What is the biblical basis for believing that some sense of Deity exists in humans?

In the Catholic ‘Encyclopedia of Theoloy’ edited by Karl Rhaner, there is a three-and-a-half page article under ‘God’ called ‘II. Knowability of God’ written by Eberhard Simons. He cites three passages, namely, Romans 1:18-21, 2:14ff., and Wisdom 13:1ff.  Wisdom is not reckoned to be part of Holy Scripture in Calvinistic circles. However, Simons explains that the Wisdom passage

“affirms that God may be known from the greatness and beauty of
visible good things, as Lord of all creation. Men’s failure to
acknowledge God as Lord of creation is understandable but inexcusable.
Paul writes in the same vein in Rom. 1:18ff.” Page 564 (quoting those verses in
full, as do you).

The third text Simons uses is Romans 2:14-15. It reads,

“Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things
required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they
do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law
are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness,
and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them” (N.I.V. 1987
edition).

The point is made that the knowability of God

“is seen to be inseparable from that of the proof of the existence of
God, but not identical with it. It has the prior task of defining the
framework within which alone a rational proof of the existence of God
can be possible.”

In all that is said there regarding biblical reasons, and if the Wisdom passage is as explained, all Calvinistic groups that I know of would agree. They, too, use that additional section of Romans 2:14-15 in conjunction with 1:18-20, so it’s hardly worth reiterating the same points they make. There is agreement that all humanity is accountable before God, their Maker, because there is no excuse for anyone claiming God is unknowable.
Then Simons makes an important point regarding the two Romans passages, with which Calvinistic groups would similarly agree. The way the conscience of pagans and their words of self-accusation or excuse testify to the law written in their hearts,

“according to which they act by nature, we have here a clear
indication of the universal knowability of God. But the knowledge is
hardly meant as theoretical and conceptual. It is to grow out of man’s
conscience in his contact with the things of this world, which is a
sort of medium through which it is obviously discernible. Being a
practical and existential knowledge of God, it is not threatened by
stupidity or deficiencies on the intellectual or rational level, but
by the moral attitude, the refusal of truth, injustice. Whatever be
the exact translation one adopts for these passages, one must be
careful not to read into them philosophical principles which cannot be
intended [emphasis mine]. The fact that they affirm that the godhead
of God appears and is obvious through the medium of the created world
need not be taken to mean an indirect knowledge of God through
causality or deduction.”

My Presbyterian Line Manager rejoiced at pointing out to me, when we were at gatherings of the mentally handicapped under the care of the Church of Scotland social services we worked for, that many of the clients were believers in God. Occasionally, some would even speak, in their own simple words, of their faith in Christ. No philosophical points had ever come to bear on their stance. They had not been indoctrinated with any particular ‘type’ of religion; they simply believed in God and knew they could trust Jesus, and nobody ever pressed them into speaking of that. They were happy to volunteer uncomplicated expressions of faith. Indeed, a child-like faith is never to be sneered at, for “From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise” (Psalm 8:2 as quoted by Jesus in Matthew 21:16). And Jesus added, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes” (Matthew 11:25).
As a Calvinist, I would add those three scriptures to the biblical basis for believing that some sense of God exists in humans, right from infancy.


How can one "buy" oil and "buy" gold, garments, and eye salve if these things can only attained by grace?

They are only available by grace, which is why Jesus asked us to purchase it from Him. The fact that it is free grace does not mean it does not require cooperation from us. If we take the parable of the man who sold all to purchase a field where he believed the treasure was, likewise we should do similarly spiritually - to forsaken our attachment to the things of this world to purchase the things we most need from God.

There is an exchange, it is our heart, our body, our soul. We are to surrender this to Christ. By purchasing the oil, the gold, the robe, the eye salve, we are building on our Christian experience with essentials not from us, going from faith to faith.


Did the early church fathers view "monogenes" as "only" or "only-begotten"?

In Greek mono by itself means "only" so monogenes has to mean something more. As the earliest fathers were writing in Greek, they would have no need to define or translate the term.

Justin Martyr (circa 150 AD) says in his First Apology, chapter 23:

  Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power

This demonstrates to me that he saw the begotten aspect as part of the term monogenes.

Tertullian (circa 210) says in Against Praxeas, chapter 7:

  "The Lord created or formed me as the beginning of His ways;" then afterward begotten, to carry all into effect--"When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him." Thus does He make Him equal to Him: for by proceeding from Himself He became His first-begotten Son, because begotten before all things; and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, in a way peculiar to Himself, from the womb of His own heart-even as the Father Himself testifies: "My heart," says He, "hath emitted my most excellent Word."

Also, in the Arian controversy we clearly see they included the concept of begotten in their interpretation rather than deleting it as modern translators tend to do.  Otherwise, the Nicene Creed would not say "γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα." That is, "begotten, not made."

I found an interesting article, An Inductive Study of the Use of Monogenes in the New Testament written by a Doug Kutilek, arguing that the real meaning is simply "unique" or "one of a kind."   However, he admits that this is clearly not how it was interpreted in the third and fourth centuries.  His last paragraph:

  Understanding monogenes in its proper sense--one that completely excludes any notion of “begetting” or “begotten”--has strong theological implications for the doctrine of Christ.  It renders moot the whole heated theological debate of the third and fourth centuries concerning the so-called “eternal generation of the Son,” a term which always left me with the uncomfortable feeling that if we accepted such terminology at face value, we were admitting de facto that Christ was a created being and not God.  It also makes the Nicene Creed’s affirmation that Christ was “begotten but not made” (gennethenta, ou poiethenta) so much verbal nonsense. [21]  Likewise, proposed translations of monogenes such as that noted in Arnt and Gingrich’s Greek Lexicon, namely “begotten of the only one” are exposed as wholly ludicrous and unfounded. [22]  Christ is the unique Son of God; that is, in the sense in which He is the Son of God, He has no brothers.


Was Zwingli the first to preach lectio continua?

Erskine Theological Seminary professor Hughes Oliphant Old says no. In volume 7 of his history of preaching, The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church, he lists Chrysostom, Augustine, and Origen as having done it previously. He also implies that many others had probably done so given the ubiquity and appropriateness of expository preaching in general, going back to the apostles. The discussion can be found on page 172.


In the bible, who saw the light and was blinded?

Most likely, you are thinking of Saul (who later went by the name "Paul"):

As [Saul] neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
“Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.
—Acts 9:3-9 (NIV)

The only difference is that Saul/Paul did not crawl to his destination, but rather was led there by his companions because he was blinded.


Explain similarities and differences in "sinless from the womb " for James, John the Baptist and Mary

I hadn't previously heard anything of this sort about James, but I'd like to explain the difference between the situations of Mary and John the Baptist.

In the case of Mary, we (Catholics) know, because the Church has infallibly declared it, that Mary was conceived without original sin.  As a consequence, of course, she was born sinless.

In the case of John the Baptist, there is no official dogma that I'm aware of, but there is a rather widespread belief that he was cleansed of original sin as a result of Jesus's presence when both Jesus and John were still in their mothers' wombs and Mary visited Elizabeth.  The basis for the belief is that John leaped with joy in the womb when Elizabeth heard Mary's salutation.  The idea is that someone under the dominion of sin would not leap for joy at the arrival of Mary and Jesus.  Although, as I said, the Church has no official dogma on this topic (as far as I know), she has given us a fairly strong hint.  There are only three persons whose earthly birth is commemorated by feasts of the church (in contrast to feasts of martyrs, which often commemorate their "birth" into heaven at the time of martyrdom). Those three are Jesus, Mary, and John the Baptist.  The first two of the three were certainly born without sin, so it is reasonable to extrapolate and suppose that John the Baptist's birth was similar.

EDIT: I should also have mentioned here Luke 1:15, where the angel Gabriel says of John the Baptist "He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb."


Galatians 1:15-18 (ESV)

  But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me
  by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I
  might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult
  with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles
  before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to
  Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit
  Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.

It is not clear why Paul went to Arabia. Even Luke did not mention this in Acts. We can find this account only in his letter to Galatians. We may conclude that Paul stayed sometime in Damascus after the conversion, preaching to the Jews and then went to Arabia, and after three years only Paul went to Jerusalem to speak with the Apostles face to face.

Some scholars believe that Paul went to Arabia to receive revelations from Jesus Christ.

  From the reading of the text in Acts 9:26-28 one would get the
  impression that Saul went directly from his escape at Damascus to
  Jerusalem. By his own admission he clarified the fact in his letter to
  the Galatians (1:16-17) that he “conferred not with flesh and blood”
  nor consulted with the Apostles in Jerusalem; but the Lord’s choice
  for him was to go to Arabia to be trained in the school of the Spirit
  in order that he might receive greater revelations concerning the
  mysteries of the Gospel of the glorified Christ. (source)

Some scholars believe that Paul went to Arabia to preach the Gospel and this action proves that Paul received his revelations concerning the Gospel from Christ himself.

  Paul thus wrote to tell them that after his conversion, he preached
  among the Gentiles for an extended amount of time before ever meeting
  with another apostle. Paul did not hurry off to Jerusalem to get
  instruction and approval from the Twelve. In defense of his apostolic
  credentials to the churches of Galatia, Paul mentioned his delayed
  journey to Jerusalem in order to emphasize (among other things) his
  genuine apostleship, whose message and authority came from Almighty
  God, and not from the twelve apostles, or any other person.
  (source)

Some again believe that Paul needed solitude because his life suddenly turned upside down.

  Another point to consider is Paul’s world was turned upside-down in a
  moment’s time. Wasn’t he human, just like the rest of us? Wouldn’t he
  need to withdraw for awhile in solitude to more or less come to grips
  with the powerful upheaval that had disturbed the certainty of his
  righteous stand in the Law? Wouldn’t he have needed some inner
  clarity? Up to this point in his life, he had served the Law, and
  through the Law, he was convinced that the new Messianic Jews taught
  blasphemy when preaching that the Temple sacrifices had become
  obsolete in Christ. (source)


What is the relation between Christianity and Islam

The fundamental claim of Islam is that there is only one God and Mohammad is his prophet. This is believed because it is written in the Qur'an. The Qur'an is believed to be true based on Mohammad's testimony that he received it from the angel Gabriel.

Mohammad claimed to be the last in a long line of prophets, including most of the major Old Testament figures like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Elijah, etc., as well as Jesus. He claimed that the messages God gave to the other prophets were true (and were one with Islam). Muslims have concluded that the real Jesus and his message have since been lost or corrupted and what we now know to be Christianity is not reliable (because it disagrees with the Qur'an). Islam asserts that it is in accord with the real teachings of the prophet Jesus (which we no longer have in a reliable form). The Qur'an asserts that Jesus was not divine and never died (and, by implication, did not come back to life).

If you don't wholly accept its claim that Islam has been around since the first prophet, Adam, then Islam is post-Christian. Mohammad appears to have known a little about Christianity (and perhaps Judaism). What he wrote down shows some familiarity with Christianity but also a severe misunderstanding of it and complete ignorance of some historical details (e.g. placing Samaritans with Moses).

Its relationship to Christianity is that it attempts to supersede Christianity by incorporating selected elements of Judao-Christian beliefs while simultaneously denying the fundamental beliefs both of Judaism and Christianity. Islam is logically incompatible with both Christianity and Judaism as we understand them. Judaism points to Jesus. Nothing in Christianity points to Mohammad. The movement started by Mohammad is superficially rooted in Judao-Christian history, but differs in important facts all along the way. As a movement, it is completely distinct and separate from Christianity, and its fundamental beliefs are mutually exclusive with those of Judaism or Christianity.


Is it a blessing to live long on the earth?

Philippians 1:21-24 (NASB)
  For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose. But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better;  yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake.

Paul's desire was to go home to be with the Lord. He was, however, content to stay for the sake of serving others. Being blessed with a long life gives us more of an opportunity to glorify God, which is good for us, too.

Addendum: It is also possible for our desire to leave the troubles of this life behind to have selfish motivations. It is better (for us) to be with the Lord, but it is better for others that we remain here. What should an unselfish person choose?


There are many theories of the atonement, that is what exactly Jesus did for us that saves us, and what exactly he saves us from. Many of them can be true simultaneously.
See https://www.sdmorrison.org/7-theories-of-the-atonement-summarized/
These are the major ones:

Moral Influence Theory : Jesus set a good example for us to follow
Ransom Theory : Jesus is the ransom paid either to Satan or to God to buy our freedom
Christus Victor : Jesus defeated evil, sin, death & the devil (no payoff)
Satisfaction Theory (Anselm) : Jesus paid our debt to God to satisfy justice
Penal Substitutionary Theory (Calvin, Luther) : Jesus paid our debt by receiving punishment we deserved
Governmental Theory (Methodism) : Jesus paid the debt of the church to show us how serious sin is, but not in an exact sin-for-sin way
Scapegoat Theory : complicated, but Jesus is victim, not sacrifice

In the Book of Job, that suffering man drew up a list of the things a savior would have to do to rescue him. Among them were to pay his ransom ("For I know that my Redeemer lives", Job 19:26), defeat death and evil, and purify him morally (make him like pure gold). This encompasses the first three theories.
The theory you seem to be wrestling with is Penal Substitutionary Atonement. This is a key contribution of the Protestant Reformation. Not all Christians accept it (though I do). However, whichever version you subscribe to, you need to take into account the following:
The Garden of Gethsemane

38 Then he said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death;
remain here, and watch with me.” 39 And going a little farther he fell
on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let
this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.”
(Matthew 26:38-39)

If a perfectly Holy and obedient Son (Jesus) asked his perfectly Loving and Holy and infinitely powerful and wise Father (God) if there was another way to get the job done, then if there were such a way, the Father would have allowed His son to take it. That didn't happen. Any such alternate way would involve us cleaning up part of our own mess and us enduring the suffering we justly deserve. Could we even make the interest payment on such a debt?
The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant
In the parable, a king forgives a servant a debt of ten thousand talents of gold. In modern terms, that is about 3.5 billion USD. In ancient terms, it was several times the annual budget of the entire kingdom of Israel. Before God, our debt is that huge. Whatever theory of atonement you pick, you owe something you can never repay.
Suffering is more than you understand
I spent two years straight studying Job. From it I learned that suffering is more than punishment, judgment, and retribution. Suffering from God is love and it is a form of communication by which our Father imbues us with His Spirit, His wisdom, and His power. I found that in the cries of Job before God spoke to him from the whirlwind, while he was debating his worthless friends, were revelations from God. Even as Job was saying that he could not see God, could not hear his voice, that God was far off from his cries for help, Job was pouring forth oracles of wisdom that came from heaven. I discovered nine prophecies of the Christ in Job's speeches which covered the Lord's ministry from beginning to end and identified the messiah as both human and divine. Those nine prophecies were arranged in chronological order. Through this suffering, Job was receiving the Word of God into him so that it could be shared with the world. Job was a type of Christ. We all must be broken by suffering. Jesus is like a jar of perfume or a balm. The jar has to be broken so that the curative can be poured on our wounds. And we must be broken like a syringe breaks the skin to administer the vaccine to our bodies.
The Bread of Life
Jesus said that he was the bread of life. When you eat bread, it keeps you alive. You are preserved. The bread is consumed.

35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me
shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36
But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All
that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I
will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my
own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of
him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given
me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my
Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should
have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
41 So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread
that came down from heaven.”

After Jesus called himself the bread of life, a lot of people left him. On some level they could not accept that they needed someone to do that much for them to rescue them and pay such a heavy price. Common responses are:

I am not that bad a person. I don't need such a dramatic rescue.
I can do it all by myself.
I will do part of the job because that is fair. I'll call you later when I need help.
I am such a bad person, I don't deserve it. No way anyone would ever do that for me.

They are all forms of pride.


What do Christians do on a Fasting day besides worshipping?

From wiki:

The Church Fathers have referred to fasting without prayer as "the fast of the demons" since the demons do not eat according to their incorporeal nature, but neither do they pray.

From my understanding, the Orthodox are the only large denomination that participate in regular fasting. Almost every Wednesday and Friday include a vegan diet (except shrimp, scallops, etc.) with no alcohol or olive oil. The entirety of lent is like this as well, except alcohol/olive oil is permitted on Saturday and Sunday and only one meal is permitted per day; in addition, no food at all is permitted the first three days and the the final two days of Lent).
During these periods of fasting, they do not "only focus on worshiping God", as they more than likely work and have families to take care of. However, it is expected that they worship much more than usual, as fasting without worship is worthless (i.e., inefficient).
You can think of it as a continuum as opposed to a black or white answer. If one was to fast and worship 100% of the day, it would be more efficient than one who fasted and worshiped only 30 minutes of the day, which would be more efficient than one who did not fast and worshiped 5 minutes out of the day.
This answer is in regards to the Orthodox perspective, as the Catholics and Protestants don't engage in regular fasting. (The Catholics used to fast but relaxed it to the restriction of no red meat on Fridays, during Lent).


In CS Lewis's 'Transposition' essay, what does he mean, in the last sentence, by 'meaning'?

Here is a more full context:

  May we not, by a reasonable analogy, suppose likewise that there is no
  experience of the spirit so transcendent and supernatural, no vision
  of Deity Himself so close and so far beyond all images and emotions,
  that to it also there cannot be an appropriate correspondence on the
  sensory level? Not by a new sense but by the incredible flooding of
  those very sensations we now have with a meaning, a transvaluation, of
  which we have here no faintest guess?

To me it seems as if the word "meaning" here is being used as in "signification". As in, "What does it mean?" Or, "What does it signify?" The word "transvaluation" means literally, "a valuation beyond". The dictionary has in its definition the idea of using a standard to evaluate that is not the normal one. Lewis is saying here that our senses will have experiences in correspondence with what will be in heaven, but they will have a meaning that is on a whole different scale from what we experience now.

That it does not mean "purpose" or "reason" in this context, I think we can gather from the fact that Lewis is talking about what will, at the time of the flooding of "those very sensations we now have", be in the present. He is not talking about purpose, I don't think, or telos. That is, he is talking about what our present sensations will mean at some future time. But that future time will not, in itself, be pointing even further forward in time, as if it were a reason for something else. Indeed, time will have come to an end when this flooding happens!


In the beginning...

Genesis 6:4 (NIV)

  The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

The descendants of these children of Nephilim were the giants that show up later in the bible.  When Moses sent the twelve spies into Canaan, the promised land (before the 40 years of wandering), they reported back of giants in the land:

Numbers 13:33

  We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”

There's another reference to them in 2 Samuel:

2 Samuel 21:20

  In still another battle, which took place at Gath, there was a huge man with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot—twenty-four in all. He also was descended from Rapha.

Goliath, himself, was a Philistine.  He was also known as the "Goliath of Gath".  Gath was one of the five city-states of Philistine.

1 Samuel 17:23 (NIV)

  As he was talking with them, Goliath, the Philistine champion from Gath, stepped out from his lines and shouted his usual defiance, and David heard it.

Because we know that Goliath was from Gath (from 1 Samuel) and that the giants in Gath were descendants of the Nephilim (from 2 Samuel) it's pretty safe to assume he was one of those.

It's also safe to assume some possible genetic issues (due to the six fingers and toes).


Is the Pope allowed to publish books after resignation?

The ex-pope can't publish anything as a pope - his seal is destroyed and he has no longer the right to use his papal name in this way. Documents he didn't manage to publish won't be destroyed, but are open to use by his successor, as the site linked in Svidgen's comment states.

No one can forbid the ex-pope to publish books under his civic name, though it's a tradition for an ex-pope to refrain from anything that might have "political" consequences. I personally (with no qualification, I just guess) expect Joseph Ratzinger to publish some of his yet unpublished works (otherwise, someone would publish them posthumously) - I guess he has enough unpublished (or unfinished) materials from his academic times.


How did early "street evangelization" differ from the modern practice?

If we look at scripture, we can see that great effort was taken to make the presentation of the gospel make sense within the cultural context of the day and people being reached.  Hebrews addresses the Jews in a way that focuses on how the old testament pointed to Jesus.  Roman's focuses on a logical presentation of core gospel from a context the Roman's could understand.

The Jews were frequently reached out to in synagogues where they went for religious learning.  Paul reached out to the Greeks by speaking in their place of religious discussion and used reference to their own alter to the "unknown god" to reach them.  The only thing that really remained consistent was the message of Truth.  The how and the where were changed to fit the time, the place and the people.

At the time, without the Internet or mass media, people got their news and learning locally, directly from talking with people.  Additionally, culturally, individual preachers tended to accumulate followings then rather than stand alone churches.  This explains John the Baptist's following.  He's not so much a parallel to a street preacher as he is to a Billy Graham convention or the lead pastor of a church.  (He actually primarily spoke out away from people and people came to him. [Matthew 3:1 - In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea])

Our methods of getting information is much different now and our culture far less personal.  The approach of street preaching doesn't fit the cultural perspective of the day and so it is dismissed as irrelevant since the methods being used are irrelevant to the culture.


What is the connection between St. Michael and people who work in grocery stores?

This is most likely an adoption, due to the fact that in Medieval times, soldiers (police if you like) would protect the market places where grocers would sell their goods.


What is the policy for Latter-Day Saints' leaders (like bishops) being politically engaged?

Per the LDS website, “stake presidents and bishops are free to contribute, serve on campaign committees and otherwise support candidates of their choice”.
So, it seems that bishops are free to participate in politics. However, the church goes on to say that these officials should not imply or infer that their political stance is endorsed by the church, use church generated addresses, email systems, buildings etc for political promotions, or “engage in fundraising or other types of campaigning focused on fellow Church members under their ecclesiastical supervision."

From what I can gather, the only members for whom it is not permissible to participate in politics are full time General Authorities, general officers, General Auxiliary Presidencies, mission presidents, temple presidents, and their spouses. The hyperlinked article, which cites a presidency letter the church released that outlined their stance on political neutrality, states that these full time servants “should not personally participate in political campaigns, including promoting candidates, fundraising, speaking in behalf of or otherwise endorsing candidates, and making financial contributions.”


Did the teachings of Buddha influence Jesus?

While the Ba'hai might make such a claim, Nicene Christianity would not.  Most Christians have sufficiently fundamental differences with Buddhism over how to live that calling one a disciple of another would not capture the relationship well. Leaving aside radically different notions of the afterlife (Jesus did not believe in reincarnation!), there are fundamentally different perscriptions in how to handle life's vicissitudes.

The Buddha's first noble truth, for example teaches that joy should be avoided, in order to avoid the pain that comes with it.

In contrast, Hebrews 12 says of Jesus:

  ..looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

Whether or not their understanding of how one should live a "good" life is similar, and whether or not they conveyed their messages using simiar metaphors would not be as great as such a fundamental difference of opinion on how to live a life.  Given this great dichotomy, even if one could plausibly make a case that a Jewish rabbi 500 years after Buddha in a country very, very far away, somehow was aware of him, it would be difficult to call him a major influencer.


What were the circumstances behind the loss of the "True Cross?"

About "doing crazy thing as risking in battle" - do you think Israelites were crazy for risking the Ark of the Covenant in battle?

About the history of finding of the Precious and Livegiving Cross - look here for the narration about Saint Helen http://www.goarch.org/special/listen_learn_share/exaltholycross


Why does Isaiah not mention himself after chapter 39?

It is generally accepted that Isaiah chapters 1-39 were written by Isaiah, son of Amoz, who lived during the reigns of Kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah of Judah, although there were numerous later additions and changes to that portion of the book. Uta Ranke-Heinemann, in Putting Away Childish Things, page 230, dates chapters 24-27, the 'Little Apocalypse of Isaiah', to the late post-Exilic period. It is not unusual for an author to write about himself in the third person, and scholars accept the historicity of Isaiah and accept him as the author of the opening chapters of his book.

Chapters 40-55 are attributed to an anonymous author now known as Second Isaiah or Deutero-Isaiah, who lived during the Babylonian Exile. This author had a very different style to that of First Isaiah, who used brief, emphatic diction, compared to Second Isaiah's poetic style and more extensive vocabulary.

Chapters 56-66 are attributed to another anonymous author now known as Third Isaiah or Trito-Isaiah. The style of Third Isaiah is similar to that of Second Isaiah, but differences of content and focus create a seam in the present book.

Abraham Ibn Ezra, a Jewish scholar of Spain during the twelfth century was probably the first to raise questions about the authorship of the Book of Isaiah. It has also been proposed that the writings of II Isaiah and III Isaiah were originally separate books, but were subsequently appended to the original Book of Isaiah.


Was the Trinity severed during the crucifixion?

Was the Trinity severed during the the crucifixion?
The answer is NO.  While I cannot find a specifically Catholic source for this answer, I did find a well-written article by Paul Copan a credentialed philosophy professor with degrees in theology and philosophy: Was the Trinity Broken at the Cross? who in turn relies on a 2012 book Forsaken by a professor of theology Thomas McCall.  I'm pretty sure that the explanation of how the Trinity was intact is acceptable to Catholics as well.
Here are several points from the article that addressed your questions:

The idea that there was a break within the Trinity at crucifixion is a modern development, most notable through the liberal theologian Jürgen Moltmann who wrote an influential 1972 book The Crucified God.

From the point of church history, church fathers and theologians—from the likes of Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, and John of Damascus to Peter Abelard, Thomas Aquinas, and beyond) did not take this view; they would have rejected what is a fairly recent theological development.

The Bible verse most likely to support a broken Trinity is Ps 22:1 which Jesus uttered from the cross in Mt 27:46:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

but that is taking the verse out of context since later in Psalm 22 the psalmist turned to a note of triumph (v24):

For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted,
and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him.

Other Bible verses Matt 27:50 and Mk 15:37 seem to emphasize separation (Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed His last / yielded up his spirit).  But notice that we are not told what he said.  Furthermore, parallel crucifixion accounts from Luke and John showed union between Father and Son:

In John 19:30, Jesus cries triumphantly, “It is finished!”
Jesus tells a criminal that he will be with him when he comes into his kingdom. Jesus says, “Today you will be with Me in Paradise” (Lk. 23:43). This doesn’t like a God-forsaken Son.
Jesus also calls on the Father while on the cross to extend forgiveness: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Lk. 23:34).
Jesus finally says, “Father, into your hands I commit My spirit” (Lk. 23:46) — again, no indication of a broken union—only that of a deep fellowship with his Father. We have a string of affirmations that the Trinity was united rather than broken, nor did “the Father turn his face away.”

"Dividing God into parts is not possible metaphysically"

By his very nature, God is necessarily triune; so the deep, unbreakable interrelationships between the persons of the Trinity cannot be broken. Indeed, the persons of the Trinity have mutually-indwelt one another from eternity (perichoresis [Greek]; circumincessio [Latin]), and they are necessarily bound up with each other. The persons of the Trinity are not detachable “parts” of God.
Furthermore, there is no opposition or lack of harmony between these persons. The Father does not “take out his wrath” on the Son. The saving plan of the Trinity before the Incarnation was mutually agreed upon by all persons of the Trinity from eternity. ...
Just as the Son is not forced by the Father to die but voluntarily lays down his life and takes it up again (Jn. 10:18), so the Father is lovingly and reconcilingly involved in the death of Jesus: “God [the Father] was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (2 Cor. 5:19). The triune God—not just the Father—is wrathful against sin, and the triune God—not just the Son—is lovingly involved in redemption. Love and wrath are not opposed to each other in God. Rather, wrath flows from the love of God.

"We can still speak of a kind of “abandonment” without speaking of a broken Trinity or of the Father’s pouring out his wrath on Jesus—as though the Son of God is not wrathful against sin."

(for more explanation why Trinity was not broken, please refer to the article linked above)
Conclusion:

In the end, we do not have any rift within the Trinity. This is not biblical; it is not in keeping with the stream of Christian theology over the centuries; and it is utterly impossible metaphysically. Rather, we have a Triune God who is involved not only in creation (Gen. 1:1-2; Jn. 1:1-3), but also in the redemption of human beings.

P.S.: nathan.j.mcdougall's comment on penal substitution and Thomas McCall's defense of it while keeping Trinity intact is worth preserving:

The fact that particular Protestant formulations of the atonement (namely, Penal Substitutionary ones) ostensibly lead to either a rupture of Christ's human and divine natures, or else of the Trinity itself, is the basis for a Catholic argument against such models of the atonement. But generally Protestants would deny that such ruptures can take place, as Catholics would.


How did these people see God's face? (Catholic perspective)

Usually, in the old testament, when people are said to have seen God, this is referring to an angel sent by God. The case for Abraham is a good example. When Abraham saw God, he was looking at an angel sent from God, because God had not taken human form before Jesus. You can also see this when this angel goes to destroy the sodomites and his identity is made fairly clear. Manoa is also a good example of this. When the angle revealed himself to him and his wife, he says ...

  We are doomed to die!" he said to his wife. "We have seen God

More in the context

  21Now the angel of the LORD did not appear to Manoah or his wife again. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD. 22So Manoah said to his wife, "We will surely die, for we have seen God." 23But his wife said to him, "If the LORD had desired to kill us, He would not have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering from our hands, nor would He have shown us all these things, nor would He have let us hear things like this at this time."…

People die when they see God because they are unclean and defilement cannot stand in the holiness and the glory of the lord. This is why there are exceptions. Isiah chapter 6 is good example:

  In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple. 2 Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. 3 And they were calling to one another: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory. 4 At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke. 5 “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.” 6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. 7 With it, he touched my mouth and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.”

When people are holy, they can stand in God's presence.


Why is the second beast of Revelation called the Antichrist?

Just to add an answer to Cecil's, which is solid, but to elaborate more closely on the ideal of a personal antichrist.

Anti in the context of Christ refers to not only being opposite or opposed to, but also "in place of."  Since, from Revelation, we see that this antichrist is given power and authority by the dragon (universally recognized as Satan), the antichrist is indeed a singular person -- but beyond that, he is meant to REPLACE the real true Christ, Jesus.

Just look at some parallels, again from Rev 13 as Cecil used:

  3 And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and
  followed the beast. 4 So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority
  to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the
  beast? Who is able to make war with him?”

Two things here -- first we see the "beast" (the one empowered by the dragon, satan, has been mortally wounded but was healed).  As a result this causes people to marvel and worship satan.  This is a simulation of Jesus Christ's resurrection from the Cross.

The one goal of this is satan is prideful and wants to be in the place of God.  Naturally his antichrist would stand to be in place of Jesus.  We see this beginning in the Old Testament, for example, Isaiah 14:

  12 “How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,[b] son of the morning!
  How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations! 13
  For you have said in your heart: ‘I will ascend into heaven, I will
  exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount
  of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north; 14 I will
  ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.’

Let's go back to Christ in the wilderness where satan tries to tempt Jesus.  From Matthew 4:

  8 Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and
  showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he
  said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down
  and worship me.”

Satan wants worship, that's his only price for all the nations of the world.  This is what got him thrown down from heaven, to the earth, where he has power and authority over this world until Christ's return; and this is his motivation for an antichrist.  Christ warns us in Matthew 24 to be weary of false Christs and false prophets whom perform wonders.  The dragon, the beast he raises up (the antichrist) and the antichrist's prophet itself imitates the Holy Trinity.

Again, to imitate, and be in place of, the true Godhead.  Since Jesus Christ is our personal Lord and Savior, it only makes sense the knock off attempt to take his place for non-believers would be a personal savior-like figure as well.


How many stalls for horses and chariots did Solomon have?

Answering how many there actually were isn't going to be possible here because there is a definite conflict between the verses, and the honest answer is "nobody's sure".  And opinion answers don't count here.  Since your question is a valid one asked quite often, I hope you'll indulge me and let me answer something slightly different that still gets at the heart of your question.

A fair and on-topic question would be "How do Apologists address/resolve this discrepancy?"  I'd like to answer that, since it is answerable.  If that's not what you're looking for, and you really want an answer to how many horses there are, the answer is "we're not sure" and you can stop reading there.  If you want to know how we can read those verses and not scream "The Bible isn't inerrant!!!" read on.

As covered in Rules behind resolving alleged Biblical discrepancies the field of Apologetics hinges on avoidance of logical fallacies in explanations, and sticks to standard Christian doctrines including Biblical inerrancy, infallibility, and inspiration.

Most Apologetics experts that I'm aware of subscribe to the definition of inerrancy covered at From a Fundamentalist standpoint, what does the phrase “Inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God” mean?  This is important to define, in order to avoid straw-man arguments.  Short version: The original manuscripts are believed to be inerrant, not the translations. Many translations have had known errors.  copyist errors are well-documented and expected.  Yet, for doctrinal purposes, we have enough manuscripts to know that there aren't any critical doctrinal issues affected by such errors.

With that out of the way, one answer is already obvious.  This could easily be a copyist error.  That's acceptable within the bounds outlined above. The number of horses certainly doesn't affect central doctrines.

The second possibility is that these are two different counts.  Solomon certainly gained enormous wealth during his reign.  The number of horses and horsemen certainly grew, so it it possible that one cont is from early in his reign and another is later in his reign.

Personally, I subscribe to the copyist error, but either way, this discrepancy doesn't pose a problem, either for the doctrine of inerrancy, nor does it have any other theological importance.

I did some searching, and a very similar error can be found at CARM:

Excerpt:

  There are two possible explanations for this discrepancy. 1) A copyist
  error. 2) The difference is due to time; that is, one account is at
  the beginning of Solomon's reign (1 Kings 4:26), and the other at the
  end (2 Chron. 9:25). I believe the most probable is a copyist error
  since we can see that Chronicles does have copyist errors in other
  areas. Therefore, it is probable that the same thing occurred here.


Its really not that difficult. At that time in Israel she would have been considered the daughter of both he genetic father and his genetic father. It was common practice to list the names of genetic fatherhood for several generations. There are many instances of that in the Old Testament. In the book of Ruth you will find her listed as the daughter of Mordaci; even  though he was actually her uncle.

Since Anah was a common name listing the genealogy of the individual was a way of describing the particular individual. That is the reason for the listing of Zibeon as Anah's father in 36:24; and Sier as the father in 36:20. Quite simply they are two different individuals.

Hope this helps.


When did Satan get cast out of heaven?  Or is that yet to come?

This may be an issue of semantics.  Here is my impression:

Satan sinned prior to Adam and Eve sinning, as Richard indicated in his answer (which you linked).  At that time he "fell" in the sense that DTest was asking about in his question.  (i.e. "fell from grace".)

However, after Satan's initial sin, he appears to have still had access to the realm where the angels stand before God (which we call "heaven").  This is what I was getting at in my "examples" link in my answer (which you linked).  Here are the verses from Job that I was referring to:

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. -Job 1:6
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the Lord. -Job 2:1

(See also: Zechariah 3:1)  I also linked a passage from Luke in which Jesus says that He was watching Satan falling from heaven when "the seventy" were rebuking demons.  If he is still "falling from heaven" in Jesus' day, it seems logical to think he still had access to heaven, and must not have yet been banished in any ultimate sense.

The seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.” And He said to them, “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning." -Luke 10:17-18

The passage from Revelation 12 seems to be describing a much more ultimate banishment in which he is forced out of heaven by Michael's armies, there is "no longer a place found for them in heaven", and he is "thrown down to the earth", resulting in "woe to the earth" because once Satan realizes what has happened, he has "great wrath, knowing that he has only a short time."  The context of this passage, which I was explaining in my answer (which you linked) seems to be about the End Times, and the casting down seems to happen after the ascension, since the resulting proclamation includes a description of how the "brethren" overcame Satan by the blood of Jesus.  It seems unnatural to interpret this as describing an event that happened back in Genesis 1-3.

Clarifications
Ezekiel 28:12-19, which may be one of the points of confusion, is a prophecy against Tyre (specifically addressed to the King of Tyre).  However, it is also partially addressing Satan, who was presumably working through the King of Tyre... for instance, in verses 12-15 it says things like "you were in Eden" and "you were the anointed cherub".  It is true that the passage also says "I have cast you as profane from the mountain of God" and "I cast you to the ground".  However, we need to read the entire passage and understand it as intended.  For instance, it also says things like "by the abundance of your trade you were internally filled with violence" and "you profaned your sanctuaries", referring to the city, not Satan.  Furthermore, there are statements like "I have destroyed you... from the midst of the stones of fire" and "I have brought fire from the midst of you; it has consumed you, and I have turned you to ashes on the earth".  I don't know of anyone who teaches that this happened to Satan - at least not yet (Revelation 20:10).
(Isaiah 14:3-21 is the same sort of story, but is about Babylon instead of Tyre.)
If there are other passages which seem to contradict this, make a note in the comments and I'll take a look.  This is just my tentative understanding based on the passages I'm aware of.  Hope that helps.


How many languages had the Hebrew Bible been translated into by 30 CE?

It might be helpful for you to research the Septuagint, which is also referred to as LXX being the Roman numeral for seventy as it is traditionally believed that seventy Jewish elders performed the Hebrew to Greek translation in about 300 B.C.

Many Jews, in the days of Christ on earth, would have read this Greek translation of the Hebrew scripture. It is probable that both Jesus and his apostles are quoting from the Septuagint when we read their references to the Old Testament writings in the Greek New Testament writings of the first century.

I think you may have misunderstood the article in your link. It is referring only to Daniel and Ezra, which were written during the captivity, when Judah was carried off to Babylon, and parts of which are written in the Chaldee (Aramaic) dialect, not pure Hebrew. But there is not a huge amount of difference between Chaldee (Aramaic) and Hebrew.

My understanding is that Aramaic is not, exactly, Babylonian Chaldee. Upon the return to Israel, some Jews who had been influenced during the seventy years of captivity (particularly those growing up in Babylon) would have adapted Chaldee to Aramaic upon their return. They developed another dialect once they were back in their homeland, partly influenced by their exile in Babylon.

Scholars, scribes and Pharisees would have studied the scripture in the original Hebrew as the Jews carefully preserved what had been delivered to them by Moses and the prophets. But in parts of Israel, particularly Galilee in the north, both Aramaic and Greek were spoken.

No scripture was written in the Aramaic dialect, however. Daniel and Ezra were retained in their original form. There was an Aramaic translation (the Peshita, as is mentioned in your new link) and, later, there was Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

I would be very interested if anyone else were to post an answer containing more detail.

Like many things, there is some modern dispute about some of the details of the manuscripts available during that period.

During the days of Christ on earth there were two main scriptures being used in Israel, the pure Hebrew scripture (within the canon of which were Daniel and Ezra partly in Chaldee) and the Greek Septuagint. It was a time of great change and the Greek language had become the lingua franca of the Mediterranean region.


Refutation of Chizzuk Emunah, Part II, Ch. XII: "Doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus Examined"

My first reaction is that this is simply not the accepted understanding of the passage, and that this understanding can only come from a person determined to find fault in it.  But that hardly seems to do it justice, so here's a better, more complete answer:

One obvious response to the idea that Matthew 8:20 refers to Jesus acknowledging that He isn't divine is that it's odd that a Jew would not know their own Scripture.   Although the phrase "Son of Man" was a phrase of "humilation and debasement", the phrase actually points to His divinity, as the foretold one, right from the book of Daniel 7:13(KJV)

  I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came
  with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they
  brought him near before him.

Moreso, the fact that Jesus would come in humility is right out of Psalm 8:5.

  For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast
  crowned him with glory and honour.

As for why Jesus would want to discourage this person from following Him, a common understanding is that this scribe expected material gain, and Jesus was just giving him a realiztic expectation of the life he would lead if he followed Christ.

From Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

  ...So that though he was Lord of all, as being the mighty God; yet as
  "the son of man", a phrase, expressive both of the truth and meanness
  of his human nature, the most despicable of creatures in the earth and
  air, were richer than he. This he said, to convince the Scribe of his
  mistake; who expected much worldly grandeur and wealth, by becoming
  his disciple.

As a matter of fact, Gills Exposition refutes he entire argument put forth by Yitzchak ben Avraham

  When Christ styles himself "the son of man", it is no contradiction to
  his being God; nor any objection to trust and confidence in him, as
  the Jew (z) suggests; for he is truly and properly God, as well as
  really man, having two natures, human and divine, united in his
  person; so that he is, as was prophesied of him, Emmanuel, God with
  us, in our nature, God manifested in the flesh: and since he is so, it
  cannot be unlawful to trust in him; which it would be indeed, was he a
  mere man. The Jews ought not to object to this name and title of the
  "Messiah, the son of man": since he is so called, as their own writers
  and commentators acknowledge, in (a) Psalm 80:17 and (b) Daniel 7:13.
  And whereas it is further urged against these words of Christ, that if
  he was God, why does he complain of want of place? Is not the whole
  world his, according to Psalm 24:1? It may be replied, that it is very
  true, that the whole world is his, nor could he be in want of
  anything, as God; but yet, as man, for our sakes he became "poor",
  that we "might be rich": nor should this be any difficulty with a Jew,
  when they themselves say, as some have thought, if he (the Messiah)
  should come, , "there's no place in which he can sit down" (c). Unless
  it be understood of Nebuchadnezzar, as the gloss explains it; let the
  learned inspect the place, and judge: the coming of the Messiah is
  immediately spoken of.

As does Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

  8:18-22 One of the scribes was too hasty in promising; he proffers
  himself to be a close follower of Christ. He seems to be very
  resolute. Many resolutions for religion are produced by sudden
  conviction, and taken up without due consideration; these come to
  nothing. When this scribe offered to follow Christ, one would think he
  should have been encouraged; one scribe might do more credit and
  service than twelve fishermen; but Christ saw his heart, and answered
  to its thoughts, and therein teaches all how to come to Christ. His
  resolve seems to have been from a worldly, covetous principle; but
  Christ had not a place to lay his head on, and if he follows him, he
  must not expect to fare better than he fared. We have reason to think
  this scribe went away. Another was too slow. Delay in doing is as bad
  on the one hand, as hastiness in resolving is on the other. He asked
  leave to attend his father to his grave, and then he would be at
  Christ's service. This seemed reasonable, yet it was not right. He had
  not true zeal for the work. Burying the dead, especially a dead
  father, is a good work, but it is not thy work at this time. If Christ
  requires our service, affection even for the nearest and dearest
  relatives, and for things otherwise our duty, must give way. An
  unwilling mind never wants an excuse. Jesus said to him, Follow me;
  and, no doubt, power went with this word to him as to others; he did
  follow Christ, and cleaved to him. The scribe said, I will follow
  thee; to this man Christ said, Follow me; comparing them together, it
  shows that we are brought to Christ by the force of his call to us, Ro
  9:16.

The idea that Jesus "knew He wasn't God" doesn't hold water in light of other Scripture, either.  It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.  The question "Did Jesus claim to be God?" has been answered and addressed so thoroughly, and is such an established teaching, that it's simply ridiculous to try to claim otherwise. One example here.

The whole argument ignores the basic orthodox Christian teaching that Jesus assumed a humble nature willingly, for His purpose, but knew full well of His divinity.


How does the LDS Church handle verses that imply there is no one like God?

The ones in the Old Testament are actually quite easy to reconcile. Latter-day Saints believe Jesus Christ to be the God of the Old Testament. In other words, Moses spoke with the antemortal Christ. Our Heavenly Father created worlds by Jesus Christ. And "beside me there is no God" as read in Isaiah would be spoken by Jesus Christ, who is our only Savior.

And it is consistent that there is no other like God. No other Gods concern us. We worship God our Heavenly Father only, and subject ourselves to His will. No other god, "as there be gods many," is of concern to us.

Quite frankly, Latter-day Saints do not focus on or even discuss other gods and worlds as they are not pertinent to our salvation. There are lots of questions lately about the topic of exaltation, which is fine, but be reminded that not much is understood about it and it is not our concern in mortality. We simply do our best, keep the commandments, and follow the Savior to return home where we want to be. We "hope through the atonement of Christ and the power of his resurrection to be raised unto life eternal." (Moroni 7:41) That is our concern.


What doctrines teach that people are inherently good or bad?

The doctrine that says that we are all born fundamentally sinful is called total depravity.  It is held by the vast majority of protestants - Lutheran and Methodist alike.  This is one area of agreement between Calvinists and Arminians.

Although not quite teaching that we are "basically good", one step closer to that is limited depravity.  It is the belief that we are born sinful, yet with enough good in us to accept Christ.  This may be similar to the Catholic view, although I am sure there are some finer points in which it differs (perhaps a Catholic can comment on this).  I am not aware of any other mainstream branches of Christianity that hold this view.

Mormonism does teach that human beings are not "basically sinful" (though they do not claim that human beings are "basically good"), as a part of their restored doctrine of atonement:

  According to Christ’s original doctrine as restored through Joseph Smith, the Fall made both possible and necessary the Savior’s atoning for our sins. Human nature is neither inherently evil nor inherently good. We become evil or good based on interaction between the Lord’s influence and the choices we make—choices unavailable in the garden before Adam and Eve fell and only made possible because of the Savior’s atonement.


Is there biblical evidence that God knows my unspoken thoughts?

Yes, indeed there is:

  12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account. - Hebrews 4:12-13 NIV

  2 Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. 3 I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God. - 1 Corinthians 4:2-5 NIV

  3 When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures. - James 4:3 NIV1

  1 You have searched me, Lord,
      and you know me.
  2 You know when I sit and when I rise;
      you perceive my thoughts from afar. - Psalm 139:1-2 NIV

  6 When they arrived, Samuel saw Eliab and thought, “Surely the Lord’s anointed stands here before the Lord.”
  7 But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” - 1 Samuel 16:6-7 NIV

As far as I am aware, the Bible does not offer any encouragement towards the idea that we can hide any of our thoughts from God. The only concept that comes close to my knowledge is God's promise that when we confess and repent of our sins, that He will no longer 'remember' them (cf. Isaiah 43:25), but I believe this is used idiomatically to mean He will no longer account them rather than a literal forgetting and in any event is on a substantially different track than what you are looking for.

1. The implication is that God knows our (hidden - perhaps even from us) motives when we pray.


Technically, I don't know of any place in the Bible that says that the saved go to Heaven when they die. It says they go to "paradise", that they go to be "with Jesus", etc, but I don't know any verse that says this is Heaven. Exactly what the place where the saved go is called is not entirely clear.

Perhaps the place that Jesus went to prepare is the New Jerusalem of Revelation.

Or if it is the same Heaven mentioned throughout the Bible, this would not really cause a problem with this verse. To "prepare" a place does not necessarily mean that you are creating it from nothing. He might have meant that he was preparing Heaven to receive the saved. Like someone might say, "Oh, I have to get home to prepare the house for the party tonight." They don't mean that they're building a new house, but that they are going to decorate their existing house, arrange furniture, put out clean towels, etc.


Origin of the adage, ‘He went to be with the LORD.’?

The Biblical basis for using the expression “to be with the Lord” comes from the Apostle Paul who had this to say about his desire to be united with the Lord after death:

  Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord.  We live by faith, not by sight.  We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:6-8).

While alive Paul is serving Christ, but he longs to be with Christ which can only happen after death:

  For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.  If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labour for me.  Yet what shall I choose?  I do not know!  I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body (Philippians 1:21-24).

My NIV Study Bible comments that Philippians 1:23 clearly teaches that when believers die they are with Christ, apart from the body.  Being with Christ (who is the Lord) involves some kind of conscious presence and fellowship as confirmed by what Paul said in 2 Corinthians 5:6, 8.

The origin of this expression, “to be with the Lord” or “to be with Christ” dates back to approximately 55 A.D. when Paul wrote his second letter to the Christians in Corinth.


According to Calvinism, what should one do if one doubts their election?

Just because a person is a long time church member does not mean they belong to Christ Jesus or that they have put their faith and trust in Him.  There are many people who say they are Christians but who have never experienced the new birth.  Forgetting about Calvin for one moment, born-again Christians look to Christ Jesus and believe in this promise in John 6:37-40:

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away... I shall lose none of all that he has given me... everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

No if’s, no but’s and no maybe’s.  If a person has been born-again then they have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and that is their assurance.  If they have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, then they begin to produce the fruit of the spirit.  A transformed life is evidence of the new birth.   As for seekers who have not yet come to saving faith in Christ Jesus, and who look for assurance, then this extract from a sermon preached by Baptist minister Charles H. Spurgeon on the subject of Election may be helpful:

Many persons want to know their election before they look to Christ, but that is not possible; it is only to be discovered by "looking to Jesus" (Hebrews 12:2). Do you feel yourself to be a lost, guilty sinner? Go straight to the cross of Christ, and tell Jesus so, and tell Him that you have read in the Bible, "Whoever comes to me I will never cast out" (John 6:37). Tell Him that He has said, "The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" (1 Timothy 1:15). Look to Jesus and believe on Him, and you shall make proof of your election directly, for as surely as you believe, you are elect.
If you will give yourself wholly up to Christ and trust Him, then you are one of God's chosen ones; but if you stop and say, "I want to know first whether I am elect", you do not know what you are asking. Go to Jesus, just as you are, in all your guilt. Leave all curious inquiry about election alone. Go straight to Christ, and hide in His wounds, and you shall know your election. The assurance of the Holy Spirit shall be given to you, so that you shall be able to say, "I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me" (2 Timothy 1:12).
Christ was at the everlasting council - He can tell you whether you were chosen or not; but you cannot find it out in any other way. Go and put your trust in Him, and His answer will be, "I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you" (Jeremiah 31:3). There will be no doubt about His having chosen you when you have chosen Him.  (Source: Charles H. Spurgeon’s devotional Morning and Evening, morning 17 July)

This, I believe, expresses the Reformed Protestant view.  As the article says, if a person doesn’t know whether they are part of God’s elect then they need to go to the cross and turn to Christ Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2-3).  Assurance is experienced by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, by whom the believer realises that they have been adopted into God’s family:

Romans 8:9, 11, 14:16: “And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ...  And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you...  because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God... And by him we cry, ‘Abba, Father.’  The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. “
1 Thessalonians 1:4-6: “For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction... you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit.”
2 Timothy 1:12: “I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day.”

It is possible for a believer to back-slide, to grieve the Holy Spirit and to become spiritually sick, but that does not mean they are no longer part of God’s elect or that they have lost their salvation.  It means they need to repent and turn to the great physician and cry out for help:

2 Peter 1:1-10: His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness...  But if anyone does not have them, he is short-sighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure.”

I confess I find all this talk about Calvin and the Elect confusing.  I am a Christian of the Reformed Protestant persuasion but I do not follow Calvin.  I follow Christ and I believe what the Bible tells us.  Here is a brief summary regarding the biblical basis for the believer’s assurance of salvation:

I have been saved – in the past – from the penalty of sin – by a crucified Saviour: “For in this hope we were saved" (Romans 8:24). “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Romans 2:8).
I am being saved – in the present – from the power of sin – by a living Saviour: "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:18).
I shall be saved – in the future – from the presence of sin – by a coming Saviour: "Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!"  (Romans 5:9)

Regeneration is an on-going process but the Christian who belongs to Christ Jesus can be assured that Jesus shall lose none of all that the Father has given him: “everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:37-40).


Resources in Helping Choose an Orthodox Patron Saint

There are a few different approaches one could take in choosing a patron saint for yourself.

You could choose a saint by what is your profession, need, desire (devotion) or name's day.

  A name day is a tradition in some countries in Europe, Latin America, and Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox countries in general. It consists of celebrating a day of the year that is associated with one's given name. The celebration is similar to a birthday.

  The custom originated with the Christian calendar of saints: believers named after a saint would celebrate that saint's feast day, or in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the day of a saint's death. Name days have greater resonance in the Catholic and Orthodox parts of Europe. - Name Day [Saint] (Wikipedia)]1

A patron saint in the Orthodox Church is regarded as the intercessor and advocate in heaven of a nation, place, craft, activity, class, or person. Since the time of the early Christians up to the present, a vast number of patron saints have been recorded.

  Christians have long chosen the names of Saints to proclaim their link with their spiritual family, the Church. The name may be of a Saint commemorated on or near to the day of the child's birth, or for whom the family has a special devotion. Likewise, an adult received into the Orthodox Church chooses a Saint's name to whom he/she has a strong attachment. In days past, this was often a costly witness for believers living in a non-Christian society, as their very names (Nicholas or George, Elias or Barbara) labeled them as Christians.

  Each day of the year, the Church honors a number of Saints. The day the Church honors one’s Saint is one's "Name Day," an occasion to honor the memory of the Saint whose name we bear, and to give thanks for his/her daily intercession on our behalf. Individuals whose names are not found on the Calendar of Saints celebrate on All Saints Day, the Sunday after Pentecost.

  We are to pray and have a special devotion to our Patron Saint. His or her life should be read and studied so that we learn how our lives should be directed. Our Patron Saint becomes a true hero/heroine for us to emulate. - Celebrating Our Patron Saint's Day

A list of Orthodox saints and their feast days may be perused at the following sites:

Calendar of Saints: Lives of the Saints by month
Patron saint (Orthodox Wiki)
Orthodox Saints Calendar]5


Was what I was told about Catholics correct?

No, that is not correct

Your friends/associates are speaking from ignorance (at best), and possibly out of spite.

Papal Infallibility

Per the Ecumenical Council now referred to as Vatican I (1870), papal infallibility relates to declarations made ex cathedra pertaining to faith and morals. (Catholic Encyclopedia, Infalliblity,  Explanation of papal infallibility)

  The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that
  "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in the
  exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he
  defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of
  faith or morals to be held by the whole Church — is, by reason of the
  Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that
  infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be
  endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently
  that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their
  own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent"
  (Denzinger no. 1839 — old no. 1680).

The most recent ex cathedra declaration regards the dogma of the Assumption of Mary (Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII Munificentissimus Deus(AAS 42 [1950], 760-762, 767-769).  Ex cathedra declarations are rare.

About Penance

  Catholics believe that they have to say something like 5 to 10 of the
  lords prayer and possibly a few "Hail Mary"s added to the mix per sin
  depending on how "bad" it is.

That is sheer ignorance.  A wide variety of things can be assigned to the penitent during confession (the sacrament of penance and reconciliation, CCC 1422- 1489) by the confessor(priest) to include actions, apologies, repayment, restitution (and much more) depending upon the sin and circumstances.  Prayer is also usually assigned.  Why?  To turn back toward God and away from sin.  (See Repentance).

Prayer is as an opening of the heart to God.

  CCC 2258 WHAT IS PRAYER?

  For me, prayer is a surge of the heart;  it is a simple look turned
  toward heaven,   it is a cry of recognition and of love,   embracing
  both trial and joy.  ~ St. Therese of Lisieux, Manuscrits
  autobiographiques, C 25r.1

The point of prayer after confession is to head back into the direction of avoiding sin and near occasions of sin.  This may include prayers (Hail Mary, Our Father, Glory Be, others) but just saying these prayers yourself is in no way, shape, or form the approved method of confessing and resolving mortal sin -- that requires seeking absolution through the sacrament of penance and reconciliation(confession).  It may be that for a given confession penance only warrants prayer; in other cases, other penance may be assigned.


How does mainstream Christianity's perception of Heaven differ from the Mormon perception of the Terrestrial Kingdom?

I want the answers to focus on the day-to-day living/quality of life/level of perfection in heaven.

That's next to impossible, as there aren't any detailed (canon) claims of day-to-day activity, quality of life, etc. that could help us out here.

"What is heaven like?" is one of the great mysteries. It probably has a similar answer to "What is being alive like?": you'd have to be there to know.

Comparison is even more tricky.

"Christians say that they will be happy by 1 unit." "Mormons say citizens of the Terrestrial kingdom will be happy by 2 units." "3 units." "4 units!" "Infinity!" "Infinity + 1!"

Ostensibly, yes they are quite alike. There are many similarities as you pointed out.

Probably the biggest difference between mainstream Christian heaven and the LDS terrestial kingdom is this: mainstreams Christrians in heaven are as happy as they could ever possibly be. Those in the LDS Terrestrial kingdom aren't.


Is the doctrine of the Trinity the primary difference between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism?

Modern-day Judaism, which is a different religion compared to Judaism before Christ, is based on the Talmud, which they consider a sacred text at least on the level of the Torah (the 1st 5 books of the Bible). Islam is essentially a heretical sect of Christianity founded by Muhammad, who assembled the Koran from corrupted texts of Christian Holy Scriptures.

Judaism and Islam do not believe Jesus is God; this is a heresy according to Christianity. In addition to this, Judaism and Islam adhere to further errors that show they are false religions:

Christian Perspective on the Errors of Modern-Day, Talmudic Judaism

The cardinal, saint, and Doctor of the Church, Robert Bellarmine, wrote, speaking about the holiness of the Church's doctrine (On the Marks of the Church ch. XI):

  From the Jews that wrote after the coming of Christ, it is manifest from their books. For in the first place, in the doctrine of the Talmud, which is their written word, not God’s, innumerable errors are discovered. Rabbi Solomon, whom the Jews reckon to be the greatest, teaches in his commentary on Genesis on that verse: “This now is bone from my bones,” that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the beasts and wild animals, and he could not satisfy his lust until he at last embraced Eve. The same rabbi, in his commentary on Numbers, in that verse On the first day offering holocausts to the Lord, he selects “the holocaust of the Lord,” and says it is a precept to offer a holocaust on the day of a new moon for the sin of God, which he committed when he diminished the light of the moon. The same Rabbi Solomon tells such a fable in chapter 1 of Genesis, on that verse “Two great lights;” and the same in chapter 4 of Deuteronomy, in that: God created man,” he says Adam was so grown, that he could touch heaven with his head, while he was on earth. Similar things occur everywhere in the books of the Jews.

See also Rev. I. B. Pranaitis's The Talmud Unmasked: The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning Christians.

Christian Perspective on Islam's Errors

Discussing why it is not foolishness to assent to the truths of faith, although they are above reason, St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Catholic Church and its greatest theologian, writes, comparing Christianity to Islam (Summa contra Gentiles I cap. 6):

  [3] This wonderful conversion of the world to the Christian faith is the clearest witness of the signs given in the past; so that it is not necessary that they should be further repeated, since they appear most clearly in their effect. For it would be truly more wonderful than all signs if the world had been led by simple and humble men to believe such lofty truths, to accomplish such difficult actions, and to have such high hopes. Yet it is also a fact that, even in our own time, God does not cease to work miracles through His saints for the confirmation of the faith.

  [4] On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this. The point is clear in the case of Muhammad. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning, Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be. seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly.

St. Robert wrote (ibid.):

  As to the Muslims, the same is clear from the Qur’an. For it teaches that all are saved by their laws, if they should keep them, be they Jews, Christians or Turks. It also teaches everywhere that the beatitude of the future life consists in food and drink, and a multitude of wives, while no mention is ever made in the whole Qur’an of the vision of spiritual actions, or the love of God. In chapter 43 it says that God and the angels pray for Muhammad. Similar very absurd things are everywhere read in the Qur’an.

So, while Judaism's and Islam's erroneous views on the Trinity are a serious problem, that is not the only falsehood in these sects.


Is life imprisonment in accord with Catholic social doctrine?

The Church has always upheld the State's right to protect its citizens, so my take on it is yes, life sentences are in accord as long as that is truly what is required to protect the people. Each specific case has to be considered individually, of course.

[Edit]
I've done some research in an attempt to find sources. Here is an interesting one:
Catholic Social Teaching and Capital Punishment

True, this is Capital Punishment centric, but some of the themes expressed hold, I believe. For example, you'll find expression that the state has not only the right, but the duty to protect its citizens. It goes on to say:

  If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means. . .

Since a life sentence in prison is a "non-lethal" mean by which to protect the citizenry, then it follows it is not only acceptable, but preferable to Capital Punishment.

I doubt you'll find a document that says "Life sentences are OK" or "Life sentences are not OK". It's more an inductive approach to deciphering the social teachings, as many of the social teachings are.


How does repentance fit into the doctrine of sola fide ("by faith alone")?

There are two primary ways that sola fide theologians deal with this issue, and there is ongoing debate between them over it (cf. Lordship salvation controversy).  I'll first address the historical view (sometimes called "Lordship salvation") and the more recent view, called "free grace theology."
Lordship salvation
The name commonly applied to this view emphasizes that following Christ is not merely a matter of intellectual belief, but also accepting him as Lord and therefore turning away from the sin nature.  Thus its adherents see repentance and faith as inherently connected; as Wayne Grudem says, they are "two different sides of the same coin" (ST, 714) Louis Berkhof writes:

True repentance never exists except in conjunction with faith, while, on the other hand, wherever there is true faith, there is also real repentance. The two are but different aspects of the same turning, — a turning away from sin in the direction of God. (ST, 4.7.D.3)

Thus the two cannot be separated.  Where they are distinguished (as in Calvin, Institutes, 3.3.1; see curiousdannii's answer), the one necessarily follows the other, and thus in all cases faith is the only basis for the justification of the sinner.
Berkhof and Grudem are both Reformed theologians, as is John MacArthur, the author of the book The Gospel According to Jesus, which extensively defends this view.  But their analysis is shared by other Protestant traditions.  For example, Arminian John Miley writes:

While faith is the one and only condition of justification, yet a true repentance is always presupposed, because only in such a mental state can the proper faith be exercised. An impenitent soul cannot properly trust in Christ for the forgiveness of sin. (Systematic Theology, II, 323)

Lutheran John Mueller, summarizing Francis Pieper's work, uses the word contrition instead, but sees the two as synonyms in this sense:

The two essential elements in conversion are contrition and faith [...] Contrition belongs to conversion only for the reason that faith cannot find entrance into the proud and secure heart; it is "the indispensable preparation for conversion." (Christian Dogmatics, 338)

Repentance here is not assumed to be perfect or complete repentance, but rather a general turning away from sin.  Continued growth in faith and repentance is an important aspect of the Christian's sanctification, but a failure to perfectly repent of every sin does not lead to a loss of salvation.
Free grace theology
This view's name reflects its adherents' belief that repentance is a "work" that is not required for salvation – thus grace is more "free" than in a scheme were repentance and faith are aspects of conversion.  According to this view, intellectual faith alone, without any turning from sin, is sufficient for salvation.
In recent times the view is most commonly associated with evangelicals influenced by dispensationalism; Wayne Grudem identifies Lewis Sperry Chafer as its originator.  In Major Bible Themes, Chafer writes:

The Scriptures are violated and the whole doctrine of grace confused when salvation is made to depend on anything other than believing. The divine message is not "believe and pray," "believe and confess sin," "believe and confess Christ," "believe and be baptized," "believe and repent," or "believe and make restitution." (Chapter 28)

Bob Wilkin, founder of the Grace Evangelical Society, expounds:

There is no commitment, no decision of the will, no turning from sins, and no works that are part of faith in Christ. If you are convinced or persuaded that what He promised is true, then you believe in Him. Faith is passive. It is simply taking Jesus at His word.
Thus turning from sins, commitment, obedience, and perseverance are not faith and thus aren’t conditions of eternal life. Those are all types of works. Works have their proper place in the Christian life, but only after you have believed in Jesus. (source; emphasis in original)

Thus for the free grace theologian, repentance is distinct from faith and therefore comes after (and not necessarily immediately after) conversion and justification.
Summary
Thus we see two views in the sola fide camp with respect to this question.  Both agree that perfect repentance is not a requirement for salvation, but the majority view holds that in conversion faith and repentance are inseparable, though only faith is the basis of justification.  The "free grace" view holds that faith and repentance are distinct, with the latter being a work that is done after justification is accomplished.


According to Mormons, how did the unclean spirits sin by "not keeping the first estate"?

Leaving the "first estate" is not the same as not keeping it.

The confusion may come from the Bible in the Book of Jude:

  6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

But we get greater clarity from Abraham 3, where it says:

  24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

  25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

  26 And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.

  27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.

  28 And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him.

So those who "kept not their first estate" are those who followed Lucifer and did not obtain physical bodies. The sin that they committed in the antemortal existence was to rebel against God. Merely leaving God's presence and coming to Earth is not itself a sin (although it is a kind of death, since it is separation from God; see the doctrine on the Fall for more about this).


Where did Noah find polar bears and penguins in Palestine?

First of all I live in the Middle East in the same country as Mt. Ararat where the ark landed. Note this is not in Palestine nor do we know where Noah started from. The problem could just as well have been that he was starting from the Siberian tundra and needed some African wildebeests. You're trying to solve a specific problem that you don't have enough scenario data to build a case for or against.

However back to the plausibility argument. Here in the neighborhood of Mt Ararat there is a zoo here that has penguins. They are kept out of doors and, with the exception of having free access to a small pond, cope with the same baking heat the rest of us deal with. They may not like it but they survive.

Secondly I grew up in the Southwest high desert. The zoo where I grew up had a polar bear exhibit, again out of doors. In more recent years it has acquired some shade and a larger (very fun looking) series of pools but the one I remember as a kid wasn't much more than a concrete box.

As if that wasn't enough to at least cast doubt on the argument against the plausibility of such a thing, let's consider the other implications of the flood.

Hand in hand with the flood come a host of other radical global changes. The arrangement of dry land vs ocean has likely radically changed as tectonic plates rose and fell in order for the water to cover the whole land. How high mountains were, where they were located and even the divides between contents are likely very different.

In the same vein, global climate would have been radically different. Many believe from the Genesis account that there were changes in the atmosphere and that likely post-flood earth has a lot more extremes of hot and cold in different areas than pre-flood earth.

Lastly, it's not always alleged that every variation of species we have today was on the Ark. It's possible a representative of the bear family was all that God required to cover the basis for both polar bears and black bears.

And most importantly, don't you think the God who created the animals in the first place and gives them the instincts that make them what they are could not manipulate the system in a miraculous way to lead a couple of stray bears on a long walk? Similar wild and seemingly impossible journeys by strangely motivated animals have been documented

All in all, the specific allegations you bring up are small items in the big picture. If you really have a problem with the science, you need to start at the other end of the spectrum and work backwards. Those little details sort themselves out in the big picture.


Are there any Protestant beliefs which have their roots in Mormon doctrines?

The Short Answer: No. And, AFAIK, there are no Mormon teachings at all that have spread to other traditions. Here's why.

Ecclesiologists who study the history of the church sometimes distinguish between four primary "branches" of christendom: the Roman Catholic church, the Eastern Orthodox church, the Protestant church, and the "bible cults." Protestant is an umbrella term that refers to theological traditions that are rooted in the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. Protestantism is known for its theological diversity, and a quick glance at a World Almanac shows dozens of Protestant denominations worldwide that each report at least 5,000 houses of worship, extending into the millions for larger denominations.

This diversity of theological traditions is due, in part, to the fact that -- unlike the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches -- Protestantism lacks a single, unifying authoritative leader or leaders that can define for adherents what is and isn't considered acceptable doctrine. In fact, the Protestant Reformation itself grew out of the rejection of the notion of the authority of clergymen and church history, in favor of consulting the bible itself. The event that is regarded as the "official" beginning of the Reformation was Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses to the door of the church at Wittenberg, Germany, in the year 1517. The central topic addressed in that document was the official [Roman Catholic] church practice of selling "Indulgences," which Luther believed was an offense against God because, he said, it was not based on sound interpretation of scripture.

So, the word "Protestant" encompasses a wide set of beliefs. In general terms, the Protestant church is differentiated by it's emphasis on the authority of scripture over both church tradition and any extra-biblical teachings of clergymen when seeking to determine what is pleasing to God (see "Sola Scriptura" (1), (2)). There is also a common, though not unanimous adherence to the other "Solas" of the Reformation (see the same references as above). Other than that, however, there are few specifically Protestant points of difference that can be made which will apply to all churches that self-identify as Protestant.

The history of the Mormon church, on the other hand, extends back to 1830 (see "Organization of the Church" sub-heading in the reference). The intervening two hundred-some years between when Protestantism began, and when Mormonism later began, provided plenty of time for the development of many doctrines unique to various Protestant theological traditions. By 1830, many denominations had well established, comprehensively defined sets of beliefs. That is, in many cases there was simply no need to adopt additional doctrine, from Mormonism or elsewhere -- and in many denominations, the process of adopting new doctrine is fairly complex. Finally, there is the widespread contemporary categorization of Mormonism as a "bible cult" by many, though not all denominations. (Note that this C.SE response does not attempt to address the issue of whether or not that categorization is accurate, but simply notes that many people do assert such a categorization).

While my familiarity with Mormon doctrine is at a fairly "introductory" level, and based primarily on a number of conversations with some LDS adherents, my present understanding is that at the basis of Joseph Smith's set of teachings is the notion that all translations of the bible, except for his own, are flawed and incomplete, lacking the additional books endorsed by Smith (the "Book of Mormon"), as well as the modifications made to various books in the Protestant OT & NT, which Smith said were provided to him by one he called "Moroni." (Reference). Since all doctrine established outside of the Mormon church is based on translations other than Smith's, it makes sense that Mormon doctrines remain within those churches that teach Smith's doctrines, and they have not penetrated other traditions.


For what human reason was Christ crucified?

It was the chief priests and pharisees that wanted Jesus arrested. Matthew 26:47 :

  While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people

"that only makes him insane, not worthy of the death penalty"

Torah, Leveticus 24:16 makes it clear that blasphemy carries a death sentence (although via stoning). More likely, though, he was simply seen as a rebel and a risk, potentially a flash-point for a more visible and popular uprising. That would be plenty of reason for the religious and political leaders to see... economy in a prompt but final action.

I don't know about a secular reason, but: perhaps a political reason that Pilate may have acquiesced to the demands of the Jewish priests; supposedly there is evidence to support some previous hoo-hah involving a row between Pilate and the locals relating to some pagan shields - Pilate refused to remove them, the locals complained to the emperor, the emperor expressed his anger at Pilate's approach. This could lead us to suspect that maybe Pilate didn't want a re-run that could put his position (and likely: life) in jeopardy, so was willing to yield a bit to the locals. Especially if it looked like a riot was likely otherwise.