Do any major Christian traditions have documented ways of dealing with religious doubt?

Many religions claim to be the only true religion, including most
  branches of Christianity. Among the major Christian traditions, are
  there any documented statements of faith that include the possibility
  that their own beliefs might not be the "one true religion"? In other
  words, is there any literature treating religious doubt accepted in
  the tradition as part of the tradition, and not examples of individual
  cases of religious doubt?

I think what is important to clarify is the difference between these two sentences above, which I will highlight by proposing two statements below:

"We, as a faith community, include doubting we are correct in our belief as an official part of our belief, and so we announce these doubts in [doubt literature x]."
"We, as a faith community, understand that doubt is a normal human experience and that our adherents will likely, on occasion, doubt some or all of the tenets of our faith, and so we address this experience in [doubt literature x]."

I am not aware of any "major Christian tradition" that has an accepted literature of the first type; that kind of institutionalized doubt is really not the purview of any religion, but is perhaps more the territory of scientists and skeptics.  It is unlikely religions would succeed as social phenomena if they made it clear in their official PR that "hey, we could be wrong on all this."* And in this I agree with Steve's answer below.

(*Though, humans being as strange as they are, it would be fascinating to be shown that I am wrong and that there are such traditions and statements.)

At best, some Christians may acknowledge that, while they are not wrong, other religions are "as correct as they are" in that they are all paths to the same union with the divine. I think Fr. Thomas Keating, for one, may be amenable to this, though he is not representative of the entirety of Catholicism by any means.

As regards statement (2), though:  In the Catholic tradition, there is something of a literature in this regards, yes.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example, allows some leeway for a distinction they make between voluntary doubt and involuntary doubt:

  Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true
  what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary
  doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming
  objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its
  obscurity. If deliberately cultivated, doubt can lead to spiritual
  blindness. (CCC 2088)

Also, within the Catholic tradition there is also treatment of periods of spiritual torpor or feeling a lack of God's presence--sometimes referred to as "spiritual dryness" or also "acedia", and that may include doubts.  One often refers to St. John of the Cross's poem, The Dark Night of the Soul as a Catholic touchstone on this issue and that title has come to refer to the phenomenon itself.  In addition to St. John of the Cross, notable Catholic figures like Saint Thérèse of Lisieux, and Mother Theresa of Calcutta, who, it was found, claimed to have suffered from it for just over 50 years.

  If there is such literature, and if this point is covered within it,
  how do these major traditions view themselves in light of the "risk"
  involved if they were wrong in the claim to exclusive truth?

I am not aware of much in this regard, other than perhaps Pascal's Wager, which has been incorporated into the literature of various Christian apologists, in which he argues that the "risk" is something like finite inconvenience (as compared to the risk of infinite suffering).

Again, as Steve essentially pointed out, trying to promote religion by calling attention to the "what if we're wrong?" issue is sort of like trying to sell used cars by pointing out the puddles of transmission fluid all over the lot.


What were the main arguments put forth at the Fifth ecumenical council against the preexistence of human souls?

Just to be clear, the pre-existence of souls discussed in the Second Council of Constantinople is a teaching specifically put forth by Origen of Alexandria which said a bit more than "human souls existed prior to their human bodies." The following teaching is what was condemned at the council.

In its fullness, the teaching stated that all intelligent souls were created before any of the physical world; furthermore, they were created in union with God. Some souls grew weary of loving God and became demons; some grew to love God moderately less and became humans; some remained in God and became angels.

In the First of the Anathemas of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen, he states:

  Whoever says or thinks that human souls pre-existed, i.e., that they had previously been spirits and holy powers, but that, satiated with the vision of God, they had turned to evil, and in this way the divine love in them had died out ... let him be anathema.

Essentially, Origen's teaching states something that is not possible: for a soul to know and love God fully and to turn away. God's glory and goodness means that any soul/spirit that truly knows and loves God would never choose anything else. Hence, a soul cannot grow weary of God.

In addition to the source quoted above, the Anathemas Against Origen (in the same document) give some more things that were found particularly objectionable in Origen's teaching such as:

Jesus' human soul was not always united with God the Word (contradicts teachings on the Trinity)
The sun, moon, and stars have rational souls (they are just physical objects)
At the end of the time, there will be no material world (contradicts the physical resurrection of the human body)

There are many other things in there to be read, but I will not cover all of them here. Generally, it seems in the document that they state the particular parts of teaching of the pre-existence of souls that are in conflict with doctrine without offering specific arguments against them. This leads me to believe that the arguments against Origen's teaching are simply the arguments in favor of the doctrines of the Church which would be located elsewhere.

Sources: Wikipedia: Origen, Second Council Constantinople.


Does Catholicism consider body building to be a sin?

The short answer is “no.”

First of all, the Church is not in the habit of listing all possible sinful behavior. The vast majority of possible behaviors are left to the prudent judgment of the faithful: only when certain things are particularly grave violations of the natural law does the Church speak out about them. (See the Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], 1954-1960, for an overview of the natural law.)

Hence, when we consider the morality of body building, it is sufficient to apply the principles of natural law, because in fact the Church has no official teaching about it.

It is fairly evident that, in and of itself, body building does not offend God, neighbor, or self in any way, and hence it is not sinful.

Of course, there are any number of excesses that can go along with body building: using steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs (unless they are being used to treat some kind of disorder), for example, would be immoral (see CCC 2291), as would damaging one’s health for the sake of body building (see CCC 2289). Another possible pitfall is that body building can become an obsession: spending excessive amounts of time in what is essentially a recreational activity can be immoral. Moreover, body building can be the occasion for vanity: of seeking the approval of others in a disordered way.

However, as long as body building is viewed as an essentially recreational activity, or as legitimate means to train for sports, there is no problem with it.


Which specific canons of the Second Council of Constantinople do Lutherans and Calvinists reject?

The First Four Councils

The main, but only the main,  conclusions of each of the first four Ecumenical Councils  were specifically endorsed by both Calvin and  Luther personally.  These 4 councils are also mentioned by name  in the (Calvinist) Second Helvetican Confession, Chapter 11 . The doctrines themselves are also in the  Westminster Confession chapters 2 and 8, and the (Lutheran)  AugsburgConfession Articles 1 and 3, amongst others.

Endorsing only  the first four seems  to imply  there must have been some objection to the fifth. We may imagine Luther, in his Wittenberg study, going through the Councils in order and saying:  Nicea,  ok; First Constantinople , ok; Ephesus,  ok, Chalcedon, ok; Second Constantinople,  uh-oh, don't like this one.

But that would be a misunderstanding.  The first four were particularly mentioned because of the great importance of the doctrines to which they bore witness.  Pope Gregory the Great, who lived after the fifth Council, but before the sixth,wrote  that he received and revered the first four Councils as he did the four gospels. He went on to say he also revered the fifth Council. It wasn't that Gregory had  anything against the fifth, but it just wasn't, to him,  such a big deal, doctrinally, as the first four. In this, Luther and Calvin concurred with him.

Furthermore, the Assyrian (Nestorian) Church accept only the first two Councils, objecting to the third;   and the Oriental Orthodox (e.g. Coptic, not to be confused with Eastern Orthodox) accept the first three, objecting to the fourth.  In accepting four the Reformers demonstrated their Catholicity in contrast to these groups.

Luther

Luther wrote On the Councils and the Church in 1539. In it he summed up the doctrines of the first four as follows.

  The first, at Nicaea, defended the deity of Christ against Arius; the second, at Constantinople, defended the deity of the Holy Ghost against Macedonius; the third, at Ephesus, defended the one Person of Christ against Nestorius; the fourth, at Chalcedon, defended the two natures in Christ against Eutyches: — but they did not thereby establish any new article of faith. For these four articles are established far more abundantly and powerfully in St. John’s Gospel alone, even though the other evangelists and St. Paul and St. Peter had written nothing about them, though all these, together with the prophets, teach them and testify mightily to them.

Luther was adamant that these doctrines of these councils were fully proved in Scripture, and believed for that reason only. The Councils, per se, added nothing.  It is convenient to refer to the doctrines by the names of the Councils, but they are not accepted merely by authority of the councils. At all councils there   were bad mixed with good," like mouse-droppings in the pepper", as he put it. In any case, he said, he would "rather drink from the spring than the brook", by which he meant Scripture rather than Council.

Luther drew a distinction between the chief subject of a Council, that is the purpose for which the Emperor had called it, and the other matters it might take it upon itself to consider. He was quite scathing about  most of the decrees of the even the first Ecumenical Council, that of Nicea.

  The greater part of them is merely priests’ quarrelling :  —  there are not to be two bishops in one city; no bishop of a small church is to be ambitious for a greater one; clerics, or servants of a church, are not to leave their own church and slip hither and thither among other churches; no one is to ordain the people of any bishop without his knowledge and consent; no bishop is to accept a man who has been expelled by another bishop; the bishop of Jerusalem is to retain his ancient privilege of dignity above others; and more of that kind of talk.
   Who can hold these things for articles of faith? What of them can one preach to the people in the Church? What difference do these things make to Church or people? Unless, of course, they are to be treated as a history from which one can learn that at that time, too, there were everywhere in the Church self-willed, wicked, disorderly bishops, priests, clergy, and people, who were more concerned about honours and power and wealth than about God and His kingdom, and that people needed to be on their guard against them.

Luther also ridiculed  the  Nicean canons  on military service (12) and  priestly castration (1).  So it is clear that Luther did not regard any of the Ecumenical Councils as binding or even correct except as regards specific points which were, anyway, in the Bible, and accepted on that account alone.

In fact Luther goes further back, to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 . The chief subject was whether Gentile Christians must obey the Mosaic Law. The decision: no. But to this was added a stipulation, proposed by James, about abstaining from blood. If people were to take  that seriously, Luther pointed out,  nobody would eat blutwurst.  Since a ban on German sausages was so patently preposterous,  it proved  that the  peripheral decrees of councils, even of the apostles never mind later bishops, could  not to be taken seriously as having any permanent  relevance.  (Luther also moved James' epistle towards  the back of German Bibles, but gave reasons unconnected with sausages.)

Calvin

Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4, Chapter 9, addresses "Councils and their Authority".  In section 8 of this chapter he said of the four councils, and later ones:

  Thus those ancient Councils of Nice, Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, Chalcedon, and the like, which were held for refuting errors, we willingly embrace, and reverence as sacred, in so far as relates to doctrines of faith, for they contain nothing but the pure and genuine interpretation of Scripture, which the holy Fathers with spiritual prudence adopted to crush the enemies of religion who had then arisen. In some later councils, also, we see displayed a true zeal for religion, and moreover unequivocal marks of genius, learning, and prudence. But as matters usually become worse and worse, it is easy to see in more modern councils how much the Church gradually degenerated from the purity of that golden age

While praising the four he is very much opposed to the seventh, which condemned iconoclasm and mandated images in church. This Second Council of Nice (757) is condemned by  Calvin in  Book 1, Chapter 11, section 14  of the Institutes. He ridicules some of the arguments used by the Council in "the absurd defence of the worship of images", and quotes approvingly  from a refutation of the seventh council said to have been written by  Charlemagne.

Protestant Doctrinal Standards On Councils  Generally

The Westminster Confession states in Chapter 31, article 4

  All synods or councils, since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both

The first two articles of the Epitome of Concord in the Lutheran doctrinal standard say (abridged):

  We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas  should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone.   .....  Other writings, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses.

Article 21 of the Church of England says

  General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.

So, to summarise, Protestants acknowledge the truth of the principal dogmas of the first four councils. They do not accord any power to any council to declare any doctrine by its own authority. They believe Councils can err, and have erred. Calvin, in particular, asserts that the Seventh Council erred.

The fifth and sixth,  dealing with obscure and long-forgotten controversies of no particular interest, were simply not mentioned.

This was the position in the time of the Reformation.

Twentieth Century Lutheran/Orthodox Statements

In the latter half of the twentieth century a dialogue between the Lutheran World Federation and representatives of the Eastern Orthodox churches resulted in a series of agreements.

The Seventh Joint Declaration, 1993,  refers to all  seven Ecumenical Councils accepted by the  Eastern  Orthodox. These are First Nicea, 325; First Constantinople, 381; Ephesus, 431; Chalcedon, 451; Second Constantinople, 553; Third Constantinople, 680; and Second Nicea, 757. Paragraph 4 says the teachings of these Councils are normative for the Churches today.

Paragraph 5  includes the recognition that not all decisions on canonical matters have the same authority as the doctrinal decisions, and their reception and use in the Orthodox and Lutheran Churches differs.

Paragraph 6 says that the statements at the Councils went through a process of "reception" in the years after them, across the Church's life, worship, catechesis and service even when the councils were not explicitly named.

Paragraph 7 says that the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils  are authoritative for both Lutherans and Orthodox, but goes on that the seventh was not part of the tradition received at the Reformation, and that it does not have the same significance for Lutherans as it does for Orthodox.

The Eighth Declaration in 1995 in paragraphs 5a and 5b, is perhaps clearer.

  We agree on the doctrine of God the Holy Trinity, as formulated by the Ecumenical Councils of Nicea and Constantinople, and on the doctrine of Christ formulated by the first four Ecumenical Councils. The Fathers of the  four Councils rejected the Arian and Eunomian notion that the Logos, the Angel of the Great Council, was created before the ages, and insisted that the Logos is "homoousious to Patri". They also rejected the Nestorian notion that the One born of the Virgin Mary was not the Logos himself and that the Logos only dwelled in the One who was born of the Virgin Mary. In short, the Fathers of these Councils affirmed that he who was born of the Virgin Mary is God by nature and not just by the will of the Father, and that he became homoousious with us in his humanity. The union of the divine and human natures in the hypostasis of the Logos is, according to the Council of Chalcedon, "without confusion, without change, without division and without separation". The Ecumenical Councils which followed continued this teaching and applied it to new challenges to the faith.

It continues.

  The Fifth accepted as orthodox two theological terminologies in the confession of the one Lord Jesus Christ. The Sixth affirmed the two natural wills and energies with their natural properties of the one person of the Logos incarnate. The Seventh drew conclusions from affirmation of the  hypostatic union in Christ in order to confirm the veneration of icons. .....  We agree in these fundamental teachings.

Perhaps the most striking thing about this, for the purposes of this Question, is how very little there is to say about the Fifth  Council, in comparison with the first four.


Why is the Gospel of Luke the only Gospel to claim Jesus was John the Baptist's cousin?

Luke sought eyewitness testimony for his gospel. The birth narrative and some other portions seem to be told from the viewpoint of Mary the mother of Jesus.

While it is somewhat speculative, it seems reasonable that Mary would be concerned about relationships within her own extended family much more than the majority of the early Christians. It would appear that Luke either interviewed Mary personally or talked with someone who knew her very well.

According to this article, there is every reason to believe that Mary did indeed pass on her story in detail, and we know that Luke was interested in exactly the kind of details that could only have come through her testimony.

  Did Mary provide some traditions for the Infancy narrative?
  Why would she not tell her story? It would be rather odd if she had remained silent! She was part of the Jerusalem church (Acts 1:14, with Jesus’ half-brothers), and Luke had knowledge of this lead church. He somehow collected Mary’s story and put it in his Gospel, just as he incorporated Cleopas’ and Zacchaeus’ eyewitness testimonies. The Infancy narratives in both Matthew and Luke have a huge body of scholarly literature behind them, so in an article like this one I would not dare to figure out which is the core of the story that Mary passed on, though these verses in Luke seem like good candidates for further study: 1:26-56; 2:4-7, 19; 21-49.


Was the Mosaic Covenant a covenant of "works" or "grace"?

It's not quite right to emphasize commandments. They are the Ten Words (dabar in Hebrew). They express so much more than mere commands.

For example, this law that God establishes, these "commandments" and statutes and rules that He gives are founded on the fact that He has already saved His people. We see this in the giving of the law on Sinai.

  “I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me.”

And we see the same reason given by God as instruction for the covenant children in Deuteronomy 6

  “When your son asks you in time to come, ‘What is the meaning of the testimonies and the statutes and the rules that Yahweh our God has commanded you?’ then you shall say to your son, ‘We were Pharaoh’s slaves in Egypt. And Yahweh brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand. And Yahweh showed signs and wonders, great and grievous, against Egypt and against Pharaoh and all his household, before our eyes. And he brought us out from there, that he might bring us in and give us the land that he swore to give to our fathers. And Yahweh commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear Yahweh our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as we are this day. And it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us.’

The gospel comes first, then the law. Why? It’s not so God can say, “I saved you and now you owe me” or ”I brought you out of Egypt so I can keep my thumb on you.” It’s God saying, “I’ve set you free from this bondage, this slavery to sin – go and sin no more. Go and live in the freedom of the life I’ve given you.”

So, the law is grace because God is entering into covenant with His chosen people. Keeping the law was never merit - God has already shown His salvation. The "Covenant of Grace" we enjoy now is the same. Christ says, "Moses told you..., but I say..." He doesn't make the law less demanding. If anything, He makes it more so. But the law isn't meant to be a burden. It's a covenant relationship like marriage. "Don't cheat on your wife" isn't a difficult rule to follow for someone who loves his wife. It is absolutely necessary for a right marriage, but it is no burden. It is a security and a comfort to have the boundaries clearly established.


The Mormon Church teaches that Jesus Christ created under the direction of Heavenly Father and He did not create the world "out of nothing."

1. How is Jesus being directed in creating the heavens and the earth when God clearly says He created all alone and by Himself?
Isaiah is specifically speaking to encourage Israel to stop worshipping other divine beings/idols but to worship Yahweh alone.
Isaiah 44:6, 8-10,17,19:

6 Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

9 They that make a graven image are all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed.

10 Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image that is profitable for nothing?

17 And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.

19 And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?

At first glance such language as no God beside me might be interpreted by some to mean that no other form of deity exits at all (including exalted man), but considering similar passages in other parts of scripture its clear that this type of interpretation is incorrect. For example in Isaiah 47:8-10 depicts the city of Babyon with the similar phrasing, but there are other cities such as Ninevah (which also has similar phrasing in Zephaniah 2:15):

8 Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the bloss of children:

9 But these two things shall come to thee in a moment in one day, the loss of children, and widowhood: they shall come upon thee in their perfection for the multitude of thy sorceries, and for the great abundance of thine enchantments.

10 For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me.

Isaiah is speaking specifically against idols in the section, not the singularity of being of God.
2. On what basis do you come to the conclusion that God organized the elements that had already existed? How do you know they already existed?
Referencing the same lexicon seems to indicate organizing as opposed to creation ex-nihilo

Root Word: Probably identical with יָצַר (H3334) (through the squeezing into shape)

Outline of Biblical Usage:

to form, fashion frame
(Qal) to form, fashion

of divine activity
of creation

(Niphal) to be formed, be created
(Pual) to be predetermined, be pre-ordained
(Hophal) to be formed

Strong's definition: yatsar; probably identical with H3334 (through the squeezing into shape); to mould into a form; especially as a potter; figuratively, to determine: earthen, fashion, form, frame, make, potter, purpose

Several scriptures let us know material is eternal:
Abraham 3:24:

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;

D&C 93:33

33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

Several prophets have stated similar. Joseph Smith in the King Follett Sermon stated:

You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing, and they will answer, “Doesn’t the Bible say he created the world?” And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end.

Hebrews 11:3 is not about inventing beliefs, but about putting our trust in God, based on what we can see, in order to rely on Him in areas where we cannot see.1 See Hebrews 11:1
1 BibleRef
All emphasis added by me


Are our sins of the future forgiven? (John 20:23)

The OP asks:

  Catholics say that our future sins are not forgiven...and say that John 20:23...uses the past, i.e. "forgiven", so ask how future sins can be forgiven. What information there is on the verb "forgiven” here...?

Since nobody seems to have addressed the issue of verb tense here, I’ll give it a try. The verb in question is infected as a third person plural, perfect passive indicative.1

  ἄν τινων ἀφῆτε τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἀφέωνται αὐτοῖς...
  If you (pl.) forgive the sins of any (pl), they are forgiven them...

The identification of this verb as "past" in the question presumably derives from the perfect tense. However, aspect rather than time is the primary value of the Greek tenses. People argue2 about the extent to which Greek verbs contain time information at all.

Regardless of your stance on Greek tenses, the understanding of ἀφέωνται here is heavily tied up with the fact that it forms the apodosis of a conditional statement.3  The form – (ε)αν + subjunctive + any mood/tense –  is known as a third class conditional. Note in that formula the lack of specification of the mood or tense of the apodotic verb. For the purpose of framing the contingency, that is largely irrelevant.3

This is not to say that the perfect inflection is irrelevant to the meaning. Perfect verbs nearly always carry a strong aspectual component - i.e., the action is completed. Here, the relevance is that the forgiveness is complete at the time that it is realized, whenever that might be. This is known (in some circles) as a proleptic perfect. The timing is dependent on the timing of the protosis. Here the aorist subjunctive ἀφῆτε provides almost no intrinsic time information. Contextually, these are anticipated as future events, consequent to the commissioning and receiving of the holy spirit in the prior verse.

In summary, there is no "past tense" here. The combination of the verbal inflection and the conditional construction tell us that the forgiveness is complete at the time that the (apostles') forgiving occurs.4 Context tells us that these events are future to the time of Jesus’ speaking. Going beyond that (regarding timing) based on this passage alone seems to me misguided. Others have addressed external considerations that may be relevant.

Notes

1. There is a significant text variant here. This perfect quoted here from NA27/28 (=UBS4) was given a {B} ("almost certain") rating by the UBS Committee. The Textus Receptus, with the Byzantine mss, has the present ἀφίενται; Sinaiticus has the future ἀφεθήσεται (reflected also in most of the Latin tradition); the perfect adopted here is supported by Alexandrinus, Bezae, several major families of miniscules, and probably Vaticanus (although spelled differently). This decision was defended by Metzger in his textual commentary on the basis that the present and future are likely scribal simplifications of the perfect (in addition to the external evidence).

2. Passionately. This debate is sometimes referred to as the Porter/Fanning debate in recognition of two scholars who published pioneering works in the area. An introduction to the issue by D.A. Carson, published as the first chapter in a book that contained some of the most important evaluations of their theories, is a good place to start if interested.

3. The apodosis is the “then” statement of an “if... then...” contingency. The protasis (“if...”) here is introduced with ἄν, standing for ἐάν, an abbreviation that “is rare in Hellenistic Greek....but appears....John 20:23” (BDAG).

4. James Boyer has argued that "all third class conditions are essentially future contingencies". I think it’s safe to say that most people don’t agree with him completely on the all bit, but this is certainly a very common scenario.

5. It is, unfortunately, impossible to express "to be complete" and "to occur" in English as a finite verbs without any time implications. Present tense is, by my reckoning, as close as we come, but realize that these may be past, present, or future.


Was the serpent in the wilderness a foreshadowing of Jesus?

The snake that Moses raised up, symbolized the snakes that God sent into the Israelite camp as punishment for Israel's sin.

  Numbers 21:6
  The Lord sent fiery serpents among the people and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. So the people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned, because we have spoken against the Lord and you; intercede with the Lord, that He may remove the serpents from us.”

So snake == punishment. And as the Israelites looked up at the snake they were saved.

In the same way Jesus was lifted taking on the punishment for our sin and all those that believe in him will be saved. As Jas3.1 points out, Jesus actually draws the connection.

  John 3:14
  And as Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up


Are there or have there been Christian healing ministries that have documented healing cases with supporting medical records?
The Catholic Church has a long tradition of accepting medical miracles as miraculous only after a lengthy investigation into the matter. Although the miraculous are now well documented, the files are generally not published for public viewing. There is a distinction to be made between documented and then publishing that information.
The miraculous healing in the Catholic Church need to be spontaneous, instantaneous and complete healing. Medical doctors have to be able say “We don't have any natural explanation of what happened."
I would like to point out that those doing the scientific and/or medical investigations do not necessarily have to be Catholic.
I am going to answer this in a rather unique manner and probably one not intended, yet would qualify as an example, while not being interpreted in the normal thought of what a modern healing ministry seems to mean.
I am talking about The Healing Ministry of Mary.
The healing ability of Mary goes down several centuries and is continuing in our own times.
I am going to make a double biblical metaphor here, if you will allow me to do so.
I am going to use the metaphor of Mary, the Mother of Jesus as the Pool of Bethsaida which goes well with the imagery of the healing apparitions of Mary at Lourdes as a place of healing.

1 After this came a Jewish feast, for which Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 2 There is a pool in Jerusalem at the Sheep Gate, called in Hebrew Bethsaida, with five porches, 3 under which a multitude of diseased folk used to lie, the blind, the lame, the disabled, waiting for a disturbance of the water. 4 From time to time, an angel of the Lord came down upon the pool, and the water was stirred up; and the first man who stepped into the pool after the stirring of the water, recovered from whatever infirmity it was that oppressed him. 5 There was one man there who had been disabled for thirty-eight years. 6 Jesus saw him lying there, and knew that he had waited a long time; Hast thou a mind, he asked, to recover thy strength? 7 Sir, said the cripple, I have no one to let me down into the pool when the water is stirred; and while I am on my way, somebody else steps down before me. 8 Jesus said to him, Rise up, take up thy bed, and walk. 9 And all at once the man recovered his strength, and took up his bed, and walked. That day it was the sabbath: 10 and the Jews said to the man who had been cured, It is the sabbath; it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed. 11 He answered them, The man who gave me back my strength told me himself, Take up thy bed, and walk. 12 So they asked him, Who is this man who told thee, Take up thy bed, and walk? 13 The cripple who had been healed did not know who it was; Jesus had drawn aside from so crowded a place. 14 But afterwards when Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, Behold, thou hast recovered thy strength; do not sin any more, for fear that worse should befall thee, 15 the man went back and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had restored his strength. - John 5:1-14

Lourdes resembles the Pool of Bethsaida in the sense that those seeking physical healing bath in the waters.
Lourdes water is water which flows from a spring in the Grotto of Massabielle in the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes, France. The location of the spring was described to Bernadette Soubirous by an apparition of Our Lady of Lourdes on 25 February 1858. Since that time, many thousands of pilgrims to Lourdes have followed the instruction of Our Lady of Lourdes to "drink at the spring and bathe in it". Lourdes water is considered non-liturgical holy water.

The Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes or the Domain (as it is most commonly known) is an area of ground surrounding the Catholic shrine (Grotto) to Our Lady of Lourdes in the town of Lourdes, France. The Sanctuary is a destination for pilgrimage; sick pilgrims are reputed to be miraculously healed by Lourdes water. This ground is owned and administered by the Roman Catholic Church, and has several functions, including devotional activities, offices, and accommodation for sick pilgrims and their helpers. The Domain includes the Grotto itself, the nearby taps which dispense the Lourdes water, and the offices of the Lourdes Medical Bureau, as well as several churches and basilicas. It comprises an area of 51 hectares, and includes 22 separate places of worship. There are six official languages of the Sanctuary: French, English, Italian, Spanish, Dutch and German.
Lourdes water flows from a spring at the same spot where it was discovered by Bernadette. The original spring can be seen within the Grotto, lit from below and protected by a glass screen. Pilgrims drink Lourdes water due to its reputed healing power. The water is accessed from individual taps located between the grotto and the baths, The water from Lourdes was thoroughly analysed by independent chemists in 1858 and 1859, and does not appear to have a latent power to cure and has no special scientific or medicinal properties. Despite this, the water is itself a strong symbol of devotion for Lourdes pilgrims, and many buy statues and rosary beads containing small vials of it, and take home large plastic containers of it.
Baths
Each year about 350,000 pilgrims bathe in the water at the baths (Piscines).5 During the pilgrimage season, the baths are open 8:30 am –12:30 pm / 1:30 – 6:00 pm on weekdays and 10.00 am-12.00 noon / 2.00 pm-4.00 pm Sundays and Holidays. - Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes

Mary is still healing people at Lourdes and the latest confirmed miracle on February 12, 2018.

Lourdes, France, Feb 12, 2018 / 02:00 pm MT ().- A miracle was officially recognized at the Marian shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes in France, the 70th Lourdes miracle recognized by the Catholic Church.
The miraculous event involved a French nun, Sister Bernadette Moriau, who went on a pilgrimage to the shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes in 2008. She had been suffering from spinal complications which had rendered her wheelchair-bound and fully disabled since 1980. She also said she had been taking morphine to control the pain.
Moriau’s case was brought to the attention of the International Medical Committee of Lourdes, who extensively researched the nun’s recovery. They eventually found that Moriau’s healing could not be scientifically explained.
After a healing is recognized by the Lourdes committee, the paperwork is then sent to the diocese of origin, where the local bishop has the final say. After the bishop’s blessing, a healing can then be officially recognized by the Church as a miracle. - The 70th miracle: Lourdes healing officially declared supernatural

Of the 70,000 alleged miracles at Lourdes only 70 miracles (as of 2018) have been approved as worthy of belief. The Cures at Lourdes which have been recognised as miraculous by the Church.
The second metaphor I will be using is taking the Woman of the Apocalypse and the apparitions at Fátima and the Miracle of the Sun.

12 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:
2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered.
3 And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems:
4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son.
5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.
6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred sixty days.
7 And there was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels:
8 And they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying: Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: because the accuser of our brethren is cast forth, who accused them before our God day and night.
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of the testimony, and they loved not their lives unto death.
12 Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you that dwell therein. Woe to the earth, and to the sea, because the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, knowing that he hath but a short time.
13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman, who brought forth the man child:
14 And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the desert unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth after the woman, water as it were a river; that he might cause her to be carried away by the river.
16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the river, which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
17 And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
18 And he stood upon the sand of the sea. - Revelation 12

It is easily seen as to how the Mary can be compared to the Woman of the Apocalypse with the Marian apparitions at Fátima and the Miracle of the Sun.

On the 13th day of the month, from May to October 1917, the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to Lucia, Francisco, and Jacinta, who were ten, nine, and seven years old. Through these humble and simple children, Heaven provided Earth a warning of dangers to come that could lead to the destruction of the world and the ruin of countless souls. In a prophetic secret, Our Lady gave the children a frightening vision of Hell, and foretold the coming of the Second World War, the rise of Communist Russia, and the persecution of the Church. To draw the world from this ruinous course and to bring about a lasting peace, she called for the Rosary to be prayed daily, for acts of penance, and for the consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart. With these dire warnings and urgent requests, the Mother of God also gave a promise of hope: “In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.”

All of this was reported by the shepherd children. The message of Fatima—without any propaganda or publicity—spread by word of mouth and crossed the frontiers of Portugal. The irresistible flow of pilgrims increased more and more in response to this message of hope. During the last apparition, on October 13, 1917, a crowd of 70,000 gathered at the Cova da Iria, where Our Lady had appeared to the children. She promised a great miracle that day so all would believe. As the crowds raised their eyes to Heaven in prayer, they would witness the promised miracle, confirming everything the children had said. They saw the sun dance.

Then the sun began to dance, whirling violently through the sky, shooting forth streams of light which colored objects on the ground. The sun then seemed to detach itself from the sky and plummet to the Earth. Another witness, Maria Carreira, recalled: “It looked like a wheel of fire that was going to fall on the people. They began to cry out, ‘We shall all be killed!’ Others called to Our Lady to save them. They recited acts of contrition. One woman began to confess her sins aloud, advertising that she had done this and that…” (quoted in Fatima for Today). The sun then climbed back to its normal place in the sky, leaving everything instantaneously dry, from the dirt on the ground to the clothes on the people’s backs. The whole spectacle lasted about 10 minutes.
Not every witness was a willing believer. Many were skeptics, and some were even declared enemies of the Church.
Not every witness was in Fatima either. The great miracle was seen by many people from neighboring towns and villages up to 25 miles away. These distant witnesses dispel theories of mass hallucination or suggestion resulting from the heightened emotion of expectation. - Hope and mercy and the “Miracle of the Sun”

When Lúcia (one of the seers) was asked why God healed so few people, she simply replied: “God knows the hearts of men. He is leery of man!”
Nevertheless, some medical miracles at Fátima have been approved by the Church.
Here are a couple of examples of Mary working miracles at Fátima, Portugal.

Our Lady's apparitions at Fatima ended October 13th 1917 with the spin of the solar disk for ten minutes in front of over fifty thousand people. Then the great sanctuary was built; celebrations started, and the hand of God revealed itself, especially through the miraculous events. We name a few, among the most significant.
Healing from cancer
Joaquim Duarte Oliveira, residing in Lisbon, got cancer,he had been lying in bed for eight years. He had received all possible care from the best specialists in Portugal, but but with no results. His wife, as a last resort, in October 1927, entrusted herself to Our Lady of Fatima to whom she made a promise; she administered to her husband, without his knowledge, a few drops of the prodigious water. On his pillow she would leave the edition "Voice of Fatima" where stories were told about the miraculous cure of Dr. Agacio Ribeiro. Joaquim, driven by curiosity began to read. By reading he felt the faith and hope in the Virgin. Unexpectedly, he began to pray to Our Lady of Fatima to heal him, as she had cured the doctor. Just at that moment he felt entirely transformed, totally healed, and the next day Joaquim resumed his normal life. A month later he went with his family to Fatima to thank the Virgin Mary.
Extraordinary healing
Emilia Martins 42 years, a native of Santiago,had beeb lying in bed for six years, she could hardly move around and her stomach did not tolerate any food. Woman of great faith she wanted to go to Fatima, but could not because she was too poor. Some devout people gathered the amount necessary to rent a car and so Emilia went with a nurse and two sisters. During the journey, her condition worsened and in Oporto Emilia was administered the last rites, but was able to resume her journey. When she arrived to the Sanctuary, she was brought on a stretcher to the hospital, while in the hospital underwent several syncopes, in one of which a doctor said, "She is dead." The insistence of one of the assistants, revealed a few heartbeats, it was decided to bring her to the Blessing of the sick. The sick woman, upon receiving the blessing, awoke as from sleep, opened her eyes and perked up little by little, finally she regained consciousness. She felt a general well-being and exclaimed: "I am healed" ... "May Our Lady of Fatima be praised and thanked". The doctor gave a certificate of full recovery, in which he declared that the fact had occurred so suddenly that the case was not medically explainable. - Fatima

Many are the miracles of the Healing Ministry of Mary.
In a Ripley's Believe It or Not moment, some would call restoring someone’s tongue, while others would like to denied it as fact.

On the left side of the Shrine of Our Lady of Oropa, there are three marble gravestones with inscriptions in Latin which refer to the three miracles legally recognized by the Ecclesiastical Authority and authenticated by regular canonical process. They are:
John the Baptist Perrone
John the Baptist Perrone in 1718 was taken prisoner by the Turks, who urged him to renounce the Catholic faith, he refused and his tongue was cut off. The Franciscans and rescued him so he could return to Piedmont. He came to Oropa for the coronation of Mary Healer of Oropa and obtained the grace: the instant the bishop Gattinara, Bishop of Alexandria, set down on the head of the Virgin the new tiara, he felt his tongue growing and recovered the ability to speak. As in the previous case, a canonical trial was started and ended in the year 1724 by approving as miracle "the recovery of tongue and speech by John Perrone.". - Miracles at Oropa

And then there was Padre Pio!

The Most Amazing Case of Padre Pio’s Intercession?
The case of Gemma di Giorgi baffles doctors. Born in the Sicilian town of Ribera on Christmas day, 1939, her mother noted that Gemma seemed different to other children.
Looking into the eyes of her little girl, Gemma’s mother noticed that her eyes seemed abnormal and malformed. Gemma’s mother took her to doctor after doctor, and they diagnosed that she had no pupils, and that there was no medicines or surgery that would cure her.  Her parents concluded that they would have to pray for a miracle, they had a relation who was a nun and she recommended that they get in touch with Padre Pio. Gemma’s grandmother entreated the nun to send a letter to Padre Pio on behalf of her blind granddaughter.
After sending the letter, the nun had a dream where Padre Pio appeared to her and asked her, "where is Gemma for whom so many prayers are being offered that they are almost deafening?"
In the dream, the nun presented Gemma to Padre Pio and he made the sign of the cross over her eyes. The very next day, a letter arrived from Padre Pio. He wrote, "Dear daughter, rest assured that I will pray for Gemma. I send you my best wishes."
The ‘coincidence’ of the dream and the letter coming one after the other – stunned the nun who contacted Gemma’s family and persuaded them to take Gemma to see Padre Pio.
In 1947, Gemma and her grandmother set off for San Giovanni Rotondo. Gemma was 7 at the time.  While they were on the way, mysteriously, inexplicably and unexpectedly, Gemma began to see…she could see the sea and a ship. When she told her grandmother, she took this as a sign and began to pray.
A miracle had clearly taken place, but Gemma’s grandmother was still under the impression that they needed to ask Padre Pio’s intercession, and to do so in person. When their journey ended and they reached San Giovanni Rotondo, Padre Pio saw Gemma approach, and said hello to her.  He had never been introduced in ‘real life’ to Gemma, but knew who she was, the minute he clapped eyes on her.
The little seven-year-old Gemma entered the dark confines of Padre Pio’s confessional. Contrary to her grandmother’s wishes, Gemma never said anything of her eyes to Padre Pio, but he touched her eyes with the bloody part of his hand, and drew the sign of the cross on her.
Gemma’s grandmother was disappointed and emotional that Gemma had neglected to ask of Padre Pio a grace for healing her eyes.  Tears streamed down her face, and so she went to confession to Padre Pio, and asked him to intercede on Gemma's behalf and said, "I asked the grace for Gemma and I told Padre Pio that Gemma was weeping because, in her confession with him she had forgotten to ask this grace. I will never forget his soft and tender voice as he answered me with these words, "Do you have faith, my daughter? The child must not weep and neither must you for the child sees, and you know she sees." I understood then that Padre Pio was alluding to the sea and the ship Gemma had seen during the trip and that God had used Padre Pio to break through the darkness that covered Gemma's eyes."


Why was Zachariah punished while Mary was not?

There is a subtle difference in the responses of Zacharias and Mary.

Zacharias says, in Luke 1:18 (NASB)

  Zacharias said to the angel, “How will I know this for certain? For I am an old man and my wife is advanced in years.”

Zacharias is essentially asking the angel, "How do I know I can trust you? Prove it."  Furthermore, Zacharias's only basis of doubt was his and his wife's old age.  This was a miracle for which Biblical precedent had already been set (for Abraham, for example, in Genesis 18)

Mary, on the other hand, asks in Luke 1:34 (NASB)

  Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”

Mary is not asking "How will I know" (i.e., she's not asking whether she can trust God's word) - she is asking how it can be, in a spirit of amazement and wonder, rather than a spirit of doubt.

Also, note that in Luke 1:38, we read:

  And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Mary may have expressed doubt by asking how this would be initially, but once she was given an answer to her question of how it could be, she did believe.


What did the commisioning of the preaching of crusades involve?

It doesn't appear that there was a formal "commissioning" of any sort. Most of the information that follows is actually summarized from articles on Wikipedia (on Louis VII of France, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Pope Eugene III).

The story apparently begins in 1144, when Louis VII of France was successfully fighting Theobald II of Champagne. At the very end of the war, Louis personally participated in burning the town of Vitry-les-Francois—including the church building, where at least a thousand people had sought refuge.

In atonement for this, and to look after some of the Franks in the Holy Land who were in danger from the Seljuk Turks, Louis decided that he wanted to mount a crusade. After Odessa fell to the Turks, Pope Eugene (Eugenius) III wrote a papal bull to him, Quantum Praedecessores, giving official papal blessing to anyone who wanted to accompany him on the crusade.

Bernard of Clairvaux got involved because he was a friend of the pope, and in fact had influenced him to enter the Cistercian order. It would seem natural that the pope would turn to him to preach on behalf of the crusade—Bernard was known as a fantastically eloquent preacher.

In short, the pope didn't formally "commission" Bernard to preach the crusade. He asked his good friend who was very well known as a preacher.


Why can't the laity preach a homily, and can a lay person ever preach?

Code of Canon Law states:

  766.0 Lay persons can be permitted to preach in a church or oratory, if necessity requires it in certain circumstances or it seems advantageous in particular cases, according to the prescripts of the conference of bishops and without prejudice to 767.1

  767.1. Among the forms of preaching, the homily, which is part of the liturgy itself and is reserved to a priest or deacon, is preeminent; (....)

So, non-ordained faithful can preach, but NOT in the Mass. Because homily in the mass is a part of the liturgy which is reserved to the cleric (priest and deacon) alone. The reason for this is answered in Instruction On Certain Questions Regarding The Collaboration Of The Non-Ordained Faithful In The Sacred Ministry Of Priest Article 3.1

  The homily, therefore, during the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, must be reserved to the sacred minister, Priest or Deacon(69) to the exclusion of the non-ordained faithful....  This exclusion of the lay people is not based on their preaching ability of sacred ministers nor their theological preparation, but on that function which is reserved to them in virtue of having received the Sacrament of Holy Orders. For the same reason the diocesan Bishop cannot validly dispense from the canonical norm since this is not merely a disciplinary law but one which touches upon the closely connected functions of teaching and sanctifying.

PS: 'The homily should ordinarily be given by the priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to the deacon, but never to a lay person. In particular cases and for a just cause, the homily may even be given by a bishop or a priest who is present at the celebration but cannot concelebrate.' (GIRM 66)


Is salvation in the name "Jesus", or in the person Jesus

Is Salvation only through Christ?
The biblical answer is YES!

"Jesus answered, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. (John14:6)

Is salvation exclusive to Christianity?
The biblical answer is No!.,why? There are a lot of people who lives before Jesus Christ came, and even after Jesus Christ founded His Church, after His ascension to Heaven, the Church had not yet proclaim the gospel of Christ to all people in the four corners of this world.
A good reading of Vatican II Council Documents will enlighten as about the Catholic Church teachings on Inter-religious dialogue;

DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
NOSTRA AETATE
PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON OCTOBER 28, 1965
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

What is the fate of the people who never heard the gospel of Christ thru no fault of their own?
The Catholic Church teaches that this people can be save by the mysterious wisdom of God.

Is There Really "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church?"
The Catholic Church teaches infallibly, “extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” or, “outside the Church there is no salvation.” But as with all dogmas of the Faith, this has to be qualified and understood properly. The Catechism of the Catholic Church lays out the truth of the matter succinctly in paragraphs 846-848, but I would recommend backing up to CCC 830 for a context that will help in understanding these three essential points concerning this teaching:

There is no salvation apart from Christ and his One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Again, this is an infallible teaching and not up for debate among Catholics.

Those who are “invincibly” ignorant concerning the truth of #1 above will not be culpable for this lack of knowledge before God.

Those in the category of #2 have the real possibility of salvation even if they never come to an explicit knowledge of Christ and/or his Church.

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation” (quoting, Lumen Gentium, 16).
“Although in ways known to himself God can lead those, who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men” (quoting Ad Gentes, 7, another document from Vatican II).

Is salvation only through the name and person of Jesus?
In the recent famous statement of Pope Francis in the signing of Fraternal Agreement with the Muslims, the statement goes like this;

Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives. Therefore, the fact that people are forced to adhere to a certain religion or culture must be rejected, as too the imposition of a cultural way of life that others do not accept;

Justice based on mercy is the path to follow in order to achieve a dignified life to which every human being has a right;

APOSTOLIC JOURNEY OF HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS
TO THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
(3-5 FEBRUARY 2019)
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/travels/2019/outside/documents/papa-francesco_20190204_documento-fratellanza-umana.html

As you can see Pope Francis did not condemn other religions, but working on fraternal agreement that people of different faith can live together in peace, harmony and love.
God greatest commandment is to love one another and to love even our enemies. It means loving our neighbor as we love ourselves ,and our love is rooted in the love that we received from God.
Again, is salvation only through Christ? YES!
Proof, all the people in the Old Testament, pre-messianic time of Jesus Christ who had died in friendship with God are in the Abraham bosom's, these righteous people cannot enter Heaven without Christ opening the gate of the Kingdom of God for them.

Bosom of Abraham ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosom_of_Abraham

Is salvation exclusive to Christianity? The answer is NO!
Is salvation only through the name and person of Jesus? The answer is Yes!.

Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name above all names, 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but now even more in my absence, continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.For it is God who works in you to will and to act on behalf of His good purpose… (Philippians2:10-14)


At what point did the Eastern Church start self-identifying as the Orthodox Church?

First of all we need to get some meanings cleared out: as per the Wikipedia entry "The Eastern Orthodox Church considers itself to be both orthodox and catholic" meaning right-worshipping and universal. This is what the words catholic and orthodox mean. The question is regarding the labeling of the  Eastern Church as Orthodox.

The term Orthodox Church was first used as an identifier of the Eastern Church, by Roman Catholic theologians and scholars in the years following the Great Schism, with the intention of mocking what they perceived as rigidity and extremely strict adherence to the precepts of right worship, or, orthodoxy.

However, the Eastern Church did not consider this to be pejorative at all, but rather pretty descriptive of their approach (and also pointing fingers back at the West's non-orthodoxy) so they've embraced it.

As you can probably see, it's impossible to pinpoint an exact moment in history when this identification started to take place as it was not decreed officially in any way. It just started to spread around in the years after the Schism.

PS: I can't remember where exactly I have read this so unfortunately I can't provide a proper reference, it was an Orthodox book for sure though.


Is the emotion of sexual passion a result of the fallen state? (Catholic perspective)

The statement given in the O.P. has no foundation in Catholic teaching.

There is nothing wrong with sexual passion per se; however, like all passions, it needs to be regulated by reason. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

  2341 The virtue of chastity comes under the cardinal virtue of temperance, which seeks to permeate the passions and appetites of the senses with reason.


Are Convent Schools only for orphan children?

I did my schooling until high school in a convent school.

Answers:

1) No, I'm not a  orphen. This may have cleared you first question but still for your information, convent schools are open for any students whose parents  or organisation can effort tuition fees little more than other school under government (and in return  improved facilities and guidance).

2) I'm a Christian but we had lot more non-Christian students than Christian student in our school regardlessly orphen or not.

3) Sure, students are selected to the school based on they abilities and talents but not caste or religion.


What do the verses in Luke 5:20-25 teach us?

Jesus is here asking the Pharisees a rhetorical question, that is - what would be easier for him to say if he was not God. The answer is simple - it is easier for a mere man to say "Your sins are forgiven", because there is no outward immediate manifestation. It is much more difficult to say "Stand up and walk", because it would be readily apparent that Jesus was not able to back up his power, were he only a man.

As John Gill writes:

  Neither of them could be said by a mere man, with effect, so as that sins would be really remitted on so saying; or that a man sick of a palsy, by such a word speaking, would be able to stand upon his feet and walk; but both of them were equally easy to him, that is truly God; and he that could say the one effectually, could also say the other: or in other words, he that could cure a man of a palsy with a word speaking, ought not to be charged with blasphemy, for taking upon him to forgive sin: our Lord meant, by putting this question, and acting upon it, to prove himself to be God, and to remove the imputation of blasphemy from him

When Jesus says the second part, that is:

  But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” – he said to the paralyzed man – “I tell you, stand up, take your stretcher and go home.”

He is demonstrating to the Pharisees that he is who he says he is, that he has the power to forgive and the power to heal.


Why does a clever Satan fight with God even though he knows he will lose?

Since the Philosophy tag was raised. This is what I think.

Satan and the demons fear God. They are not going to fight against God. If anything Satan is out to get us. So is the antichrist who will trick us to fight against Christ Jesus.

He was cast out of Heaven. Luke 10:18 NET

  So he said to them, I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

Satan did not even put up a fight. Here, he was simply thrown out. Ezekiel 28:17

  Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted
  your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I
  made a spectacle of you before kings

Satan is a liar, John 8:44 NET

  for he is a liar and the father of lies

At the battle of Armageddon, Satan will hide as we will be tricked to fight Christ Jesus.
I think this is how we will be tricked:

  "There's nothing more reliable than a man whose loyalty can be bought
  for hard cash" Boris Balkan, The Ninth Gate


Which book of the law is Joshua 1:8 referring to?

The traditional historic view of Joshua’s reference to the “book of the Law” is it refers to the Pentateuch that was written by Moses.  That is the first five books of our current Bible known as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.  The Pentateuch is also known as the Torah.

In fact, the word “Torah” is in the text at, among other places, Joshua 1:8.

תּוֹרָה
towrah

The KJV translates Strong's H8451 in the following manner: law (219x).
-source-

There are some scholars most recently who believe that the Torah had four unique authors and was composed over hundreds of years.  Even if one takes this view, however, it would not diminish the understanding to what Joshua was referring.  For example, Joshua refers not just to the “book of the Law”, but also the “book of the Law of Moses” and the “book of the Law of God”.  That would still be the Pentateuch.

  As Moses the servant of the LORD commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses,
  Joshua 8:31

Deuteronomy self describes the book of the law this way.

  Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.
  Deuteronomy 31:26

Throughout the Israelite history in Chronicles and Kings there are numerous references to the book of the law of Moses.  It was understood that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

After the Dispersion when the Israelites regathered in the land under Nehemiah, the book of the law was still known as the first five books.

  and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel.
  Nehemiah 8:1b

By the time of Christ, the division of the Hebrew Bible was identified as three sections, Law or Teachings, Prophets, Psalms or Writings.  This is known as the Tanakh.

  And he [Jesus Christ] said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
  Luke 24:44

Some 2000 years ago it was common knowledge that the “book of the law” referred to the first five books of the Hebrew Bible.

  For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
  Gal. 3:10

The point in showing the understanding centuries after Moses and Joshua is that the traditional historic view confirms to what the book of the law Joshua would be referring.  It was the first five books of what is the Hebrew Bible.


If God "shows no partiality," how do Calvinists defend predestination?

Summary: Calvinists interpret these passages as referring to God's righteousness and justice — that he is a fair judge, consistently judging sin as wrong, whether committed by rich or poor, strong or weak, native or foreigner.  They do not indicate that God's gracious gifts – wealth, strength, and even salvation – are distributed equally to all.

Calvinists argue that the context of Deuteronomy 10:17–18 makes it clear that "partiality" here refers to God being a just judge, like many other similar passages in the Old Testament:

  17 For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. 18 He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. (ESV)

John Calvin says that here "God distinguishes Himself from men, who are carried away by outward appearance, to hold the rich in honor, and the poor in contempt; to favor the beautiful or the eloquent, and to despise the unseemly."1 Obviously the phrasing "not partial" here cannot mean that "God's justice requires that everyone have identical gifts," since these very verses presume the existence of the weak, poor, and foreign.  Rather, God "does not regard persons," as older English translations put it: he does not give weight to the outward appearance and station of men.

John Frame2 points out that, a few chapters earlier (Deuteronomy 7), we see this principle applied to the election of Israel:

  7 It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, 8 but it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. (ESV)

God's election here follows the same principle: he does not show "partiality" by choosing a powerful people. Neither is his choice based on Israel's merit (Deuteronomy 9:4, 6), but rather it is simply an act of grace (Deuteronomy 10:15, Ezekiel 16:1–14).2  The ultimate reason for electing some and not others is a mystery to us (Romans 9:15–21, Exodus 33:19),3 but we know it is not "partiality." (For more on this mystery, see: According to Calvinism, why does God give mercy to some and not to others?)

Other passages refer God's lack of partiality in the context of Jew vs. Gentile, like Acts 10:34–35 and, quoted below, Romans 2:9–11:

  9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality. (ESV)

Here, Calvin says, we see that God regards "purity of heart or inward integrity," not "kindred, country, dignity, wealth, and similar things," and that on this basis Jews and Gentiles "are both without any distinction exposed to eternal death." He then proceeds to rebut what he elsewhere calls the Pelagian objection:

  But if any hence objects and says, "That then there is no such thing as the gratuitous election of God;" it may be answered, That there is a twofold acceptation of men before God; the first, when he chooses and calls us from nothing through gratuitous goodness, as there is nothing in our nature which can be approved by him; the second, when after having regenerated us, he confers on us his gifts, and shows favor to the image of his Son which he recognizes in us."4

That is to say: God shows no partiality in his judgment, nor does he base election on something in a particular man's nature.  Instead, he chooses and blesses the elect out of grace alone.

Calvin, Harmony of the Law, Volume 3, Eighth Commandment
Frame, Systematic Theology (2013), ISBN: 9781596382176, p210
Frame, p223–24
Calvin, Commentary on Romans.  The "Pelagian" language is found in his Commentary on Acts 10:34.


According to Catholics were Adam and Eve aware that they possessed immortal souls before Satan told Eve that she would not die?

Adam and Eve in the state of original innocence possessed preternatural gifts: "bodily immortality, infused knowledge, and immunity from concupiscence."¹

St. Thomas Aquinas addresses the question "Whether the first man knew all things?,"² saying:

  …the first man was established by God in such a manner as to have knowledge of all those things for which man has a natural aptitude.

and

  The first man had knowledge of all things by divinely infused species.

Thus, Adam knew his soul was immortal.

Also, Pope Leo X (1513-1521) wrote in his bull Regiminis, Session VIII, Dec. 19, 1513, of the 5th Lateran Council that:

  …we condemn and reject all who assert that the intellectual soul is mortal…

I understand Flimzy's objection in the comments below that "'all those things for which man has a natural aptitude' is a far cry from 'everything naturally knowable'" to mean that although Adam may have been potentially able to know all things naturally knowable, whether he actually did is unknown. Regarding this, St. Thomas, before the passage I quoted above, wrote:²In the natural order, perfection comes before imperfection, as actuality precedes potentiality; for whatever is in potentiality is made actual only by something actual. And since God created things not only for their own existence, but also that they might be the principles of other things; so creatures were produced in their perfect state to be the principles as regards others. Now man can be the principle of another man, not only by generation of the body, but also by instruction and government. Hence, as the first man was produced in his perfect state, as regards his body, for the work of generation, so also was his soul established in a perfect state to instruct and govern others.Thus, Adam had actual knowledge of "all those things for which man has a natural aptitude."
References

Parente, Pietro, Antonio Piolanti, and Salvatore Garofalo. Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1951. p. 228.
Summa Theologica I q. 94 a. 3 c. & ad 1


In Christ's time the Jews believed in Purgatory and still do. Why don't Protestants?

What Purgatory is; providing that the general impression among Protestants is correct; is a place where the dead await becoming sinless, and when that happens they are then admitted to Heaven. The fact that such a place existed until Jesus suffered on the Cross; appears to be proven by the following Scripture.

Matthew 27:52-53 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Then when Jesus resurrected all those awaiting Heaven, were loosed from there, and proceeded to enter Heaven. Those beliefs are based on Several passages from the Bible. They are:

Job 14:12-15 So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens [be] no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep. O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me! If a man die, shall he live [again]? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands.
Job 19:25-27 For I know [that] my redeemer liveth, and [that] he shall stand at the latter [day] upon the earth: And [though] after my skin [worms] destroy this [body], yet in my flesh shall I see God:  Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; [though] my reins be consumed within me.
Daniel 12:2-3 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
Hosea 13:14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.

All of there are prophesies from the Old testament, which precedes Salvation.
From the New Testament the following Scriptures appear to indicate that that place no longer exists:

Matthew 28:6-7 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.

Jesus apparently negated the need for a place of atonement when he sacrificed his life on the cross.
Since the man Jesus took on all the sins of those who put their eternal faith in him, He also must be loosed from whatever interment he underwent for the three days he was in the Grave. That alone shows that all sins of those who are destined for Heaven are forgiven.
The following Scripture tells us that at his sacrifice people who are in their graves will come forth to judgment.

John 5:28-29 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Matthew 27:52-53 would appear to indicate that the hearing of his call has already transpired. The part about resurrection of life, and resurrection to damnation, obviously will not happen until the great white throne judgment of the Revelation.
The following Scripture appears to tell us that at some time in the future Jesus will issue another call and that the elect will not be in any waiting place, but will be scattered throughout Heaven.

Matthew 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

The following promise of Jesus to the thief tells us that he will not go to a waiting place, but will go to Heaven to be with Jesus.

Luke 23:42 and 43  And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.


According to Calvinism, is God always loving?

Yes, the God of Calvinism is loving and no, there is never a time when his actions are not loving.

The loving nature of God is, according to Calvinism and Reformed theology in general, both perfect and immutable. There is no time in which he is not loving nor action which does not display his love.

The reason many people have a problem with this is that they are using much more limited definitions of love and trying to apply them to God. A mutable fickle loving nature would indeed sometimes act out of motives other than love -- some actions would be loving, others not. As broken humans we tend to default to understanding others actions in this way, however the model does not apply to God.

God's love is both an intrinsic value and an action.

It is, however, not self contradictory. His love is not expressed in embracing both good and evil. A complete, whole, rational love that is good must also be complemented by a whole, rational and holy hatred. In order to love what is good, it must also hate what is evil. In order for God himself to be loving in Character, he must be fundamentally opposed to things that are not loving. In other words, his is not only just to punish evil, but loving to do so. It would be no love of the good and innocent to let the evil and guilty go free.

The absolutely crazy "exception" to this -- and it's technically not an exception at all because his love is consistent even in this case -- is the forgiveness and reconciliation of sinners to himself through the sacrifice of Jesus. By himself becoming subject to the curse of sin and wrath of God against evil when he himself was good, he earned the right to buy back those whom he chose from death -- to experience God's love of good as one of those good things rather than experiencing his love for good things expressed as his hatred of bad things.


Origin of quote: "If you wish to speak or hear about God, renounce your own body..."

It appears that this quote is from a Homily by St. Basil titled On Faith, specifically Fide 1, which can be found in the larger work On Christian Doctrine and Practice.

  De fide, Mark DelCogliano writes, “is one of the classic expressions of [Basil’s] Trinitarian doctrine” (On Christian Doctrine and Practice, p. 227).


Are the Ten Commandments in OT arranged in the order of their importance to the believer?

There is no biblical basis for the claim that the Ten Commandments are arranged in order of importance, and to my knowledge, there is no Roman Catholic teaching on the subject either. There are a couple places where Jesus does provide us with some insight into the degree of importance of the various commandments, but one stands out. Matthew 22:37.

It is important to notice that Jesus is not citing the Ten Commandments when he is discussing the two greatest commandments. The two greatest commandments are:

Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind and strength
Love your neighbor as yourself.

The first two commandments of the Ten Commandments are

No other gods before me
No graven images.

Jesus considers the two "Greatest" commandments to be a summary of all of the commandments.

If anything, the Luke 18:18 passage suggests that the Ten Commandments are not all in order of importance, since he freely rearranges them however he wishes.


Does 1 Corinthians 2:9 mean Heaven will be more joyous than we can contemplate?

This is one of those passages that is more metaphorical and should be taken in context with the entire passage, and, like the entire New Testament, it should be taken in context with common Judaic beliefs of the day.

The people to whom Paul is speaking know what heaven is supposed to be like. The resurrection of the dead and the paradise that awaits is often repeated. Paul wouldn't be trying to describe heaven in a single verse to people who'd been hearing about heaven their entire lives. Verse 9 is an analogy used to explain that Paul didn't come up with this stuff on his own. He is teaching what God taught him.

Simply, Paul is saying that compared to anything any person could have come up with, this wisdom from God is like this world compared to what we know heaven will be like.


The anointing of Jesus - one event or multiple events?

The four gospels record the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.  There are multiple events that are shared and reported among the four gospels.

This is one of those events.

Note that Wikipedia mentions that this could be two separate events, but it is commonly accepted to be one event, shared among the gospels.

Justification?

If we look at the four gospels, we see Jesus crucified, buried, and resurrected four separate times.  The events leading up to his death are similar including four last suppers, four records of trial, etc.

Now, we can presume that he did all of these events multiple times, or we can (rightly) move forward with the understanding that these records are four viewpoints of the same events.

In all four books, Jesus was anointed with expensive oil. Two books show he was anointed on his head, two show he was anointed on his feet.  More than likely, he was anointed on once on both his head and his feet.

Mark records the estimate of the oil at 300 denarii.  A denarius is valued at 10 asses.  A donkey, in modern currency, is worth around US$1000-$2500.  This makes the oil worth 3,000 asses, which is, in today's money, $3,000,000 - $7,500,000.

I don't know about you, but I rarely come across any single item that's worth multiple millions of dollars.

Yes, Jesus might have been anointed twice or four times.  But if we use just the tiniest amount of common sense, it seems pretty obvious that being anointed with a $3million oil was not a common event.  Therefore, it's extremely safe to assume that this was really simply one event.


How do those who believe man is tripartite respond to Gen. 2:7, "the man became a living soul"?

Gen. 2:7, which states that "the man became a living soul" (thereby implying that "the man" = "the living soul"), seems to conflict with 1 Thes. 5:23 which states that man is composed of "the spirit and the soul and the body" (τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τὸ σῶμα). Is man a soul or does man have a soul?

The apparent contradiction can be reconciled if we understand that the author of Gen. 2:7 is using the Hebrew word נפש (Greek ψυχή) as a synecdoche of part for the entire person.

In Approaching Jehovah’s Witnesses in Love: How to Witness Effectively without Arguing, Ch. 6, Wilbur Lingle wrote,

In Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, p. 840, Ethelbert William Bullinger defines the synecdoche of part:

Hence, נפש is used to represent the entire man because it represents one of the more important parts of man.


What was the origin of the phrase "Abraham's Bosom" as used by Jesus?

"Bosom of Abraham" refers to the place of comfort in the Biblical Sheol (or Hades in the Greek Septuagint version of the Hebrew scriptures from around 200 BCE, and therefore so described in the New Testament) where the righteous dead supposedly await Judgment Day.
The word found in the Greek text for "bosom" is kolpos, meaning "lap" "bay". This relates to the Second Temple period practice of reclining and eating meals in proximity to other guests, the closest of whom physically was said to lie on the bosom (chest) of the host, as in John 13:23.

The Jews had adopted the Persian, Greek, and Roman custom of reclining at meals, and had long since exchanged the original practice of standing at the Passover first for sitting and then for reclining in a setup called Triclinium. They reclined on the left arm and ate with the right. The expression "lies in the bosom" is well documented in extrabiblical sources.


How is the doctrine of the Trinity substantiated?

This is a very good question. And let me say from the onset that I will not "dazzle" you with examples of the Trinity that deals with water, ice, eggs, four leaf clovers sun rays or anything else in like manner.
The definition of the doctrine of the Trinity is not an "assumption." It is the normative systematic theology of God in Christianity and is based on the fact that the Bible is EXPLICIT in telling us that there is, was and forever will be only ONE God AND the fact that the Bible identifies three (and only three) persons as God.
So, how is this "substantiated?" Now, please bear with me on this because it may appear complicated but it is not when you think about it. Also, the Trinity cannot be understood, argued or refuted by appealing to any single passage in the Bible. It is drawn from the whole Bible.
The Bible identifies God by: (1) His names. (2) His titles. (3) His unique attributes. (4) His unique actions. (5) His worship. If you will examine the Bible thoroughly you should be able to quickly discover that there are three and ONLY three "persons" who are identified as God by the 'COMBINATION" of the literary means I listed above.
These persons are each variously...CALLED by the NAMES of God. (YHWH and its variants) either directly or indirectly, usually both.
RECOGNIZED with the TITLES of God. (Lord, king, savior, redeemer etc.) For example God is identified at Isaiah 44:6, "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And his Redeemer, the Lord of host; I am the first and I am the last. And there is no God besides Me. At Isaiah 43:11, "I, even I; am the Lord; And there is no SAVIOR besides Me.
Jesus Christ is also described as the "first and the last in the book of Revelation. Jesus Christ is also identified as the "SAVIOR" at Luke 2:11, "for today in the city of David there has been born for you a "SAVIOR, who is Christ the Lord. Are you beginning to see the connection?
As a point of order let me say that when you see the word "God" in the Old Testament you "CANNOT" assume it refers to God the Father all the time. Let me pick another one! His unique actions. That is to say (Creation, origin of God's word, salvation of men etc).
Going back to Isaiah at Isaiah 44:24 the part that says, "I, the Lord am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens BY MYSELF, And spreading out the earth ALL ALONE."
And we have at John 1:3, "ALL things came into being by Him, and apart from Him (apart means without Him) nothing came into being that has come into being." Colossians 1:16 backs this up, "For by Him/Jesus Christ ALL things were CREATED, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities ---all things have been created by Him and for Him." God the Father backs this up at Hebrews 1:10.
One more, God's worship. We already know God is worshiped in the Bible. Jesus also receives worship. The highest form of worship to Jesus was by Thomas at John 20:28 when he said literally to Jesus Himself, "The Lord of me and the God of me." At Hebrews 1:6 His Father says, "Let all the angels of God worship Him." The Greek word for worship in this text is "proskuneo" which is the same word used for worshiping the Father.
At this point I'm not going go over His unique attributes/characteristics which are easy to figure out on your own, i.e omnipresence, omnipotence, eternality, etc.
Keep in mind that I am saying that each person of the Trinity receives some COMBINATION of the 5 means of identifying and distinguishing God listed above. Remember, theology is not salvation. It is in Christ that we find God fully and sufficiently manifested to us human beings, AS a human being and for His own glory. And it is only through His Holy Spirit that we can know Him and be saved by His grace.
Finally, at Matthew 16:13 Jesus said, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is? At verse 16 Peter replied, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replies to Peter, "Blessed are you Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."