prohibition of servile work, will not allow many ordinary and innocent occupations on the Sunday.
The following may be beneficial to some to peruse at leisure:

The Sabbath: A Hallowed and Holy Day
Sabbath Laws and Early Church
Where is the Sabbath in the Early Church? (Part 1)
Where is the Sabbath in the Early Church? (Part 2)


What is the difference between Consubstantiation and Impanation?

Impanation is the opposite of Transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation: No Bread. Only Christ.

Consubstantiation: Christ is present along with the bread

Impanation: Christ is present as the substance of bread. That is "Christ has become bread".

The following table might help you understand:

Substance of        |   Bread   |   Christ      | End Result
--------------------------------------------------------------
Transubstantiation  |   ✘       |   ✔           | Bread becomes Christ
Consubstantiation   |   ✔       |   ✔           | Christ is "in, with and under the bread"
Impanation          |   ✔       |   ☑ as bread  | Christ becomes bread

The proponents of Impanation believe that it occurs in the same way God (a different type of being) became man. That is, God took humanity and raised it to the level of his divinity. There by sharing his divine attributes with his humanity (like getting into a locked room with his physical body). In the same way Christ's divine attributes are shared by the Eucharistic bread via his body.

Sources:

"Impanation". Catholic Encyclopedia
... impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically.... From The Doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Orthodox Church


What are the biblical arguments against soul sleep?

The Bible never described someone else's soul sleeping only to be awaken at the last judgment.

Rather, what the Bible records show is that in the New Testament all of God's people who are in the state of death are away from the body and present with the Lord. They are not sleeping but are at home with the Lord.

  Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the
  body and at home with the Lord

  2 Corinthians 5:8 (ESV)

Paul himself expressed, not the desire to sleep, but to be with Christ.

  21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 If I am to live
  in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall
  choose I cannot tell. 23 I am hard pressed between the two. My
  desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. 24 But
  to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account.

  Philippians 1:21-24 (ESV)

2 Corinthians 12:2-3 bolsters this interpretation:

  2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the
  third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know,
  God knows. 3 And I know that this man was caught up into
  paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God
  knows—

  2 Corinthians 12:2-3 (ESV)

God knows that a man can be with Him in the paradise. This is not sleep but a relationship! Take note that The thief on the cross didn’t sleep! Jesus promised him on that day that he will be with him in the paradise! (Luke 23:43).

What all this shows is that human death is not about "cessation of existence." Rather, it is about separation.

  For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart
   works is dead.

  James 2:26 (ESV)

James 2:26 says that death is a separation of body and spirit. Both do not undergo annihilation after death. Rather, both merely separated.

This one scripture powerfully attests the doctrine of "souls don't sleep":

  who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live
  with him.

  1 Thessalonians 5:10 (ESV)

Conclusion

We have cogently proven from the Bible that "soul sleep" teaching is unbiblical. The New Testament consistently shows us that souls do not sleep and that the metaphor 'sleep' used for those who are dead is merely a reference to their physical bodies appearing as if sleeping.

References:

http://www.gotquestions.org/absent-from-the-body.htm

https://carm.org/soul-sleep


What are the main differences between the Catholic and Protestant definitions of Biblical inerrancy?

There is not any real difference between the Catholic teaching on inerrancy of Scripture and the generic "Protestant" view given in the answer above. The two definitive documents in recent history are probably Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Providentissiumus Deus and the Second Vatican Council Document Dei Verbum. These points more or less summarize the position given in the question description.

All Scripture is inspired by God, having God for its author, and therefore can contain no error.
Scripture truly has both a single Divine author and many individual human authors.
There may be errors in copies due to errors in transmission, but such errors do not extend to the original inspired copies.

This is the most relevant material from PD:

The principles here laid down will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to History. It is a lamentable fact that there are many who with great labor carry out and publish investigations on the monuments of antiquity, the manners and institutions of nations and other illustrative subjects, and whose chief purpose in all this is too often to find mistakes in the sacred writings and so to shake and weaken their authority. Some of these writers display not only extreme hostility, but the greatest unfairness; in their eyes a profane book or ancient document is accepted without hesitation, whilst the Scripture, if they only find in it a suspicion of error, is set down with the slightest possible discussion as quite untrustworthy. It is true, no doubt, that copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible; this question, when it arises, should be carefully considered on its merits, and the fact not too easily admitted, but only in those passages where the proof is clear. It may also happen that the sense of a passage remains ambiguous, and in this case good hermeneutical methods will greatly assist in clearing up the obscurity. But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it -- this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. These are the words of the last: "The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author." Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write -- He was so present to them -- that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture. Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers. "Therefore," says St. Augustine, "since they wrote the things which He showed and uttered to them, it cannot be pretended that He is not the writer; for His members executed what their Head dictated." And St. Gregory the Great thus pronounces: "Most superfluous it is to inquire who wrote these things -- we loyally believe the Holy Ghost to be the Author of the book. He wrote it Who dictated it for writing; He wrote it Who inspired its execution."

It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error. And so emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error, that they labored earnestly, with no less skill than reverence, to reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at variance -- the very passages which in great measure have been taken up by the "higher criticism;" for they were unanimous in laying it down, that those writings, in their entirety and in all their parts were equally from the afflatus of Almighty God, and that God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true. The words of St. Augustine to St. Jerome may sum up what they taught: "On my part I confess to your charity that it is only to those Books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have learned to pay such honor and reverence as to believe most firmly that none of their writers has fallen into any error. And if in these Books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand."

And from Dei Verbum:

Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.
But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God.

In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous "condescension" of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, "that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature." For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.


How are the Calvinist, Arminian and Lutheran conceptions of Total Depravity different?

I can't speak much to the Lutheran or Calvinist view, but I can give my own perspective (Wesleyan Arminian):

In the Arminian understanding, human beings were created by God as part of God's good creation, but we were given free will which enabled us to turn away from God's will. In order to bring us back, God provided the means of grace that enables us to be saved. This grace is known as prevenient grace because God has given it to us before we were capable of making a decision.

Arminians believe in total depravity in the sense that our own sinful human nature does not allow us to respond to God's offer of salvation. However, the prevenient grace that God has given us does enable us to accept that offer. So although we do have free will and are capable of making choices, it is only God's grace that allows us to choose to follow him.


What are the effects of a Church Tax in Germany on Catholics?

The question as posed gives a distorted impression of what the "Kirchensteuer" actually can and cannot do. This is the information from one of the largest German Tax consultancy companies (WWKN) in English:

In Germany, on the basis of tax regulations passed by the communities and within the limits set by state laws, communities may either

require the taxation authorities of the state to collect the fees from the members on the basis of income tax assessment (then, the authorities withhold a collection fee), or
choose to collect the church tax themselves.

In the first case, membership in the community is entered onto a tax document (Lohnsteuerkarte) which employees must surrender to their employers for the purpose of withholding tax on paid income. If membership in a tax-collecting religious community is entered on the document, the employer must withhold church tax prepayments from the income of the employee in addition to other tax prepayments. In connection with the final annual income tax assessment, the state revenue authorities also finally assess the church tax owed. In the case of self-employed persons or of unemployed taxpayers, state revenue authorities collect prepayments on the church tax together with prepayments on the income tax.
If, however, religious communities choose to collect church tax themselves, they may demand that the tax authorities reveal taxation data of their members to calculate the contributions and prepayments owed. In particular, some smaller communities (e.g. the Jewish Community of Berlin) choose to collect taxes themselves to save collection fees the government would charge otherwise.
The church tax is only paid by members of the respective church. People who are not members of a church tax-collecting denomination do not have to pay it. Members of a religious community under public law may formally declare their wish to leave the community to state (not religious) authorities. With such a declaration, the obligation to pay church taxes ends. Some communities refuse to administer marriages and burials of (former) members who had declared to leave it.
Taxpayers, whether Roman Catholic, Protestant or members of other tax-collecting communities, pay between 8 percent (in Bavaria and Baden-Wuerrttemberg) and 9 percent (in the rest of the country) of their income tax to the church or other community to which they belong.

So the law explicitly says churches may tax their members, it is not an obligation from the state. Therefore, whether or not it has a negative effect on church membership and how to react on this is entirely in the hands of the clergy. This being said, the majority of churches in all regions of Germany tax their members. About 70% of church revenues come from church tax (Kirchensteuer) in Germany. This was about 9.2 billion euro in 2010.
These religious communities collect a church tax in Germany:

The Evangelical Church (Evangelische Kirche)
The Roman Catholic Church (Römisch-katholische Kirche)
The Jewish Community (Jüdische Gemeinde)
The Old Catholic Church (Altkatholische Kirche)
Various Free Religious communities (Freireligiöse Gemeinden)

As to the origins: giving a share of one’s income to the church has been a part of European tradition for centuries. Today, several countries continue to collect a “church tax” on behalf of officially recognized religious organizations, in some cases levying the tax on all registered members.1 These payments add up to billions of euros annually and represent the biggest source of revenue for many religious institutions.
Contrary to @Zippy2006's comment: in 2012, the Catholic church officially announced they will refuse sacraments and rituals for those that leave the church, which is the only way to stop paying the Kirchensteuer. Archbishop Robert Zollitsch, the president of the German bishops' conference, said that not paying taxes for the church is a grave offense, and that sacraments will be banned for those who distance themselves from the church. Many Germans have considered this decree a threat of excommunication.
According to Pew Research, growing numbers of people have been opting out of the tax by formally deregistering from their churches, perhaps another sign of secularization in the region. Some European advocates for greater distance between church and state argue that church tax systems violate freedom of religion and have called for their abolition. The Church tax law is under scrutiny from the EU for this reason, as it allows for the taxation of immigrants who were baptized in their country of origin but register as atheist in Germany.
Germany is not the only country in Europe that has a Church Tax law. It's also not the country with the highest rates of people stopping to pay the tax:

The church tax is however not the main driver behind the fall in European religiosity, as this graph from Pew research indicates, comparing religiosity and attendance in European countries with and without a state church tax:


What is the Scriptural basis for Catholics praying to Mary and the various saints?

To answer the question, it is important to understand that Catholics (as well as the Eastern Orthodox and other eastern churches) make a sharp distinction between adoration (or worship), which is directed only to God, and veneration, which refers to the honor given to the saints.
When Catholics (and Orthodox) pray to Mary and the other saints, it is never seen as an act of adoration, but only of veneration. It should be noted that Catholics (and Orthodox) are also encouraged to pray to God directly; in fact, for them prayer in its various facets (praise, thanksgiving, petition, supplication, and adoration) is chiefly directed to Him, not to saints (and whenever it involves adoration, it is only directed to God).
Therefore, the prayers that Catholics (and Orthodox) make to saints are chiefly for their intercession. Intercessory prayer is something that St. Paul clearly encouraged among the living:

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:1-4, emphasis added).

St. Paul also asked people to pray for him, as is pointed out by Geremia:

I appeal to you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf (Rom 15:30).

St. Paul, however, also teaches that saints are in a more perfect union with their Creator than we are:

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known (1 Cor. 13:12).

If those who have still not entered into the fullness of union with God (“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” Rom. 3:23) can intercede for one another, then all the more those who are already in possession of that glory can intercede for those on earth.
In fact, intercessory prayer is quite commonly recommended in the Scriptures. Moses had the privilege of speaking to God face-to-face:

Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend (Ex. 33:11).

If an Israelite needed to ask a favor from God, he would always go through Moses. Certainly, the ancient Israelites had only a partial understanding of God and His goodness, and so they feared to approach God directly, but this imperfect understanding does not take away the value of intercessory prayer. The intercessory role assumed by Moses was continued by the Levitical priests throughout the history of the People of Israel. (The whole Book of Leviticus describes this role in detail.)
The Scriptures, then, clearly encourage intercessory prayer, and it does not forbid us to seek this intercession from the saints in heaven. Moreover, it seems reasonable (according to Catholics and Orthodox) to seek the intercession of those that are closest to God.
It is true that the Scripture does not make an explicit endorsement of the practice, but demanding an explicit endorsement of every practice is a rather restrictive criterion. (For example, the Bible does not explicitly endorse revival meetings, altar calls, or other typically Protestant practices.) Nevertheless, there are indications in the Scriptures that the early Church firmly believed in the intercession of the saints. Probably the best example can be found in Rev. 5:8:

And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

In this context the “saints” (hagioi) are actually the members of the Church living on earth. In this passage, St. John (the author of Revelation) takes for granted those who are before the throne of the Lamb (i.e., God the Son) have the task of presenting the prayers (incense) of those on earth. This is intercession on the part of heavenly creatures on behalf of those still living on earth. (The 24 elders probably represent the 12 patriarchs of Israel and the 12 Apostles; hence John is most likely referring here to human, not angelic, intercessors.)
Let us now examine some possible objections to the Catholic (and Orthodox) practice of praying to the saints:
Aren’t the saints dead? Didn’t God forbid contact with the dead?
The saints are “dead” in the sense that they are no longer physically present on earth, but they are, in fact, very much alive in Heaven, in perfect union with their Creator. Jesus himself makes this very point when answering the Sadduccees:

And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living (Mt. 22:32).

It is true that God prohibits necromancy, or conjuring the dead:

There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord. And because of these abominations the Lord your God is driving them out before you. You shall be blameless before the Lord your God, for these nations, which you are about to dispossess, listen to fortune-tellers and to diviners. But as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you to do this (Deut. 18:10-14).

Necromancy means obliging a dead man’s soul to appear on earth by magical incantations. Praying to saints for their intercession has nothing to do with this practice. Necromancy, unlike prayer to the saints, does not respect the freedom of the one who is conjured up (even assuming that it is successful: there is always the grave risk of conjuring up an evil spirit instead of the dead person in question).
In summary: the saints are not dead, nor does praying to them constitute a forbidden, occult practice.
How can the saints hear us?
Although Rev. 5:8 indicates that those before the throne of the Lamb have knowledge of our prayers, a possible objection is that the saints, mere creatures, are not omniscient, and so they cannot hear all of our prayers.
Catholics (and Orthodox) would reply that the saints, being creatures, are certainly not omniscient; that is, they do not have all knowledge, as their Creator does. They do, however, enjoy the direct vision of God, and this vision entails knowledge of all those things that are relevant to them.
Moreover, time in Heaven does not pass in the same way as time on earth:

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day (2 Peter 3:8).
For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night (Ps. 90:4).

Since it is through their vision of God that the saints acquire their knowledge, they have no problem hearing our prayers, even if those prayers are numerous.
Isn’t Jesus the One Mediator?
A possible objection stems from the following passage in 1 Timothy:

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

Catholics (and Orthodox) do not dispute the uniqueness of Christ’s mediation, which is based on the very Incarnation. Jesus’ unique status as the One Mediator does not, they would say, prevent God from establishing lesser mediations subordinate to the first. Jesus, as it were, bridges the gap, opened by the sin of Adam, between God and man; that does not prevent him from establishing other “bridges” between himself and the men still on earth. Jesus, in fact, clearly did this by establishing the Church, and the Apostles to lead it.
In any case, St. Paul cannot be forbidding intercessory prayer (which is mediation of the secondary kind), because he has just commanded it in the immediately preceding passage. (See above.)
Can’t we pray to Jesus directly?
Catholics (and Orthodox) would emphatically reply in the affirmative. Not only can we pray to Jesus directly, we should do so, and doing so should be the main focus of our prayer. They would say that intercessory prayer (including asking saints for their prayers) is simply one of the ways that God wishes to involve all members of the Church in the work of redemption: after all, if we ask the saints to pray for us, it is so that they they (as well as we) pray to Jesus.


According to the Catholic Church is it sinful to address someone who is transgender by their biological sex?

Detraction & Railing
In other words, is it

backbiting/detraction (detractio)"the blackening of another's good name by words uttered in secret"—St. Albert the Great, Sum. Theol. II 117, quoted in St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II q. 73 a. 1 arg. 1

or

railing/reviling (contumelia)the same, but done openly, to his face (ibid.)

to call someone other than what he or she would wish to be called?
Examples where it is not sinful
Directly to their face and certainly against their will, Jesus Himself truthfully called the

"Pharisees and Sadducees" a "brood of vipers" (Mt. 3:7);
"scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites" and "whited sepulchres" (Mt. 23:27);
and even the disciples themselves "foolish and slow" (Lk. 24:25).

St. Paul called the Galatians "senseless" (Gal. 3:1) and the Romans (Rom. 1:29-31) as

Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness: full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity: whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Foolish, dissolute: without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.

St. Thomas Aquinas explains why these name-callings were not sinful (II-II q. 72 a. 2 ad 2):

Just as it is lawful to strike a person, or damnify someone in his belongings for the purpose of correction, so too, for the purpose of correction, may one say a mocking (conviciosum) word to a person whom one has to correct. It is thus that our Lord called the disciples "foolish," and the Apostle called the Galatians "senseless." Yet, as Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 19), "seldom and only when it is very necessary should we have recourse to invectives, and then so as to urge God's service, not our own."

Fraternal correction is an act of charity.
In the case of those who wish they were the other sex, it would not be a sin to correct them with words they'd consider offensive. Fraternal correction is an act of charity; cf. "Whether fraternal correction is an act of charity?" (II-II q. 33 a. 1).


Was chaos the initial state of the earth at creation?

Most English-language Bibles begin with "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth," although the first three Hebrew words of Genesis are: "בראשית ברא אלהים" (B'reishit bara Elohim). There is no definite article and the grammar is complex, if not confusing, but there is a general consensus among scholars that this can not be translated correctly as "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth" - for example, Leon R. Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom, page 27. Some believe the earth was pre-existing, and the beginning of  God's creation was the firmament that separates the waters above from the waters below. In the 'Gap theory', others see God as creating the earth and then, for some reason, allowing a time gap before beginning to create other things.  Apart from this, the creation story in Genesis 1:1-2:4a seems orderly and unchaotic, although the precise order of creation would be surprising to a scientist.

Digressing for a moment, we find that other cultures in the ancient Near East did believe that chaos accompanied the creation and that chaos monsters had to be conquered, especially Leviathan. Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, in Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God, page 43, explains that Baal was acclaimed in Canaan as victor over Litanu / Leviathan. In the Book of Job, we find that God was the victor over Leviathan. These creation fragments in Job (and in Psalms 74:14, 104:26) do not invalidate the creation account in Genesis chapter 1.

The creation story in Genesis chapter 1 need not be regarded as a literal story and indeed was not seen this way by some of the early Christian Church Fathers, who regarded it as an allegory. For example, Origen (De Principiis, Book 4.1.16):

  ... as even these do not contain throughout a pure history of events, which are interwoven indeed according to the letter, but which did not actually occur. Nor even do the law and the commandments wholly convey what is agreeable to reason. For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that any one doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally...


Was any early martyr of the Church sawn in two, as mentioned in Hebrews?

Was any martyr of the Church sawn in two, as mentioned in Hebrews?

The short answer is yes.

  The term "death by sawing" indicates the act of sawing a living person in half, either sagitally (usually midsagitally), or transversely. Thus, decapitation by sawing or dismemberment by sawing are tangential sub-themes, though some ambiguous cases might be included. Death by sawing was a method of execution reportedly used in different parts of the world. Some of the reviewed examples are legendary. - Death by sawing

Some believe that the Prophet Isaiah was sawn in half: The Martyrdom of Isaiah.

  Several early Christians are credited with being martyred by means of a saw. The earliest, and most famous, is the obscure apostle of Jesus, Simon the Zealot. He is said to have been martyred in Persia, and that the express mode by which he was executed was to be hanged up by the feet, as in the woodcut illustration. - Death by sawing

Illustration by Lucas Cranach the Elder of St. Simon sawn in two.

St. Tarbula

  Virgin and martyr, also listed as:, Tarba or Tarbo. The sister of St. Simeon, the Persiar" bishop and martyr, she was consecrated a virgin and met her own martyrdom soon after the death of he"' brother. Accused of practicing witchcraft and of causing sickness to befall the wife of the ardently anti-Christian Persian king Shapur, she was condemned and executed by being sawed in half.

Believe there are more examples.

What is the Catholic Church's view on the punishment of 'sawn in two' as used by the writer of Hebrews?

It is a cruel martyrdom.


How many years are Bible translations usually called New or Revised for?

The name given to a version of the Bible is just that, a name. It's a bit like asking how long New York will stay New for - it's not going to be dropped because it's what the city is called, rather than a description of it.

Some versions of the Bible are referred to by year, or sometimes by century, for example:

21st Century King James Version
New International Version 1984
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition

Sometimes that's officially part of the name when published (such as the first item on that list) and sometimes the year is added later to disambiguate it from more modern editions of the same version. I think that's as close to the Google Chrome analogy as we're likely to get.


Who was the first to describe Methodists as the "People of the Extreme Center"?

The Methodist Bishop Scott Jones borrowed the term to describe John Wesley's teachings. He continues to use the phrase in sermons and interviews when describing Methodist beliefs.

Jones read a magazine in which someone described himself as being in the "extreme center" in politics. The term "extreme center" is set in opposition to the "dead center" - rather than leaning too far right or too far left, the dead center does nothing. In contrast, the extreme center is living, holding both the left and right in tension, without compromising either.

On his website he explains the term via video.

  It goes back to a deep conviction I have about the Wesleyan form of Christianity. Back when I was trying to Wesley's theology to students and lay audiences, I began to talk about the ways in which Wesley combines things that, well, too often Christians see as opposites and not possible to hold together, like... justification and sanctification, evangelism and social justice. For all of these polarities, really it's about holding them together, in tension, as it were, yet each one informing the other."

From a presentation Scott Jones gave in 2007 on "The United Methodist Way":

  United Methodists are people of the extreme center. United Methodist conservatives are compassionate. United Methodist liberals are responsible...
  Taken as a whole, this way of salvation exhibits the paradox of the gospel, and we Wesleyans have it right. It is the extreme center that includes both justification and sanctification, both grace and good works, both individual salvation and the transformation of the world. It is all about God’s grace saving us and not our works. However, we are saved for the purpose of doing good works, of transforming the world.


Did Angels sent to earth before Jesus have literal human bodies?

How about the section of scripture in Genesis 18:1-15 where Abraham is visited by our Lord and informed he is to have a son? In the story we read about two who were traveling with our Lord as follows:

  Gen 18:6-8 - So Abraham hurried into the tent and said to Sarah, “Quick! Take three measures of fine flour, knead it, and make bread.” 18:7 Then Abraham ran to the herd and chose a fine, tender calf, and gave it to a servant, who quickly prepared it. 18:8 Abraham then took some curds and milk, along with the calf that had been prepared, and placed the food before them. They ate while he was standing near them under a tree.

Those who I can see and who eat before me I generally consider having a literal human body!

But this, and all of scripture, does not suggest such a literal human form was the only form they could appear in. It was the appearance they were to use when visiting Abraham with our Lord. Humanity is bound by God to be flesh and blood but not so with angels.

And to be clear, most translations refer to the two who were with our Lord as two angels a little later on in Gen 19:1. They are also referred to as two messengers in a few but scripture is clearly identifying them as non-devine (angels in other words).
    Ref: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Genesis 19:1


According to catholicism, what is the signification of burning incense during the liturgy?

One commentary on this survives from a time when the Roman Catholic Church was united with the eastern Sees.  It is from a work in Greek by Germanus I, Patriarch of Constantinople from 715 to 730, entitled Ecclesiastical History and Mystical Contemplation, available in a dual Greek-English format from St. Vladimir Seminary Press (Germanus is regarded as a Saint within both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches).

Although he is explaining the eastern, Byzantine liturgical rite and not the western, I think that his explanation would also be accepted within the context of the Roman Catholic Mass:

  The censer demonstrates the humanity of Christ, and the fire His
  divinity.  The sweet-smelling smoke reveals the fragrance of the Holy
  Spirit which precedes.  For the censer denotes sweet joy.

  Again, the interior of the censer is understood as the [sanctified]
  womb of the [holy] virgin [and Theotokos] who bore the divine coal,
  Christ, in whom the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily (Col. 2:9).
  All together, therefore, give forth the sweet-smelling fragrance.  Or
  again, the interior of the censer points to the font of holy baptism,
  taking into itself the coal of divine fire, the sweetness of the
  operation of the Holy Spirit, which is the adoption of divine grace
  through faith, and exuding a good odor.


Looking for a website providing HTML formatted works of Joseph Pohle's 12 volume Dogmatic Theology

There are EPUBs (and some other formats) from here:

God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes: A Dogmatic Treatise
The Divine Trinity: A Dogmatic Treatise
God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural: A Dogmatic Treatise
Christology: A Dogmatic Treatise on the Incarnation
Soteriology: A Dogmatic Treatise on the Redemption
Mariology: A Dogmatic Treatise on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God: With an Appendix on the Worship of the Saints, Relics, and Images
Grace, Actual and Habitual: A Dogmatic Treatise
The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise (vol. 1): The Sacrements in General, Baptism, Confirmation
The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise (vol. 2): The Holy Eucharist
The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise (vol. 3): Penance
The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise (vol. 4): Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, Matrimony
Eschatology or the Catholic Doctrine of the Last Things: A Dogmatic Treatise


Are crucifixes used in Protestant churches in Germany?

A cursory review of images posted on the internet shows that there are indeed some Protestant churches and chapels that contain one or more crucifixes. An example of this is in the Stiftskirche in Stuttgart, Baden-Wuertemberg, as shown.

[

I would say though, that in my experience is that the reason Protestants tend to prefer an empty cross to a crucifix, is that the Gospel (that is, the "Good News") that we are called to proclaim is not the suffering represented by many Crucifixes, but rather, the Easter message that "The Lord is Risen". Further, whether or not a particular object, whether a cross with or without a corpus, is an idol is not so much the presence of absence of a body, but the degree to which a person considers some particular object to be in and of itself, god, as opposed to the person who knows that some object is being used as an assist to worship of the True God.

If the person you are writing about wants to find Protestant Churches without crucifixes, I suspect they exist, though I can't give specific locations. Those who belong to the churches which do happen to have crucifixes as part of the religious decor, though, do not consider them idols.


Do Lutherans now consider the followers of Zwingli and Calvin to be their brothers in Christ?

Unsurprisingly, the answer differs based on which Lutheran you ask.

For example, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which is by far the largest Lutheran denomination in the United States practices open communion by which any baptized Christian is welcome to celebrate the Eucharist with them.  In fact, for the last twenty years, the ELCA has had a formal relationship of full communion with the Presbyterian Church USA and Reformed Church in America, respectively the first- and third-largest Calvinist churches in the United States.  However, neither the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod nor the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod do so.  Both groups limit communion to their own members or to members of churches found to be in full doctrinal agreement with their beliefs, a requirement that necessarily excludes Calvinists.


How do Jehovah's Witnesses understand Galatians 1:11-12?

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus was a man during his time on earth, but not just any ordinary man. He was the Christ, he was God's Son, and he was perfect. What Jesus taught was not of his own originality but was from God, his Father. (John 8:28; John 14:10)
Before Jesus came to earth and after he was resurrected, he was a mighty spirit creature. The Apostle Paul received his gospel after Jesus was resurrected, so Jesus was no longer a man then.

1 Peter 3:18 (NWT)
For Christ died once for all time for sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, in order to lead you to God. He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.

Acts 13:34 (NWT)
And the fact that He resurrected him from the dead never again to return to corruption, He has stated in this way: ‘I will give you the expressions of loyal love promised to David, which are faithful.’

1 Corinthians 15:45 (NWT)
So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

2 Corinthians 5:16 (NWT)
So from now on we know no man from a fleshly viewpoint. Even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, we certainly no longer know him in that way.

Sources:
jw.org > Bible Questions Answered > After Jesus’ Resurrection, Was His Body Flesh or Spirit?
What Can the Bible Teach Us? > Chapter 4: "Who Is Jesus Christ?"


The command to not eat meat with the blood in it has no relation to the coking of the meat. What that is referring to is the commandments from God to the Israelites after their rescue from Egypt.
All Scriptures are quoted from the King James translation

Genesis 9:4  But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Leviticus 7:26  Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings.
Leviticus 17:11  For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
Leviticus 17:14  For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
Deuteronomy 12:23  Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.

Even though I have no Scriptures which say so this may have something to do with the sacrificial blood of Christ. But that is just a thought.


Has a pope ever been corrected publicly by a non-cleric in the presence of cardinals because of his immoral conduct?

According to Wikipedia, Antipope John XVI was captured, mutilated, and then was publicly degraded in the presence of the Emperor and also of Pope Gregory V. The pope was rebuked by St. Nilus the Younger (an abbot, but as far as I know not a cleric) for his cruelty. Although it was the Emperor's troops that actually committed such horrendous deeds, Pope Gregory V effectively gave his consent by doing nothing to stop it.

While I'm not sure if other cardinals were present, it seems somewhat probable given that the Pope and Emperor were both there.


Frankly, I'm having trouble understanding your question. You seem to describe two scenarios or possibilities.

  Scenario 1: Jesus assumed an impersonal, anhypostatic HUMAN NATURE in the incarnation (which nature you define as "body and soul").

  Scenario 2: Jesus possessed a human soul prior to the incarnation which was united with a human body in the incarnation.

My first question, then, is,

What is an impersonal, anhypostatic human nature?.

In theological terms, the hypostatic union is defined as the indivisible joining of human and divine in one person. Jesus Christ was in essence both human and divine. Perhaps I am overstating the case when I say that in Jesus Christ, where the divine ended and the human began, or where the human ended and the human began, is difficult if not impossible to say.

By the very nature of the incarnation, I suggest that Jesus could never have possessed a anhypostatic human nature. When Mary conceived Jesus in her womb, the Holy Spirit of God, not a human father, caused her to conceive. Mary's human egg was united in an asexual way with the very seed of God, resulting in the only pregnancy of its kind, ever.

As I see it, the distinctive aspect of human nature is the union of the corporeal with the incorporeal. Jesus, prior to his incarnation did not possess corporeality. He was, as was his Father, pure spirit. As pure spirit, Jesus did not need a soul to be self-aware. When he assumed flesh, however, the "soulish" part of his being came from Mary's contribution to the conception.

In other words, I believe that Jesus did not assume human nature, comprised of body and soul, until he was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Prior to conception, Jesus was the eternally begotten Son of the Father, the second person of the Trinity, who dwelt in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18).

My second question is,

Why and in what way do you use the term "soul" twice?

The first time you use "soul" you define human nature as "body and soul." The second time you use "soul" you describe Jesus as possessing a human soul prior to the incarnation. Can a soul exist without first having a body? I agree with you that human nature can be described as the union of soul and body, incorporeal with corporeal. Soul is--perhaps oversimplifying here--self- awareness, or identity. Spirit, on the other hand, is God-awareness, which as we know can be suppressed in ungodliness and unrighteousness (see Romans 1:18-32).

So again I ask, "Can a soul exist without first having a body?" I think not.

What follows, then, is my tentative answer to your question as I have interpreted it.

A key passage (if not the key passage) supporting the view that Jesus did not possess a human soul prior to the incarnation is Philippians Chapter 2, which reads in part:

  5 have the same attitude toward one another that Christ Jesus had,

  6 who though he existed in the form of God

  did not regard equality with God

  as something to be grasped,

  7 [line a:] but emptied himself

  [line b:] by taking on the form of a slave,

  [line c:] by looking like other men, [Grk "by coming in the likeness of people"]

  [line d:] and by sharing in human nature.

  8 He humbled himself,

  by becoming obedient to the point of death

  – even death on a cross!" (NET)

The NET notes make an interesting comment regarding the four lines of verse 7:

  The expression the likeness of men [in line c] is similar to Paul's wording in Romans 8:3 ("in the likeness of sinful flesh"). The same word likeness is used . . . [both here and there]. It implies there is a form that does not necessarily conform to reality. In Romans 8:3, the meaning is Christ looked like sinful humanity. Here the meaning is similar. Jesus looked like other men (note anqrwpoi), but was in fact different from them in that he did not have a sinful nature.

  This last line of v. 7 (line d) stands in tension with the previous line, line c (“by looking like other men”). Both lines have a word indicating form or likeness. Line c, as noted above, implies that Christ only appeared to be like other people. Line d, however, uses a different term that implies a correspondence between form and reality. Further, line c uses the plural “men” while line d uses the singular “man.” The theological point being made is that Christ looked just like other men, but he was not like other men (in that he was not sinful), though he was fully human.[my emphasis]

From Philippians Chapter 2, then, we see that Christ emptied himself in order to take on something else; namely, the likeness of a human being. Now by "emptying himself" Paul does not mean Jesus gave up his deity. One of the best expressions I've come across which expresses what Christ did in becoming a man is that he veiled his deity with flesh.

In other words, Jesus appeared like any other man, but in reality he was the God-man. The rights, privileges, and prerogatives of deity he veiled in the normal course of events. However, when given permission, so to speak, from his Father, he would display or demonstrate that divinity in signs and miracles such as turning ordinary water into extraordinary wine, calming the wind and the waves by fiat, or raising people from the dead.

Changing gears for a moment, In Exodus Chapter 21 and Deuteronomy Chapter 15, we read about a strange custom which was enacted (by God's command) whenever the situation called for it. These passages shed much needed light on the great stoop Jesus took to be born of a woman. From Exodus 21:

  Laws about Slaves

  When you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for six years; then in the seventh he is to leave as a free man without paying anything. If he arrives alone, he is to leave alone; if he arrives with a wife, his wife is to leave with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children belong to her master, and the man must leave alone.
  But if the slave declares: ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I do not want to leave as a free man,’ his master is to bring him to the judges and then bring him to the door or doorpost. His master must pierce his ear with an awl, and he will serve his master for life (vv.2-6).

From Deuteronomy :

  If your fellow Hebrew, a man or woman, is sold to you and serves you six years, you must set him free in the seventh year. . . . But if your slave says to you, ‘I don’t want to leave you,’ because he loves you and your family, and is well off with you, take an awl and pierce through his ear into the door, and he will become your slave for life (vv.12-17, excerpts).

The application of these passages to Jesus's incarnation become clearer when we bring other verses to bear on them. From Psalm 40 (NASB):

  Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired;

  My ears You have opened [or dug, possibly pierced];

  Burnt offering and sin offering You have not required.

  Then I said, “Behold, I come;

  In the scroll of the book it is written of me.

  I delight to do Your will, O my God;

  Your Law is within my heart.”

And then from Hebrews 10:

  So when he came into the world, he said,

  'Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me.
  Whole burnt offerings and sin-offerings you took no delight in.
  Then I said, ‘Here I am: I have come – it is written of me in the scroll of the book – to do your will, O God.’

  When he says above, 'Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sin-offerings you did not desire nor did you take delight in them' (which are offered according to the law), then he says, 'Here I am: I have come to do your will.' He does away with the first to establish the second.

I suggest that the salient factors drawn from each of the above passages provide us with an analogy which lays Christ's incarnation side by side with an ancient Hebrew custom (obviously sanctioned by God through Moses). In analogical fashion, then,

  The master is analogous to God the Father
  The slave is analogous to Jesus who came into the world not to be served, but to serve and ultimately to give his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45).
  The digging/piercing/opening of the slave's ear is analogous to Jesus's
  flesh-and-blood body and his willingness to offer up that body as a once for all sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 7:27 and 9:12). In other words, the writer of Hebrews used the slave's ear in synecdochical fashion: the part of the slave's body--his ear, for the whole of Christ's body in his incarnation and ultimate crucifixion.
  The master, the slave, the slave's wife, and the children born to the slave's wife are analogous the Father, the Son, and the Bride of Christ (i.e., the church, those who by virtue of having received and believed in Jesus have been given the right to be called the children of God, according to John 1:12-13).
  The very notion of slavery is analogous to Jesus's subservience to his Father and to Jesus's determination to accomplish that will at the cost of his own life (compare the above passage from Hebrews to the words of Jesus in John 8:29 and 17:4).
  The love which the slave had for his master, for his own wife, and for his own children is analogous both to the love relationship between the Father and Son (John 3:35; 5:20; 14:31), and to the love demonstrated by the Son when he died for a world of lost sinners (Romans 5:8)
  The piercing of the slave's ear with an awl is analogous to Jesus's willingness to serve his Father to the point of shedding blood and then bearing the scars to prove it (see John 20:24-29).

The distinctiveness of "human nature," as opposed to the "divine nature," is the union of both the corporeal and incorporeal in one person. "God," on the other hand, "is spirit," Jesus said (John 4:24). Jesus himself is also fully God, however, and prior to his incarnation he is described as "the only begotten of God who is in the bosom of the Father" (John 1:18).

In other words, prior to "becoming flesh and dwelling among us" (John 1:14), Jesus too was pure spirit, as was (and ever will be) the Father. Discounting "theophanies" or "Christophanies" for the time being (i.e., pre-incarnate appearances of Christ as the "Angel of the LORD") as only temporary manifestations of a divine personage in a human body (e.g., Genesis 16:13; Judges 6:21, 22; 6:11, 14; 13:3, 18, 20, 22; Zechariah 12:8; and 2 Kings 19:35), I feel confident in saying that Jesus did not begin to perform his unique role as the "last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45) until he was conceived and then born of the virgin Mary.

Paul refers to Jesus as "the second man . . . from heaven" (1 Corinthians 15:47). By this he does not mean Jesus came to earth from heaven as a man; rather, he means that Jesus came to earth as a "life-giving spirit" (1 Corinthians 15:45) in the form of a man, who after he was born "grew in stature and in wisdom, and in favor with God and man" (Luke 2:52).

In conclusion, the sacrificial system as it was enacted in the history of the Hebrews served its purpose until the ultimate and last sacrifice came on the scene in the person of the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29, 36). What the OT sacrifices could never do, Jesus did with the sacrifice of himself.

Throughout the OT, however, God made clear that more important than the literal sacrifice of an animal is something internal to the person making the sacrifice; namely, a broken and contrite spirit, heart-felt repentance, and above all, delight in obeying God and doing his will (see 1 Samuel 15:32-33; cf. Psalm 40:6-8).

What was true then is still true now:

  For You do not delight in sacrifice,

  otherwise I would give it;

  You are not pleased with

  burnt offering.

  The sacrifices of God are a

  broken spirit;

  A broken and a contrite heart,

  O God, You will not despise.

Jesus gave his all for us. Can we do any less?


Who is the young man mentioned in Mark 14:51?

This is one of only a very few incidents in the Gospel of Mark that does not appear anywhere else in the other three Gospels.  Some commentators have speculated, based on that, that the young man was Mark, referring to himself in the third person much as John did.  But that's just speculation; as far as I know there are no other passages that refer to our unfortunate anonymous disciple.


St. Paul anticipated questions on the resurrected body of a person, on account of which he says at 1 Cor 15: 35-49:

But someone may ask, “How will the dead be raised? What kind of bodies will they have?”  What a foolish question! When you put a seed into the ground, it doesn’t grow into a plant unless it dies first.  And what you put in the ground is not the plant that will grow, but only a bare seed of wheat or whatever you are planting.  Then God gives it the new body he wants it to have. A different plant grows from each kind of seed.  Similarly there are different kinds of flesh—one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.
There are also bodies in the heavens and bodies on the earth. The glory of the heavenly bodies is different from the glory of the earthly bodies. The sun has one kind of glory, while the moon and stars each have another kind. And even the stars differ from each other in their glory.
It is the same way with the resurrection of the dead. Our earthly bodies are planted in the ground when we die, but they will be raised to live forever.  Our bodies are buried in brokenness, but they will be raised in glory. They are buried in weakness, but they will be raised in strength.  They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies.

If the scripture says that Jesus was taken up into heaven, He is present in heaven in body. Of course, that body is something which transcends human comprehension, just as St. Paul was  trying to explain to the Corinthians.


How many prophecies in the Old Testament are about Jesus?

Short Answer
It depends who you ask. Probably somewhere between 30 and 400. Either way, a very compelling, large number that has an insanely low probability and makes both the existence of God and the truth of Christianity quite probable.
References
Even if you don't want to read my discussion, I encourage you to explore the topic yourself with these resources.

45 Major Prophecies Fulfilled in Jesus
351 Prophecies Fulfilled in Jesus Christ
All the Messianic Prophecies of the Bible by Herbert Lockyer (Amazon)
The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook: All the Prophecies of Scripture Explained in One Volume by John Walvoord (Amazon)

The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook is nice because it includes an Appendix that has 1) the prophecy, 2) a star if it is a Messianic prophecy, 3) Scripture where predicted, 4) where it is fulfilled (in the specific Scripture or in a certain historical event). Walvoord in this book notes 100 Messianic prophecies (includes fulfilled and unfulfilled).
I also know there have been many probabilistic analyses on the prophecies of Jesus. If I or someone else can find some, it would be worth mentioning here. While assigning probabilities to the various prophecies can be difficult (read "arbitrary"), it still gives an appreciation for the divine orchestration at work.
I guess I also have to mention somewhere explicitly that prophecy is significant because it is telling the future far in advance; in this case, it is hundreds of years in advance, and 1,400 years in advance regarding Genesis 3:15. What prophecy isn't: changing the reliable dating of every book of the Bible ever to conform to a naturalistic presupposition that denies miracles or the supernatural. Thanks but no thanks liberal scholars (see vaticinium ex eventu for a brief [liberal] perspective on this topic).
Long Answer
I can give you some information and resources that address your question, but I don't think I can offer a definitive answer; I hope to improve the content of this answer with time. It is a good question without an agreed-upon answer, but that doesn't mean there is not a correct answer or a worthwhile answer that deserves investigation. This answer currently is more of a landscape view than diving into the details. I include references at the beginning and end for further study, and I hope to update this answer to make it better in the future. (Such as actually including specifics in each of the 4 categories).
There are few different categories of "prophecies about Jesus" depending on who came to that conclusion. I think this distinction is worthwhile, especially in the notable differences between groups 1 and 2.

Messianic prophecies accepted by Jews (followers of modern Judaism)
Messianic prophecies accepted by New Testament authors
Messianic prophecies accepted by Christians
Typologies

1. Messianic prophecies accepted by Jews
When rejecting Jesus as Messiah, Jews often cite currently unfulfilled Messianic prophecies as the reason. Christians, however, understand that these prophecies were not meant to be fulfilled during Jesus' first coming on Earth, but during His 2nd Coming and the Millennial Reign. Also, note that by modern Jews, I mean followers of modern Rabbinic Judaism.
Even the Jews do not agree on what constitutes a Messianic prophecy. See some of the Scriptural requirements of the Messiah and the mention of the disagreement among Jews.
2. Messianic prophecies accepted by New Testament authors
The New Testament authors understood Old Testament prophecies in ways that modern Jews do not, and modern Christians probably wouldn't have if the NT authors did not "begin the trend"/figure it out. They understood the "dual fulfillment" nature of some prophecies, such as the virgin birth, etc. These prophecies are more explicit and could be more readily counted. It may be also worth further distinguishing the prophecies that Jesus explicitly taught about himself.
Take the virgin birth prophesied in Isaiah 7:14, for example. This had a historical fulfillment in Isaiah 8-9, and yet was also cited as being fulfilled in Jesus in Matthew 1:22-23

Matthew 1:22-23 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: "Behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means God with us).

A good and important question in understanding the discrepancies between how Jews and Christians understand Messianic prophecy would be, "Do Jews recognize the nature and validity of dual fulfillment prophecy?"...Welp, I don't know. A good question to ask (probably best for Judaism.SE). I would be curious if they recognize any prophecies as having a historical fulfillment and then another fulfillment later on, such as by the Messiah. The discussion in Evidence that Demands a Verdict suggests that they don't explicitly recognize this, but they do recognize multiple levels of meaning in the Tanakh (Old Testament). This understanding of multi-faceted meaning is exemplified in the Midrash commentary.
3. Messianic prophecies accepted by Christians
These come from the further examination of Scripture by later people, mostly Christians, from the church Fathers to today. The "addition" of other Messianic prophecies stems from the understanding that the NT authors were not exhaustive in the application of Old Testament prophecy to Jesus Christ as the fulfillment. For example, the NT authors never said, "Hey guys, Jesus didn't fulfill all the Messianic prophecies but he will fulfill all the not-yet-fulfilled ones in His Second Coming!" I am curious how many prophecies we understand as Messianic today that weren't explicitly mentioned in NT, or how our understanding morphed in the first few centuries of church fathers. Hopefully, I will find the answer and update it.
I'm not absolutely certain of any specific examples of prophecies accepted by Christians that aren't mentioned in the New Testament, though I imagine there are many. For example, my references above lists 351 prophecies fulfilled in Jesus, and I don't think all of these (or even the 45 listed) are all explicitly identified in the NT. I'd rather double check than state an incorrect one.
4. Typologies
Typology (see GotQuestions) is a symbol or foreshadowing of things to come, in this case of Jesus the Christ (Messiah). In The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook, "types" or "typologies" are counted as Messianic prophecies. I agree with this analysis, especially because when (all 3 of my examples) are explicitly applied to Jesus in the New Testament. They are a noteworthy, distinguishable subclass of Messianic prophecy.
Examples of typology

Jesus as the Passover Lamb

Jesus as the bronze serpent (Numbers 21:4-9, John 3:14-15)

In Numbers, God sent fiery snakes on the Israelites as a deadly punishment for their sin (speaking against God aka complaining). Then, they repented, and God directed Moses to put a bronze serpent on a pole, and everyone who is bitten who looks to the pole will live through the deadly snake bite. In comparison, all have earned a deadly punishment for their own sin, and all who look to Jesus will be saved from it. Jesus states in John,

John 3:14-15 "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”

There are a few less obvious allusions to the bronze serpent typology by Jesus discussed here. I just discovered this typology while listening to Evidence Demands a Verdict on the way to work today, and I have to say, that's so cool!

The Sign of Jonah

Additional References

Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Sean and Josh McDowell (used mostly for examples of typology)
Exploring Bible Prophecy from Genesis to Revelation: Clarifying the Meaning of Every Prophetic Passage by (editors) Tim LaHaye and Ed Hindson (Amazon)


In Common Priesthood, what will be our sacrifice?

While it's true that it's the role and prerogative of the ordained priest to offer the sacrifice of Calvary on behalf of the people, the Mass is full of instances showing that it is also the people's Sacrifice (in the context of the Mass, the Sacrifice is Christ's once-for-all Sacrifice, mingled together, or rather offered together, for the greatest effect, the sacrifice(s) of believers consciously united with His): what makes the ordained priest unique is the exclusive ability to confect the Eucharist, something laity cannot ever do, in addition to his right as priest to perform the Sacraments (excepting Baptism and Matrimony, only a priest can perform the Sacraments technically speaking).

A representative example of this concept of the 'united effort' of priest as leader, and laity as united with him as their representative head, is found in the old Latin Rite (essentially Mass in the West for most people for most centuries in the history of the Western part of the Church, up to around 60 years ago and the introduction of the new Mass, with slightly different wording): "Pray, brethren, that my sacrifice and yours [ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium] may be acceptible to God the Father Almighty."

In this sense, laity, all believers, are also priests!

Except you perhaps mean outside the context of the Mass (the Sacrifice).

The priesthood of all believers refers to the fact that offering to God in sacrifice is inherently and historically a priestly act (and not only within Christianity). It is in this context that our prayers and personal penances, good works, and anything which can be "offered up" to God, essentially, is viewed as sacrifice.

  Hebrews 13:10-16 (DRB) We have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle. 11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the holies by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. 12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people by his own blood, suffered without the gate. 13 Let us go forth therefore to him without the camp, bearing his reproach. 14 For we have not here a lasting city, but we seek one that is to come. 15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise always to God, that is to say, the fruit of lips confessing to his name. 16 And do not forget to do good, and to impart; for by such sacrifices God's favour is obtained.


Did early Protestants consider transubstantiation to be idol worship?

Simple answer: Not all

The opinions of the early Reformers were divided on this issue, with Luther on one end of the spectrum:

  When asked whether Lutherans should do away with the Elevation of the Host in the liturgy, Luther consistently replied in 1544:
  By no means, for such abrogation would tend to diminish respect for the Sacrament and cause it to be undervalued . . . If Christ is truly present in the Bread, why should He not be treated with the utmost respect and even be adored?
  Joachim, one of Luther's friends, added:
  We saw how Luther bowed low at the Elevation with great devotion and reverently worshiped Christ. {Table Talk, ed. Mathesius (Leipzig ed., 1903), p.341. From Hartmann Grisar, Luther, 6 vols., London: 1917, vol. 4, pp. 239-240}

Although Luther's view differed somewhat from transubstantiation and he argued strongly against the concept of the mass as sacrifice, his view of the real presence of Christ in the host did not allow him to view it as constituting idolatry.

And Zwingli at the other end:

  If idolatry is to be banished, then one must have recourse to the pure preaching of the Word. This is exactly what Zwingli engaged to do. He began a series of discourses on the books of the New Testament, and introduced the preaching of the Word at every service. He was well called "the trumpet of the Gospel." He was perfectly successful in introducing and grounding the reformation of the Church and of the fatherland by an uninterrupted vindication of the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures. For him the Church was at its purest where the preaching was at its strongest. In God's light we see light. Where faith in Christ is thriving, idolatry will wither away. And faith comes by the hearing of the Word. Zwingli knew this and acted upon it.
  In a public disputation at Zurich, in 1523, Zwingli set forth sixty-seven theological theses outlining the reformed doctrine. Thus he declared that "Christ who offered Himself once, is for ever a perfect and satisfactory sacrifice for the sins of all believers, from which we conclude that the Mass is no sacrifice." In Romanism the Mass is the pivotal act of worship; but if the very concept of a propitiatory sacrifice in the Mass is anti-biblical, then Zwingli was not reluctant to expose it as such. The spiritual welfare of the people was at stake.
  People were to serve God in truth, not in the bondage of superstition. And if transubstantiation is false, then Romanists are evidently idolatrous. Zwingli would not tolerate this.

This was an extrememly controversial issue amongst Protestants in the 16th Century, and after an increasingly heated dispute via correspondence, the outcome of the Marburg Colloquy on this particular issue (despite agreeing with each other on everything else) was that they could not come to agreement.


What is the Catholic stance on Embryo Screening?

This looks like a case for Evangelium Vitae:

  Special attention must be given to evaluating the morality of prenatal diagnostic techniques which enable the early detection of possible anomalies in the unborn child. In view of the complexity of these techniques, an accurate and systematic moral judgment is necessary. When they do not involve disproportionate risks for the child and the mother, and are meant to make possible early therapy or even to favour a serene and informed acceptance of the child not yet born, these techniques are morally licit. But since the possibilities of prenatal therapy are today still limited, it not infrequently happens that these techniques are used with a eugenic intention which accepts selective abortion in order to prevent the birth of children affected by various types of anomalies. Such an attitude is shameful and utterly reprehensible, since it presumes to measure the value of a human life only within the parameters of "normality" and physical well-being, thus opening the way to legitimizing infanticide and euthanasia as well.

It applies specifically to already implanted/natural conceived children, but ought to be widened to your case given today's technology.  We'd consider those children to be just as fit for life regardless of their genetic defects.  In fact, the very idea that they have genetic defects when barely conceived should make it more obvious that they are fully human!

If you want a biblical basis try:

  It is I who bring both death and life

(Dt 32:39)

which is to say, don't play God.


The story of Moses is in the Book of Exodus in the Bible and begins in Chapter two. It is a fascinating story and the answer to your question is addressed in:

  Exodus 2:10 KJV  And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.

We do not know whether the eventual Pharaoh you asked about was a natural son of Pharaoh's daughter or not, but being the assumed son of Pharaoh's daughter; Moses would have grown up in the Palace. If the second Pharaoh was the natural son of Pharaoh's daughter, he would have been natural ascendant to the throne.

It is also probable that He and Moses would have been considered as brothers.

Other than those considerations the Bible shows Aaron and Meriam to be the only siblings of Moses.

Hope this helps.


Did Paul write other letters that are not in the Bible?

Paul certainly wrote other letters, but they were either lost or were not theological. For example, 1 Corinthians 16:3:

  Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem.

Regarding one more letter to Corinth, that is the implication in 1 Corinthians 5:9 when he refers to an earlier letter:

  I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people.

Finally, it is worth noting that all genuine letters by Paul could be identified by people at the time as he ended them in his own writing (rather than dictating). 2 Thessalonians 3:17 says:

  I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write.


Do Biblical Unitarians believe in Creatio Ex-nihilo (creation out of nothing)?

"Our approach is to use Scripture as our sole and final authority in understanding who God has revealed Himself to be, and who is Jesus the Messiah." (https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/about)
With this statement in mind, I see no reason to believe Biblical Unitarians do not believe in creatio ex nihilo. They hold to the teachings of Genesis 1:1 and Hebrews 11:3 like any Christian would.
Unitarians distinguish themselves from classically orthodox Christians (think Council of Nicea) by denying trinitarianism. They believe the Godhead to be unitary, with only God the Father. They identify the word "Word" in English translations of John 1:1 (it's logos in Greek) not as Jesus, but as "God’s expression" or God's wisdom (https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/videos/but-what-about-john-1-1). It is true that logos is a word with many meanings and a kind of elasticity and lexical richness that no single English word can capture. As for the identification of the Word "as God" in 1:1, Biblical Unitarians will likewise highlight the lexical richness of the Greek theos and note that lesser beings than the true God can be called theos. In the Septuagint translation of Psalm 82:1, theos and related forms are used to speak of lesser divine beings or lowercase-'g'-gods.
Classically orthodox Christians suggest that John 1:1-18 refers to Jesus, with vv. 14-18 especially linking "the Word" with Jesus.