Are there any active Christian ministries that preach from the Jefferson Bible?

It is impossible to prove a negative, but I believe that there are not any active groups that self identify as "Christian" and use the Jefferson Bible, as it is called.

The reasons for this conclusion are based on the history of publication and the purpose of the work.

History of publication

Jefferson apparently did not want to publish his work. In fact, there is good evidence that even his own religious identity he guarded steadfastly unto his death. He lived in a time when deviation from orthodoxy was taboo. Additionally, as a Forefather in American history, an entire nation was looking to him at times (and even much of Europe too), and confusing the populace with his own uncertainty in faith would only complicate matters and jeopardize their trust in him.

Consequently, Jefferson's Bible was relatively unknown until the 1940's. And even today, most of Christendom is unaware of it. Mitch Horowitz, writer for CNN, considers the "what if's" had Jefferson published his work.

In light of the Jefferson Bible being more of a curiosity in history, rather than a religious work for the benefit of a religious group, it is unlikely that any self identified Christian group uses it in their ministries.

Purpose of the work

Jefferson was very likely a Deist, according to many historians, and that is in line with his goals for his bible. He states explicitly in a number of places that his work was meant to remove any elements of spiritualism. Consequently, the work only includes portions of the gospels, those being purposefully the passages that do not contain any miracles, hints at the Trinity, or specific elements of any specific god.

It is not only missing more than half of the text that nearly all other Christians use, but also is jumbled into what Jefferson believed was the correct chronology of Jesus' life.

Though the work is entirely from the Bible, it is entirely not the Bible. If any group was using it for their ministries, quoting from it would cause great confusion, as it appears like the Bible at first, but is missing most of it. Instead, what seems more likely, is that deists or even humanist/secular groups may use it, but as an adjunct to their own central doctrine, whatever that may be.

The Wikipedia article is well sourced and covers a good deal about the purpose of Jefferson's work. Once familiar with that, it becomes apparent of the difficulties and unlikelihood that any self identified Christian group uses it in their ministries.

Disclaimer

I always reserve the right to be proven wrong. There may indeed be a self identified Christian group that uses the Jefferson Bible. If so, I would bet they they are Unitarian, or even more liberal in their doctrine, especially regarding their Christology and Theology. Deists are said to be "the natural religion", which seems about as liberal in theology and doctrine as is possible. I would not be surprised if there are humanist/secular groups that stress moral living that use the Jefferson Bible, but probably as an adjunct to their more central ideologies. So called "Christian Atheists" are exactly what the Jefferson Bible would do well for. They are non-believers, however they find a high value in the ethics laid out in the Bible. But aside from assertions that they exist, I know nothing about them.


How do Protestants respond to the JW interpretation of John 14:28?

Good question, it is written

  "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,  who, being
  in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with
  God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a
  bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men." (Philippians 2:5-7)

Herein it says Jesus is equal with God (the Father), thus contradicting the watchtower quote you provided.

  "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was
  manifested in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16 NKJV)

In John 14:28 Jesus is saying he is subordinate to the Father, but Philippians 2:5-7 says he is equal.  So Jesus is subordinate but equal.  To be subordinate does not mean one is not equal, for example the Bible admonishes wives to be subordinate to their husbands in the Lord (Ephesians 5:22), yet they are 100% equal in value in God's sight.  More info on Jesus divinity from Scripture found here - The Trinity.

Hope that helps!


When did the split in crufix/empty-cross sybolism occur and why did it happen?

In history there have always been reasons to show a crucifix without a corpus.1 Especially in the first four centuries of Christianity it was – because of theological reservations – not possible to illustrate the suffering servant figure of Jesus Christ: They thought that it was not beneficial for the majesty of Christ's divinity.2

Another trail leads us to Calvinism: Also there led a sovereign, bordering to the abstract image of God to a sober view of the cross without a corpus.3

1: Burkard Porzelt, Empirische Religionspädagogik, 175
2: Baudler, 1997, 289
3: Baudler, 1997, 57


What crime was committed by the "thieves" crucified with Jesus?

Survey of Roman law
A now deleted (near) duplicate of this question asked if a claim that the Roman law forbid the crucifixion of thieves, so I'll start with that question, which is highly relevant to our exegesis of the Gospel accounts.
There are a lot of claims on the Internet and in popular-level books about Roman crucifixion.  Some common claims included that women couldn't be crucified, that crucifixion was reserved for the most severe crimes (such as treason and murder), and that Roman citizens were exempt.  What all these claims seem to have in common is that they are never backed by references, let alone primary sources.  All three are false.  I suspect the claims are based on a combination of over-generalization (the majority of crucifixions were on non-citizen men, for example) and it "making sense" to the modern reader's sense of justice.
The non-citizen-only claim is not relevant for this question (few people in Jerusalem would have been Roman citizens in 30 AD).  The male-only claim is obviously not relevant (but is answered in this History.SE question).  I will address the major-crime-only claim here, looking primarily at cases of theft.
The real truth about Roman crucifixion is that it was commonly used as punishment for all types of crimes committed by slaves and the lower classes.  According to Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World, it was the primary punishment used on slaves.1  Jeffrey Ross agrees, writing:2

In the writings of most Roman authors, crucifixion appears to be reported as the normal punishment for disobedient slaves.

Crucifixion was regularly used on liberti (former slaves) and peregrini (non-citizens), and not just for major crimes.  Crucifixion was occasionally used on citizens as well.1
In Against Verres, Cicero describes a farm owner who, upon discovering the fraud of the farm manager, should inflict summum supplicium (extreme punishment), a phrase Cicero clearly ties to crucifixion in the same work.  A farm manager would generally be a position held by a freedman or slave.  Similarly, in Digesta seu Pandectae (in English usually called simply Digest), the compendium of Roman legal code, Pomponius describes a night prefect being properly punished with summum supplicium for theft.  Elsewhere in Digest, the penalty for grave robbing is given as summum supplicium for the humilioris, a term used for all lower class persons (e.g. anyone who didn't own property).  Although there is no formal definition of the term in Roman legal code, Garnsey investigated its usage and concluded it refers to "crucifixion, burning alive, and perhaps condemnation to the beasts."1
In the play Bacchides, the main character, a slave who has stolen some gold, imagines himself in the future, carrying not the gold, but rather a cross.2 A fragment of a legal code known as lex Puteolana says that a salve owner has the right to have the state crucify a slave for any crime whatsoever, as long as the owner pays the cost of the execution.1
In Digest, the jurist Callistratus describes certain thieves being subject to crucifixion:1

The practice which has been approved by most authorities has been to fasten (or nail) notorious brigands to the cross in the place they used to haunt

There is no indication of the punishment applying only to some social groups.  In the Lex Fabia, a legal code concerning run away slaves, crucifixion is listed as a possible penalty for aiding the slave (and thus "stealing" the master's property), among the humiliores.3
Severus Alexander is said to have had a disgraced public official (so an upper class citizen) crucified after being convicted of theft:1

the kings were asked what penalty thieves suffered at their hands, and they replied "the cross," and at this reply the man was crucified.

Meaning of the Gospel accounts
We have now established that thieves could be and were crucified by the Romans.  Thus, we can turn to the Gospel narratives without risk of biasing our translation by what we know about the Romans.
Matthew 27:38 reads:

Τότε σταυροῦνται σὺν αὐτῷ δύο λῃσταί, εἷς ἐκ δεξιῶν καὶ εἷς ἐξ εὐωνύμων.
Then two robbers (λῃσταί) were crucified with him, one on the right and one on the left.

Mark 15:27 writes:

Καὶ σὺν αὐτῷ σταυροῦσιν δύο λῃστάς, ἕνα ἐκ δεξιῶν καὶ ἕνα ἐξ εὐωνύμων αὐτοῦ. (NA27)
And with him they crucified two robbers (λῃστάς), one on his right and one on his left. (ESV)

Luke 23:32 has:

Ἤγοντο δὲ καὶ ἕτεροι κακοῦργοι δύο σὺν αὐτῷ ἀναιρεθῆναι.
Two others, who were criminals (κακοῦργοι), were led away to be put to death with him.

and John 19:18 reads:

ὅπου αὐτὸν ἐσταύρωσαν, καὶ μετ' αὐτοῦ ἄλλους δύο ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐντεῦθεν, μέσον δὲ τὸν Ἰησοῦν.
There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them.

Luke's just uses the nondescript "criminals" and John is even less specific saying simply "others".  That leaves Matthew and Mark who both use a form of λῃστής.
According to A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (BDAG), λῃστής has two meanings.  The first is "robber, highwayman, bandit".  A good example of this usage is Luke 10:30:

Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers (λῃσταῖς), who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead.

Here it is clear that more than shoplifting is in mind - this is about violently taking property.  Further, John 10:1 (see also 10:8) shows that the cannot merely be a close synonym for thief:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief (κλέπτης) and a robber (λῃστής)."

If there was no distinction between κλέπτης (the ordinary word for thief) and λῃστής, Jesus' words would be silly, but they are not.  He is saying the man is both taking "property" (literally sheep, but in the context of the parable, souls) and committing an act of violence (in context, against God).
The second usage of λῃστής is "revolutionary, insurrectionist, guerrilla."   This is most likely the usage intended in John 18:40:

They cried out again, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a robber (λῃστής).

While the ESV has chosen to translate it as "robber," the context clearly suggests a very serious crime is in mind.  If Barabbas was a robber, he must have been a violent one - and John does not need to use an adjective to express that.  Mark 15:7 backs up that John means insurrectionist by λῃστής, as he describes Barabbas as a rebel who committed murder in an insurrection.
This is probably also the intended meaning in Matthew 26:55 and parallel accounts - one does not need "swords and clubs" to capture a petty thief, nor would one expect a mob to seize a bandit.  One would, however, expect a crowd to attack an unpopular revolutionary or insurrectionist.
For the latter definition, BDAG also cites numerous passages in Josephus that suggest insurrectionists/guerrilla fighters.
Given the fact that Barabbas was in custody for his part in an insurrection, it seems likely that the two λῃστής crucified with Jesus were also insurrectionists.  If not, they were at least violent robbers - the meaning of λῃστής does not allow for ordinary thieves.
Conclusion
People were crucified for all kinds of crimes under Roman law.  Social status was a far bigger factor in whether one was crucified or not than the nature of the crime.  There are plenty of Roman documents that suggest thieves could be and often were crucified.  There is thus no legal difficulty in saying the criminals executed with Jesus were thieves.
The nature of the word λῃστής, however, suggests that the men crucified with Jesus were violent.  They were either ruthless bandits/highway robbers or insurrectionists.  The context of Barabbas' release and the description of him using the same word suggests that insurrectionists is the most likely meaning.  This conclusion also fits with the fact that Jesus was said to be a revolutionary by those who sought to justify the need for execution with the Romans.
The best conclusion, then, is that Jesus was crucified alongside two rebels (so NIV)/revolutionaries (so NLT).  Or, if one wishes to keep the theft connotation, "bandits" (ISV, NRSV) is a pretty decent translation.  The more common translations of "robbers" or "thieves", in my opinion, do not properly convey the violent nature of the crime committed by the criminals.

References
1 Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World (2014) by John Granger Cook
2 Religion and Violence: An Encyclopedia of Faith and Conflict from Antiquity (2015) by Jeffrey Ian Ross
3 New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (1997) by By S. R. Llewelyn


Should Christians be against the death penalty?

While many Christians are against the death penalty, there is also biblical sanction for it. Genesis 9:6 commands the killing of those who commit murder-

  He who sheds a man's blood, by man shall shall his blood be shed.

For many fundamentalists, such a clear case for the death penalty means that the death penalty should thus be supported.

The key question, however, is whether this is to Noah or for all time.

The Catholic Church in particular has done a great job of cultivating a "culture of life" within the church, and has thus found this scripture to be primarily about the sanctity of the life taken. Stances against abortion and euthanasia are harmonized with the death penalty, reflecting what Catholics declare us the nature of God- the creator and sustainer of life.  Governments are thus authorized, but not compelled to take action. (And, in any case, the death penalty is usually restricted to certain kinds if murder now)


Where is the reference to John's student writing that John wrote his gospel because the synoptic gospels needed more detail?

Not aware of the idea that John wrote his gospel because the other three needed added details, but there is the thought that John wrote for more "light" on certain general matters.  These are from Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, a disciple of John.

In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord’s disciples what shall happen in the last times, and concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire which now rules [the earth] shall be partitioned.
Irenaeus AH V XXVI

Irenaeus in AH III XI does argue that the gospels must be 4 in number and does outline why John's gospel is so important.

John, the disciple of the Lord, preaches this faith, and seeks, by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that “knowledge” falsely so called, that he might confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God,
-AH III XI-

As the OP mentions, John taught Polycarp and Polycarp taught Irenaeus.  Here is an example.
TO EDIT TO INCLUDE EUSEBIUS' EXPLANATION (mentioned in another answer)

And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels,762 they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry.763

And this indeed is true. For it is evident that the three evangelists recorded only the deeds done by the Saviour for one year after the imprisonment of John the Baptist,764 and indicated this in the beginning of their account.

For Matthew, after the forty days’ fast and the temptation which followed it, indicates the chronology of his work when he says: “Now when he heard that John was delivered up he withdrew from Judea into Galilee.”765

Mark likewise says: “Now after that John was delivered up Jesus came into Galilee.”766 And Luke, before commencing his account of the deeds of Jesus, similarly marks the time, when he says that Herod, “adding to all the evil deeds which he had done, shut up John in prison.”767

They say, therefore, that the apostle John, being asked to do it for this reason, gave in his Gospel an account of the period which had been omitted by the earlier evangelists, and of the deeds done by the Saviour during that period; that is, of those which were done before the imprisonment of the Baptist. And this is indicated by him, they say, in the following words: “This beginning of miracles did Jesus”;768 and again when he refers to the Baptist, in the midst of the deeds of Jesus, as still baptizing in Ænon near Salim;769 where he states the matter clearly in the words: “For John was not yet cast into prison.”770

John accordingly, in his Gospel, records the deeds of Christ which were performed before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three evangelists mention the events which happened after that time.
-source-


What do Seventh Day Adventists believe about baptism?

The fundamental belief of the Seventh-Day Adventist church on baptism states.

  Baptism is a symbol of our union with Christ, the forgiveness of our
  sins, and our reception of the Holy Spirit

https://www.adventist.org/en/beliefs/church/baptism/

Practically the baptism of the Holy Spirit and baptism for repentance can be separated. In regards to the baptism of the Holy Spirit Adventists do not expect a physical manifestation or 'charisma' experience to happen in the person and it is a much more personal experience in experiencing the presence of God in their life.  This experience often proceeds and is a catalyst for the water baptism.


Why did Luther curse those who oppose indulgences?

Firstly, he did not curse those who opposed indulgences. He himself was against indulgences. He wrote the 95 theses because of the sale of indulgences:

  Luther, aflame with indignation, challenged the sale of indulgences and demanded that the entire matter be discussed by the scholars of the University. He invited his academic colleagues to a public disputation to consider the Ninety-five Theses, or objections, which he had raised against the sale.

What he said in his 71st thesis, was this "Let those who oppose the truth about indulgences be anathema and accursed". He didn't say "curse those who oppose indulgences," but rather "curse those who are against the truth concerning indulgences."

The "truth about indulgences" was that you cannot buy your own salvation, and Luther was trying to state that. This can be seen in Ephesians 2 : 8,9.

Now, the Catholic priests and pope were trying to oppose this, by saying that what Luther was teaching was false. Thus, Luther says, "those who oppose the truth about indulgences be...cursed". He was cursing the priests and the pope!

Why? Isn't this rather strong?

Consider this. When you get someone who deceives others concerning their salvation, telling them that by paying money, they can save themselves, this person is basically sending the poor gullible people to their damnation. They are systematically dooming people with their sell of indulgences. Isn't that what Satan is actually doing? Trying to draw more people into Hell?

Thus, Luther has good reason to curse those who try to oppose the truth of the indulgences.


Is the phrase, "Heaven is the presence of God, but Hell is the absence of God" an orthodox viewpoint?

Depends on what you mean by "orthodox", I guess.

According to the Eastern Orthodox, the answer would be "no".

  Origen, and all rationalists who are like him, was not able to
  understand that the acceptance or the rejection of God's grace depends
  entirely on the rational creatures; that God, like the sun, never
  stops shining on good or wicked alike; that rational creatures are,
  however, entirely free to accept or reject this grace and love; and
  that God in His genuine love does not force His creatures to accept
  Him, but respects absolutely their free decision.  He does not
  withdraw His grace and love, but the attitude of the logical creatures
  toward this unceasing grace and love is the difference between
  paradise and hell. Those who love God are happy with Him, those who
  hate Him are extremely miserable by being obliged to live in His
  presence, and there is no place where one can escape the loving
  omnipresence of God.

http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm


How to interpret the ban of unions between believers and non-believers?

Sex outside of marriage is strictly prohibited by the Bible. The Bible calls this fornication if you are not married or adultery if you are married but commit it with another person. 1 Corinthians 5 talks about this. It is for our own good that God prohibits this as this cleaves us unto the person that we commit this sin with.

The Bible also tells us not to associate with people like this as friends, as they might influence us. It doesn't tell us to ignore them or hate them, but to love them and pray for them. But do not invite them into your home as they might lead you or your family astray, and especially do not seek a lasting relationship with them (marriage) as this is being unequally yoked.

  Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what
  fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion
  hath light with darkness?

  2 Corinthians 6:14

EDIT: I'll add a few references to not invite them into you home.

  I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral
  people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral
  people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or
  idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But
  now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a
  brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a
  reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a
  person.

  1 Corinthians 5:9

It is important to know that this speaks of so-called Christians that are living in open sin.

  But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even
  be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Let there be no
  filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place,
  but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5 For you may be sure of this,
  that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous
  (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ
  and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of
  these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7
  Therefore do not become partners with them; 8 for at one time you were
  darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light
  9 (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and
  true), 10 and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Take no
  part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

  Ephesians 5:3-11

The example of Lot's family living among the sinful cities of Sodom and Gomorrah should also be noted. Abraham decided to stay in the wilderness while Lot went for the much more attractive valley close to the cities. It was a disaster, as it ruined his home. His family was destroyed. Only He and his two daughters were saved, but it was too late. His daughters were already corrupted with the influence of Sodom and Gomorrah. Because of this, they committed this terrible and vile act of giving their father fermented wine and committing the terrible sin of fornication and incest.


If a monk dies after been married to a woman, who inherits his legacy?

A monk is not "married" to his monastery in any sense at all, so there is nothing to be annulled. If a monk wishes to leave the monastery, he can ask for an "indult of exclaustration" (canon 686 section 1), which can be granted by either the bishop or the pope, depending on what kind of religious institute ("order") the monk is in.

Once the monk is granted this indult, he is " considered freed from the obligations which cannot be reconciled with the new condition of his or her life" (canon 687), including the perpetual vows of celibacy and of poverty (is that its one of the vows of the institute he was a member of). If the former monk marries at this point, his responsibility is solely to his wife and his family. There is no question of any part of his inheritance going to the monastery unless he specifically wills it.


Is Frisbeetarianism a Christian denomination?

Frisbeetarianism is a parody religion, along the same lines as Pastafarianism.  It is sometimes attributed to comedian George Carlin:

  Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck. (source)

It's also attributed to comedian Jim Stafford in 1975.

In answer to your question then, no, it's not a form of Christianity nor a form of ancient paganism.  It's simply a parody, created by comedians, to poke fun at religion.


What language(s) was Christ likely to have spoken during his mortal ministry?

The answers to this question will vary according to the various perspectives.

Nevertheless, it is thought by some that Jesus spoke only Aramaic.

St. Thomas Aquinas seems to be of this opinion also:

  Christ in His own person purposed preaching to only one nation, namely the Jews. Consequently, although without any doubt He possessed most perfectly the knowledge of all languages, there was no need for Him to speak in every tongue. And therefore, as Augustine says (Tract. xxxii in Joan.), "whereas even now the Holy Ghost is received, yet no one speaks in the tongues of all nations, because the Church herself already speaks the languages of all nations: since whoever is not in the Church, receives not the Holy Ghost." - Question 176. The grace of tongues

Even Pope Francis has spoken on this:

  Language is communication. Without language, whether written or spoken or in whatever medium it may be, one is unable to communicate with others in a meaningful, relational way. When we ask how God communicates with humanity, language necessarily plays a role in this inquiry. This is perhaps why there may be such high stakes surrounding the answer to the question What language did Jesus speak?

  In the Summer of 2014, during his visit to Israel, Pope Francis found himself in a minor scholastic repartee with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The exchange was short, but not without implication: “Jesus was here, in this land. He spoke Hebrew,” Netanyahu said, in connection to the strong relationship between Judaism and Christianity. “Aramaic,” the pope corrected. “He spoke Aramaic, but he knew Hebrew,” said the prime minister, regaining his ground.

  First the historical matter. Did Jesus speak Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek?

  It is likely that Jesus’ primary language was in fact Aramaic, as the pope suggested, and as Netanyahu admitted. Aramaic, a Northwest Semitic language, was popularized as the lingua franca of the ancient Near East in the Neo-Assyrian period (745-609 BCE) and was used widely as the language of diplomacy during the Persian period (539-332 BCE). The Hellenistic, Hasmonean, and Roman periods in Palestine all display a use of Greek and Hebrew as well. Hasmonean coinage, for instance, bears examples of each of these languages being used in official minting. Thus when we arrive at the figure of Jesus, a Roman period Palestinian Jew from the Galilee region of the province of Judea, and as we move into the works of the New Testament authors, it is not surprising to find that all three of these languages cooperate together.

  Documentary and textual evidence seems to point to the use of Aramaic as a “default” language for communication in Jewish Palestine at this time. While Hebrew may have been favored for biblical, poetical, or liturgical texts (and may have even been used colloquially especially in Jerusalem), Aramaic appears to have been the “low” language, to frame things in sociolinguistic terms.  These two registers of language existed simultaneously, in a condition known as diglossia, and Aramaic seems to have been the vernacular. Thus when Pope Francis corrected Prime Minister Netanyahu, he was, in fact, correct. Jesus likely spoke Aramaic, but the prime minister’s caveat also holds water—Jesus knew, and maybe at times even spoke, Hebrew. I would not doubt if Greek were in his repertoire as well, but it is hard to say how much language knowledge a first-century Jewish Galilean mason possessed beyond the two already determined. - Speaking the Same Language

Outside Jesus' mother tongue, he may hay employed other languages, but the Sacred Scriptures are silent on this issue for the most part.

  Aramaic

  Christ taught and spoke mainly in Aramaic. The Gospels record some of Christ's words in the original Aramaic. When He healed a little girl, He said in Aramaic, “Talitha cumi,” (Mk 5:41) which means, 'Little girl, get up.' When He healed a deaf man, who spoke poorly because he was deaf, He said, “Ephphatha,” which is Aramaic for, “Be opened.” (Mk 7:34). On the Cross, when Christ cried out to His Father in Heaven, He spoke in the language of His daily life on earth, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mk 15:34). Christ mainly spoke Aramaic, as was the custom for persons living in Israel and other areas around the Mediterranean during that time period.

  Hebrew

  Christ also spoke and taught, occasionally, in Hebrew. He often read the Scriptures and taught in the synagogues on the Sabbath. “And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day. And he stood up to read; and there was given to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. He opened the book and found the place where it was written…” (Lk 4:16-17). When Jesus read from the Scriptures, He read in Hebrew. The Hebraic Jews of Israel generally knew both Aramaic (their daily language) and Hebrew (the language of their faith). Hebrew was their preferred written language since it was the language of their Scriptures. After reading the Scriptures, Jesus could have taught in either Aramaic or Hebrew and been understood. However, He probably taught in the synagogue in Hebrew.

  Latin and Greek

  Did Christ ever use Latin or Greek? The society of first century Palestine was a multi-lingual society. Aramaic was widely used. The Hebraic Jews generally knew Hebrew as well as Aramaic. The Roman influence in the region brought the Latin language into usage. Jews who were not of Hebraic descent, who were converts or were children of converts, generally used Greek as their written language instead of Hebrew. Many important scholarly works were written in Greek; Greek scholarship competed with Latin scholarship for the attention of educated readers. Thus, the title on the Cross was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin (John 19:20). Though Aramaic was the most common spoken language, those who were literate used Hebrew or Latin or Greek (or more than one of these) as their written language. Christ lived in a society where Latin and Greek were used, so He had some familiarity with those languages. - The Writing of the Gospels - Which Languages Did Jesus Use?

Some believe that Jesus spoke Greek before Pilate.

  “In what language did Jesus and Pilate converse? There is no mention of an interpreter. Since there is little likelihood that Pilate, a Roman, would have been able to speak either Aramaic or Hebrew, the obvious answer is that Jesus spoke Greek at his trial before Pilate.” - In which language did Pilate and Jesus likely converse during Jesus's trial?

Further information can be read here: Two Archaeologists Comment on The
Passion of the Christ

And Greek was spoken in Egypt at the time of Christ.

  Even in areas in Galilee where Greek culture did not dominate—like Capernaum—Greek influence was still felt. This is because the region of Galilee lay on trade routes to Damascus and elsewhere. Greek, as a language of international commerce and trade, was spoken by individuals traveling through the area.

  Additionally, even though most Jews in Galilee fiercely resisted the influence of Hellenism, Greek was still spoken by select Jewish communities, especially in the south, in the areas around Jerusalem and Judea.

  Greek was spoken more frequently in these areas because returning Jewish diaspora from Greek-speaking areas brought the language with them to Jerusalem. Many of them came from Alexandria, in Egypt, a region also conquered by the Greeks and still heavily influenced by Hellenism.

  The same was true for other regions around the Roman Empire. As these Jews returned to their homeland, they brought with them their language—no longer Hebrew, but Greek. In fact, it’s possible that as much as 20% of the Jewish population in Jerusalem spoke Greek. - What Language Did Jesus Speak?


Has any prominent theologian ever explained why Jesus let a thief be in charge of the money?

The theological problem is to explain why Jesus apparently trusted Judas, when he ought to have known better. There are a lot of possible answers! Some have tried to find symbolic or exemplary meaning in his actions - a lesson for the future Church. Others have centered the discussion around the character of Jesus, perhaps reaching similar conclusions for different reasons: framing Jesus principally in terms of love rather than as a ritual performer.

Augustine says in his Tractates on John 50.10-11 that Jesus trusted Judas in order to show the Church should be patient and tolerant even of thieves:

  What lesson then, my brethren, did our Lord Jesus Christ wish to impress on His Church, when it pleased Him to have one castaway among the twelve, but this, that we should bear with the wicked, and refrain from dividing the body of Christ? [...] Why gave He admission to a thief, save to teach His Church patiently to bear with thieves? But he who had formed the habit of abstracting money from the bag, did not hesitate for money received to sell the Lord Himself. But let us see what answer our Lord gave to such words. See, brethren: He does not say to him, You speak so on account of your thievishness. He knew him to be a thief, yet did not betray him, but rather endured him, and showed us an example of patience in tolerating the wicked in the Church.

To this, Thomas Aquinas adds two further suggestions (Lectura super Evangelium Sancti Ioannis 12.1). The first is that Judas was given access to the common fund so that he could satiate his greed there, rather than condemn himself further by robbing others; Aquinas finds this doubtful, since the greedy are never truly satisfied. This matches his Aristotelian ethic of virtue and habit - indulging in theft only reinforces the "bad habit" of having a tendency to steal. He would certainly agree with you that it would be irresponsible for Jesus to not only put Judas where he could be tempted, but even to encourage him in his sinful habits. The second suggestion from Aquinas, which he prefers, is that Jesus sought to teach the Church that spiritual things are more important than temporal things: by giving the money over to Judas, he was showing how little it mattered.

Origen (Commentary on John 32) is of the same opinion as Augustine as far as the lesson - he argues that Jesus showed trust as a deliberate act of love. Moreover, he says that Judas should not be seen as simply an evil person, but as someone who had both good and bad in him (he was a disciple, after all), was continually presented with moral choices, and on several important occasions made terrible decisions. In Origen's view, Judas had the genuine free will to steal and betray, or not, and so Jesus was justified in trusting him. From 32.161-162 (trans. Ronald Heine; Catholic University of America Press, 1993):

  I would not think that he would have been entrusted with the money-box if he were a thief from the beginning. He was trusted with it, therefore, because he was worthy of being trusted, although it was foreknown that he would fall away. And he was so great a man of Christ's peace that Jesus once had high hopes in him, as a good apostle, for hear the words, "In whom I hoped" [from Psalm 41:9, which is quoted in John 13:18].

and 32.240-241:

  If Judas' evil had been obvious to Jesus' disciples it would have been known who was to betray the teacher, since Jesus had said, "One of you will betray me." But now the disciples look "at one another, doubting of whom he spoke" [John 13:22]. Perhaps indeed the apostles were ashamed to suspect anything wicked of Judas because of his previous worthy deeds. It may have been, too, that Judas did not belong totally to evil, even though the devil had already put it in his heart that Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, should betray him [John 13:2]. It was because there was still a remnant of good choice in him that, when he saw that Jesus was condemned when "they bound him and led him away and delivered him to Pilate the governor" [Matthew 27:2] he repented and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood" [Matthew 27:3-4].

Origen's exegesis does not see Judas as a moustache-twirling villain, or as a kleptomaniac who couldn't help himself from stealing, but as a very human figure. The fact that he returned the silver shows that he had the capacity to do good. Since the disciples were unaware of Judas stealing from the common purse, his acts must have been more like incidental pilfering than outright theft of the whole amount. Perhaps, along these lines, we can say that Jesus's trust in Judas was not too financially disastrous.

The absolute opposite view on free will is held by John Calvin, who says (Commentarium in evangelium Ioannis) that firstly, the ways of God are mysterious (an admission that he has no real answer), but secondly, Judas was predestined to be lost: Jesus placed an untrustworthy person among the disciples because the plan required one of them to betray him. Calvin's Judas is "required" to be evil and then to be justly condemned, so Jesus can perfectly well put Judas in a position of temptation, knowing that he will fail. This resonates with the opinion of John Chrysostom (Homilies on the Gospel of John 65), who says that Judas was given charge of the purse so that when he betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver, he wouldn't have the excuse that he really needed the money.

Perhaps characteristically, Karl Barth (Church Dogmatics, 35.4, "The Determination of the Rejected") welds all of these ideas, and more, into a single incredibly dense lump of thought. He sees the sin of Judas, in betraying Jesus, principally as an exploitation or rejection of the sacred. This is mirrored in his eventual suicide, in his attitude to the anointing in this passage, and in his love of money. But he is still a human being and a disciple - and all of the disciples have their bad moments, as they fail to live up to the expectations of Jesus. So there is a sense in which Judas provides an example for us, not only personally but in the life of the Church (his replacement by Matthias is critical for this - a purging of communal failure). But the more important statement, for Barth, is that Jesus is on Judas's side, even if Judas is not on his side. We are meant to imitate Christ in love of God and one another, even our "enemies", just as he put trust in the one who would betray him.


Is there any Catholic lay movement centered on building Intentional Communities?

Taize would fit the criteria. It is a community that includes Catholic monks but also others, and is definitely run as an intentional community.
I believe L'Arche might also fit your criteria. While not explicitly Catholic, it was founded by a Catholic, and is certainly an intentional community.


When it seems a Pope has heretical beliefs, who determines whether those beliefs are Magisterial?

Whether valid popes have been heretics
It isn't necessarily true that Pope Honorius I was a heretic. St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, the great doctor of the papacy, defended several popes, including Pope Honorius I, against accusations of heresy in his work that is translated into English as Papal Error?: A Defense of Popes said to have Erred in Fatih (ch. 4 is on Pope Honorius I). Among the seven accusations against Pope Honorius I that St. Robert's refutes are the the accusations that Dialogist quotes below.
St. Robert also treats the question of whether a Pope can be a heretic in  De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30 (On the Roman Pontiff). He argues that a pope cannot be a heretic; if he is, he, like St. Francis de Sales wrote in his Catholic Controversy p. 306,

falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as S. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric.**Acts i.

Who can judge a pope's validity?
As I mentioned in my answer to your other question, only a valid Pope is the supreme judge:

Can.  1442 The Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge for the entire Catholic world; he renders judicial decisions personally, through the ordinary tribunals of the Apostolic See, or through judges he has delegated.

This law is based upon the infallible dogma of papal primacy which, pace Dialogist's answer above, has been true since the time Christ instituted the Papacy (Matt. 16:16-19), founding it on the rock of St. Peter himself, the first Pope. As the First Vatican Council (Pastor æternus ch. 4 "Of the Institution of the Apostolic Primacy in blessed Peter"), united with the Pope, infallibly declared:

We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord. For it was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said: "Thou shalt be called Cephas," [John i. 42.] that the Lord after the confession made by him, saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' addressed these solemn words: 'Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
And I say to thee that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.' [Matt. xvi. 16-19.] And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus after his resurrection bestowed the jurisdiction of chief pastor and ruler over all his fold in the words: 'Feed my lambs; feed my sheep.' [John xxi. 15-17.] At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her minister.
If any one, therefore, shall say that blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible Head of the whole Church Militant; or that the same directly and immediately received from the same our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction: let him be anathema.

Any Catholic can and must recognize and refuse to follow an antipope.
However, any Catholic who recognizes an antipope as an antipope must refuse to follow him. St. Paul says twice in Galatian 1:8-9:

But although we, or an Angel from heaven, evangelize to you beside that which we have evangelized to you, be he anathema.
As we have said before, so now I say again, If any evangelize to you beside that which we have evangelized to you, be he anathema.

Notice, St. Paul says anyone, which certainly includes those who appear to be popes (antipopes).


Shouldn't Mary’s genealogy be Jesus' family history?

There are some debates about this because these genealogies do not have every name along the branches but certain representative names. Most sources I have encountered think Matthew proves Christ was legally entitled to the throne of David as a legal ancestor to David through his father by law.  Luke on the other hand traces the  the physical lineage through Mary, who also was a descendent of David.

In any case as far as I can tell, although we have lost all the genealogical records when Jerusalem was destroyed, these records did not seem to cause any controversy among the early christians but effectively added further proof of the legitimate claims that Jesus was the Messiah.  To those who knew about the genealogies at the time this was important. For us we can only take that 'battle won' as historical proof.  Furthermore, with these records now lost no new Messiah can claim to have the correct genealogical record. Jesus was the Messiah, or there never was such a thing - case closed.


Is it possible for a non-Jew to join Messianic Judaism?

"Messianic Judaism" is not a single denomination or sect; the term covers a broad range of beliefs and practices. Various groups exist; often the disagreements concern the extent toward which the Mosaic law must be followed today. I'm going to answer based on the views of two groups: the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (MJAA), and the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations (UMJC). 40-60% of Messianic Judaism's congregations are Gentiles, so this is an important question.
The Messianic Jewish Alliance of America
I'm going to sacrifice accuracy a bit to be concise: The MJAA tries to balance between Christianity and Judaism; if forced to distance themselves from one they tend to align themselves with evangelical Christianity.
From the MJAA Statement of Faith:

We recognize that Jewish people (physical descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, whether through the mother's or the father's blood-line) who place their faith in Israel's Messiah, Yeshua, continue to be Jewish according to the Scriptures (Romans 2:28-29). Gentiles who place their faith in Yeshua, are "grafted into" the Jewish olive tree of faith (Romans 11:17-25) becoming spiritual sons and daughters of Abraham (Galatians 3:28-29).
...
We acknowledge that the New Covenant body of believers is composed of both Jews and Gentiles who have received Yeshua the Messiah as the Promised Redeemer. The "middle wall of partition" has been broken down and now we worship the God of Israel together (I Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 2:13-14).

Concerning the acceptance of non-Jews into their congregations ("Messianic Gentiles"), Kesher Journal reports (emphasis mine):

Congregations are faced with internal division from having a membership that includes Jews, who take part in the destiny and specific promises to the Jewish people, and Gentiles, who do not. The official stance is that Gentiles and Jews are spiritually equal but distinct, and that Jews should be proud of being Jews, and Gentiles proud of being Gentiles. Nevertheless, the Jewish identity is clearly valorized, causing many Gentiles to strive for greater Jewishness through Jewish observance and search for Jewish roots. Since conversion for Gentiles is deemed unbiblical within the MJAA, these are the main options for Gentiles seeking a more Jewish identity. What helps increase a sense of unity between Jews and Gentiles within these rituals is the stress on the importance of being a "spiritual" Jew more than a "physical" Jew...

Messianic Jews within the MJAA will accept a Gentile into their congregations, but not allow conversion to Judaism; you will be a "Messianic Gentile." As Ellen Kavanaugh puts it concerning Christians who consider converting to Messianic Judaism,

Conversion implies a change in belief -- from one belief system to a different belief system. And therein lies the problem: To convert to Messianic Judaism would be to 'convert' to a community in which one was already [a] member; to convert to traditional Judaism would be to deny one's faith in Yeshua (or at least, deny the sufficiency of Yeshua alone).

The Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations
The UMJC strives to be an authentic Jewish group, and be recognized as such by non-Messianic Judaism. They strive for "authentic Judaism."
They define Messianic Judaism as such:

Jewish life is life in a concrete, historical community. Thus, Messianic Jewish groups must be fully part of the Jewish people, sharing its history and its covenantal responsibility as a people chosen by God. At the same time, faith in Yeshua also has a crucial communal dimension. This faith unites the Messianic Jewish community and the Christian Church, which is the assembly of the faithful from the nations who are joined to Israel through the Messiah.  Together the Messianic Jewish community and the Christian Church constitute the ekklesia, the one Body of Messiah, a community of Jews and Gentiles who in their ongoing distinction and mutual blessing anticipate the shalom of the world to come.
For a Messianic Jewish group 1) to fulfill the covenantal responsibility incumbent upon all Jews, 2) to bear witness to Yeshua within the people of Israel, and 3) to serve as an authentic and effective representative of the Jewish people within the body of Messiah, it must place a priority on integration with  the wider Jewish world, while sustaining a vital corporate relationship with the Christian Church.
In the Messianic Jewish way of life, we seek to fulfill Israel's covenantal responsibility embodied in the Torah within a New Covenant context. Messianic Jewish halakhah is rooted in Scripture (Tanakh and the New Covenant writings), which is of unique sanctity and authority. It also draws upon Jewish tradition, especially those practices and concepts that have won near-universal acceptance by devout Jews through the centuries. Furthermore, as is common within Judaism, Messianic Judaism recognizes that halakhah is and must be dynamic, involving the application of the Torah to a wide variety of changing situations and circumstances.
Messianic Judaism embraces the fullness of New Covenant realities available through Yeshua, and seeks to express them in forms drawn from Jewish experience and accessible to Jewish people.

To again quote Kesher Journal:

In a recent discussion at the 2002 Lausanne Consultation on Jewish Evangelism (LCJE) Conference on Messianic Jewish Identity, a UMJC affiliated rabbi argued that Messianic Jews who do not keep kosher are in sin against God, denying their calling and identity... One of the implications of this stance is that observance of the traditions becomes a measure of spirituality and closeness with God, creating a spiritual hierarchy between those who are most observant relative to those who are less so. By keeping the law, Union congregations also hope to build bridges with observant parts of the Jewish community.

The UMJC, in contrast to the MJAA, requires "Messianic Gentiles" to observe the Jewish laws, and generally to convert fully -- becoming Messianic Jews.
From the Kesher Journal article once more:

In the past, Messianic congregations have generally defined themselves as a place where Jews and Gentiles worship together, witnessing to the unity of Jews and Gentiles. Many in the UMJC are seeing this as a defective definition. Congregations may have Gentiles, but they are not part of the definition of the congregation, which is to be a Jewish space. The congregation is not an adequate witness to the unity of Jews and Gentiles because the Gentiles there are called to live as Jews- the unity would only be demonstrated if Gentiles were to live as Gentiles.... The simple reality is that many Messianic Jewish leaders realize the kinds of congregations being built are unable to adequately express the Jewish life. They are not seen as authentically Jewish.
As with other issues, the UMJC's distinguishing mark is its concern for Jewish authenticity. One way to be more authentically Jewish is by adopting a conversion process, similar to other forms of Judaism.

Summary
In short, whether a Gentile can convert to Messianic Judaism depends in large part on the beliefs of the specific congregation to which he or she would like to join. In some congregations, you may be able to convert and become a Messianic Jew, while in others you will be accepted to the community, but as a "Messianic Gentile."


What significance, if any, does the doctrine of the eternal virginity of Mary have?

The importance of the perpetual virginity of Mary lies in the scriptural parallelism between Mary and the Ark of Covenant.

The Ark:

Journeys to a town in the hills of Judah (II Samuel 6:2)
It is greeted with awe “How can the ark of the LORD ever come to me?”
(II    Samuel 6:9 KJV)
It remains at the house of Obed-Edom for three months (II Samuel 6:11)

In the same way Mary:

Journeys to a town in the hills of Judah (Luke 1:39)
It is greeted with awe "And whence is this to me, that the mother of
my Lord should    come to me?" (Luke 1:43)
It remains with Elizabeth for three months: "And Mary abode with her
about three months,  and returned to her own    house" (Luke 1:56 KJV)

I quote orthodox wiki:

  The Ark of the Covenant and the Mother of our Lord are in a sense two
  ways of looking at the same reality [...]

Because both are different manifestations of the presence of the Lord. Mary --who is a limited being-- carried in her womb the uncontainable --who is God incarnate: Jesus Christ. And in the same way that Jesus chose to lay his dead corpse in a new sepulcher (John 19:41), it is natural to believe that he also chose a "new" womb to come to this world.

The belief in ever-virginity of Mary has been a long held tradition, even the protestant reformers held such belief. I won't go deep into the testimonies of the early fathers or the protestant reformers.

A more extensive article can be read at orthodox wiki and at Newman Catholic Apologetics

EDIT

This answer would have been incomplete without addressing virgin birth. As article 499 of the Catechism explains, virgin birth and perpetual virginity are intertwined doctrines.

To gain some insight on perpetual virginity I'll decided to add an excerpt from an homily of St. Josemaria Escriva in which he explains the importance of the doctrine of perpetual virginity of Mary.

  You don't have to wait to be old or lifeless to practice the virtue of
  chastity. Purity comes from love; and the strength and gaiety of youth
  are no obstacle for noble love. Joseph had a young heart and a young
  body when he married Mary, when he learned of the mystery of her
  divine motherhood, when he lived in her company, respecting the
  integrity God wished to give the world as one more sign that he had
  come to share the life of his creatures. Anyone who cannot understand
  a love like that knows very little of true love and is a complete
  stranger to the christian meaning of chastity (Is Christ passing by, In St. Joseph Workshop)

Paraphrasing, Joseph decided not to know Mary as a sign that God had touched her.  I'll try to explain: Mary's perpetual virginity is important because it leaves a material imprint, an evidence of his coming to us. If we think that Mary was not ever-virgin, how are we so sure that Mary's first son is indeed the Son of God? On the other hand, if Mary is ever-virgin (as has been held for many centuries) we can readily admit that her first and only son was conceived by divine intervention.

In Catholic doctrine, Mary's perpetual virginity is a sign that God has come to us indeed.


Are menstruating women considered ritually impure in Christianity?

Ritual purity is a familiar concept in Christianity due to its importance to the Israelite sacrificial system as described in the Old Testament. The vast majority of Christian churches however do not believe that this kind of physical ritual purity applies to Christianity. Ritual purity is understood to have been a physical metaphor for the spiritual purity which is required of Christians. The words of Jesus in Matthew 15 are the clearest place to see how Christians understand this:

Matt 15:10-11, 16-20 (NIV): Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”
“Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”

The Christian sacrament of baptism can be seen as the last vestige of ritual purity for most Christians: this ritual is performed once as an initiating rite into the church, symbolising the complete and lasting purity which they receive from Christ through the gospel.
One exception is the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, which maintains many of the Jewish laws, and does prohibit menstruating women from entering the church.


On what basis do Christians sometimes claim to know what God's intentions are?

This is what Luther calls the theologia gloriae.1

The most obvious way to the cognition of God is to follow the footsteps of creation. The creation speaks a powerful language.2 Scholasticism has understood the natural cognition as a way of salvation.3

Scholastics think of God and man from the same viewpoint of natural causality and connect the cognition of God per ea, quae facta sunt4 with a particular ethical view of man and his works.5

This connection builds the base, upon which Luther critisizes the theologia gloriae: That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the »invisible« things of God as though they were clearly »perceptible in those things which have actually happened«6

For him, real cognition does only happen by cognition of Cross of Christ: theologia crucis.

And finally a biblical quote (found this here):

  Matthew 24:36    (NLT)
  Mark 13:32 (NLT)

   36 “However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows.

1: See Heidelberg Disputation, Thesis 19
2: Walther von Loewenich, ''Luthers theologia crucis'', p.19
3: About the question what scholastics say about Rom 1:20, see Pierre Bühler, ''Kreuz und Eschatologie'', p.106
4: literal translation: ''by the things that have been made''
5: Theodor Dieter, ''Der junge Luther und Aristoteles'', p.109
6: WA 5,388,5f.: Non ille digne Theologus dicitur, qui invisibilia Dei per ea, quae facta sunt intellecta conspicit


"Amen" is a Hebrew word that stems from the word aman, which means "to be faithful, support, or confirm." The word "amen" actually means, "so be it," or "truly."

The Catholic definition agrees.

  ’Amen itself is an interjection used to agree with, affirm, approve,
  or emphasize something else that has been said. Thus when Jesus begins
  certain sayings by declaring "Amen, amen, I say to you . . . " various
  Bible translations often render the "amen, amen" different ways.
  Because of the word’s association with the Hebrew terms for truth, the
  double amen is sometimes rendered "truly, truly" or "verily, verily."
  Because of its association with the Hebrew terms for confirmation or
  dependability, one might also translate it "certainly, certainly" or
  "most assuredly."

  When one says "amen" in response to a prayer, it serves as an
  affirmation of agreement with the content of the prayer (cf. 1 Cor
  14:16)—in which case it is sometimes translated "So be it" (cf. CCC
  2856)—or as an expression of faith that God will hear and act on the
  prayer.

Southern Baptist version:  "You said it, Preacher!" or "Right on, Brother!"


Why do Cessationists consider recent testimonial evidence for the gifts of the Spirit less reliable than 2000-year-old evidence for the resurrection?

There is no reference to tongues/healings/miracles in the pastoral epistles nor the later writings of John. References to Pentecost are about the utterance of foreign, earthly, languages.

Then no mention of such things, generally, until about 1905. Then an explosion of claims during the past hundred years.

This looks like a modern movement with no apostolic basis in sound, doctrinal fact.

It also follows the trend prophesied by Paul and Peter, in the last days, of a departure from sound doctrine and the pursuit of other things.

The evidence stretches across two millenia, not just the last century.

It is a distraction from Jesus Christ : his sufferings, death, resurrection, ascension and return.

It rather draws attention to what is excessive and unbalanced.

Cessationists are looking at all the evidence across two thousand years and are regarding all the evidence in the apostolic documents, the gospels, the early epistles, the pastoral epistles, Peter's epistles, John's epistles and Paul's epistles.
This is weighed against extravagant claims starting at the beginning of the twentieth century.
There is no comparison between the evidence of the apostolic testimony of chosen vessels of Jesus Christ regarding Jesus Christ's resurrection . . . . . and the clams made in very modern times of peculiar, extravagant, unbalanced and unprofitable excesses among a small minority of Christendom.
No comparison whatsoever.


Can "feelings and passions" make an act involuntary?

Is someone strapping you to a chair, propping your eye's open, and forcing you to watch pornography? If not, then you certainly have freely chosen to watch it and doing so certainly is a mortal sin because:

Pornography constitutes grave matter.The sex slave / pornography industry is incredibly inhumane; giving material support to it is itself a sin.
You voluntarily watched it.Just because you had "feelings and passions" does not mean your act was involuntary. For example, if you become drunk, drive, and kill someone and don't even remember what you did, you are still responsible for having indirectly willed murder.For more info on indirectly willed acts, see §94 of Moral Theology by McHugh & Callan, O.P.Also, concupiscence (the body rebelling against the soul, "feelings and passions" inclining you to act against the dictates of reason) does not cause involuntariness, as St. Thomas Aquinas argues in Summa Theologica I-II q. 6 a. 6 co.:Concupiscence does not cause involuntariness, but on the contrary makes something to be voluntary. For a thing is said to be voluntary, from the fact that the will is moved to it. Now concupiscence inclines the will to desire the object of concupiscence. Therefore the effect of concupiscence is to make something to be voluntary rather than involuntary.Note that CCC 1860 is not claiming that "feelings and passions" make an act involuntary.(cf. also St. Thomas's question "Whether ignorance causes involuntariness?".)
You know it's an offense against God:St. Matthew 5:28-29:…whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than thy whole body be cast into hell.

Lust is a capital sin because other sins (like masturbation in your case) follow from it. Masturbation is an intrinsic evil. Onan "spilled his seed upon the ground" (Gen. 38:9) "And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing" (Gen. 38:10).

The Doctor of the Church St. Thomas Aquinas writes that masturbation is an "unnatural vice" (Summa Theologica II-II q. 154 a. 11 co.)—a type of lust like bestiality, sodomy, and pederasty—and that, as in contraception,

  procuring pollution [i.e., ejaculation], without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure … pertains to the sin of 'uncleanness' which some call 'effeminacy'*

*Latin: mollitiem, lit. 'softness, unmanliness'

Pray the rosary (at least 5 decades) daily. This is an excellent remedy against sins of impurity.See

Part 1, "4th Decade: Marvellous Effects," of St. Grignion de Montfort's The Secret of the Rosary, which describes how the rosary has converted hardened sinners (including those who prior to praying it were immersed in sins of impurity, like Bl. Alan de la Roche).
the stories of St. Alphonsus of Liguori's The Glories of Mary.

Marian devotion has a long history of helping those struggling with sins of impurity.


Is Mary omniscient (by participation, not by nature)?

Whether Mary has no share in the Omniscience of God
Objection 1 it would seem that Our Lady partakes in God's divine nature by the singular fact that prayers addressed to her are proven efficacious time and again;

... pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.
... Despise not my petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer me.
... Pray for us, oh Holy Mother of God; that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

Prayers for the recited in liturgies for the saints saints are usually asked to be heard "In Jesus' Name".
Objection 2 furthermore, it is necessary to be present to the one to whom we are addressing prayers

Through his Word, God speaks to man. By words, mental or vocal, our prayer takes flesh. Yet it is most important that the heart should be present to him to whom we are speaking in prayer: "Whether or not our prayer is heard depends not on the number of words, but on the fervor of our souls."
CCC 2700

If your prayers are addressed to Mary, then you must request her presence in the communion of saints. If you recite the "Hail Mary" as a mental prayer, then she must be able to listen to our thoughts.
Objection 3 Mary, is the Channel of Grace (i.e. Mediatrix of all Graces) therefore, she has a share in all divine plans because all grace flows from the source through her.  Therefore Grace flows into our souls through unseen powers that she must be a party to.  Because these powers are invisible and unrestrained, we must refer to them as omniscient.
On the contrary,  Mary's glory is not in being omniscient, or sharing in any of the mighty attributes of God alone.

The Mother of God was above the angels as regards the dignity to which she was chosen by God.
Summa Theologica - 3rd part, Question 30, Article 2, Reply to Objection 2

I answer that even being greater than the angels does not necessarily put her closer to the infinite power of God; just the closest to the infinite power of God.  If we see the Holy Spirit in her, it is because she best reflects the Holy Spirit.

the Virgin Mary is the Church's model of faith and charity. Thus she is a "preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church"; indeed, she is the "exemplary realization" (typus) of the Church.
CCC 967

She is a model for the Church because of this, if she were omniscient, she would cease to be a model and become an idol.
Reply to Objection 1 Prayers to Mary are unique because of her "singular cooperation with the action of the Holy Spirit".

Mary is the perfect Orans (pray-er), a figure of the Church. When we pray to her, we are adhering with her to the plan of the Father, who sends his Son to save all men. Like the beloved disciple we welcome Jesus' mother into our homes, for she has become the mother of all the living. We can pray with and to her. The prayer of the Church is sustained by the prayer of Mary and united with it in hope.
CCC 2679

This isn't participation in God's omniscience, it is still asking for her intercessory prayers.  But it is on an very intimate level. We trust implicitly that prayers addressed to Our Lady will find favor with God; and it is through the grace of God that this is done.
Reply to Objection 2 clearly if this were true of Mary, it would be true of all the Saints in Heaven who are the subject of intercessory prayer and is the general case of Objection 1 ignoring the fact that prayers to other saints are often done "In Jesus Name" 1..  Ipso Facto, prayers addressed to Mary are a special case - but does it require omniscience to read thoughts?
No, for this is a charism given to the saint by God as evidenced by St. Pio's ability as a confessor to read hearts.

To this task he brought an advantage that few confessors have, the ability to read hearts. Padre Pio's charism enabled him to know when someone was being deceitful in confession or simply had forgotten a serious sin, perhaps through lack of an adequate examination of conscience. In such cases he was able to tel the penitent exactly what they did and when, as well as any relevant circumstances.
EWTN - Padre Pio - Confessor

And no one claimed that Padre Pio could read all souls - just those who came to him in the confessional.  Therefore it doesn't require Omniscience (which is total) to read a soul or hear thoughts.
Reply to Objection 3  again, drawing on the previous answer, Mary as the Mediatrix of all Graces, if proclaimed as the Fifth Marian Dogma might fit in as a 5th charism of Our Lady defined by the Church.  Being the Mother of God and having a Virgin Birth didn't make her Omnipotent; Her Assumption did not make her Omnipresent;  Her Coronation as Queen of Heaven and Earth only confirmed her Benevolence, but did not make her Omnibenevolent. Therefore there is no reason to believe that her role as Mediatrix would make her Omniscient.
However, the confirmation of the would be a great step forward in opening our hearts to God's omnipotence

The fifth Marian dogma would certainly improve the world situation through the prayers of Mary to her divine Son.
...
It will make Catholics realize that just as Mary, through the merits of Jesus Christ, has become co-redemptrix, mediatrix of all graces and advocate for the whole human race, we too share in Mary’s threefold roles for the salvation of humankind.
Zenit Daily Dispatch - Interview With Syro-Malabar Cardinal Vithayathil

1. St. Thomas would have probably posited these in an alternate order


What happened to Aaron's staff and the jar of manna placed by Moses in the Ark of the Covenant

After Solomon had built the temple in Jerusalem (960 B.C.) there was nothing in the Ark except the stone tablets that Moses had put there at Horeb (1 Kings 8:9 and 2 Chronicles 5:10). The NIV Study Bible notes on 2 Chronicles 5:10 say the jar of manna and Aaron’s rod were presumably lost when the Philistines captured the Ark of the Covenant. (See 1 Samuel 4:11 to chap. 6)

Various Bible commentators have pointed out that the tabernacle referred to in Hebrews 9:4 is the one built under Moses. The ESV Study Bible makes this comment:

  “By the time of Solomon’s temple, it was noted that there was nothing in the ark except the two tablets of stone (1 Kings 8:9; 2 Chronicles 5:10), but that may suggest that other items had previously been in the ark.”

Some 400 years had elapsed between the time of Moses and Aaron and the Ark of the Covenant being placed in Solomon’s temple.  The fact that the Ark had been stolen by the Philistines and it took them some time to return it may mean that the Philistines looted and plundered some of its contents.  Perhaps they stole the rod and the jar of manna, though given the plagues that afflicted them wherever the Ark stayed, fear would surely have prompted them to return any pilfered items!

However, Exodus 16:32-34 does not actually say the manna and rod were placed inside the Ark. It says they were ‘placed before the Lord’ in front of the Testimony. This anticipated the later description of the tablets containing the Ten Commandments as “the two tablets of the Testimony” (31:18; 32:15; 34:29) hence “the Ark of the Testimony” for ‘testimony’ is an old-fashioned word for ‘covenant’. Exodus 25:21 simply says that God instructed ‘the Testimony’ to be put inside the Ark – the stone tablets.  Now, I may be wrong, but I wonder if it is mistaken to conclude that the manna and the rod were also placed inside the Ark? If I’m wrong, please may someone correct me!

Hebrews chapter 9 states that the Holiest of all in the tabernacle contained the golden censer and the Ark of the Covenant.  In the Holiest part of the tabernacle was also placed the golden pot of manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant. This was with regard to the tabernacle and not the temple in Jerusalem. And it does not need to imply that the manna and the rod were inside the Ark; all those items were in the Holiest part, but not necessarily all inside the Ark. The censer was not inside it. The other items (apart from the stone tablets) need not have been inside it either.

My answer, therefore, covers both contingencies – that the manna and rod were inside the Ark, then stolen by the Philistines, but my own view is that they were never inside the Ark and that Exodus 16 and Hebrews 9 do not necessarily imply that they were.


If jealousy is sin, how can God be jealous?

"Jealousy" in colloquial English, means either (1) indignation in response to infidelity, or (2) covetousness of the belongings of others. We can immediately eliminate the second case, because God cannot be covetous; everything is his.

(Psalm 50:12) “If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world is Mine, and all it contains."

This jealousy that is attributed to God must be of the first kind then. Consider the following passages,

(Proverbs 6:34 NASB), For jealousy arouses a husband's fury, and he will show no mercy when he takes revenge.
(Deuteronomy 4:23-24 NASB)  So watch yourselves, that you do not forget the covenant of the Lord your God which He made with you, and make for yourselves a graven image in the form of anything against which the Lord your God has commanded you. For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.
(Zechariah 8:2) “Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I am exceedingly jealous for Zion, yes, with great wrath I am jealous for her.’

The first passage demonstrates a man's jealousy, which is an act of the flesh that leads to fury and revenge. The second and third demonstrate God's jealousy. It appears that both God and men have the ability to become jealous. So, what is special about God's jealousy?
Notice immediately that God's jealousy is uniquely for his chosen people. Consider the context of the passage you quoted,

(Exodus 20:4-6 NIV) “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

Notice that both this passage and the previous passage from Deuteronomy discuss the worship of false gods. God has commanded the Isrealites to worship no other gods but him, and they have made a covenant with him that he would be their God, and they would be his people. The people of Israel, however, are unfaithful to God and undertake worship of other gods. Throughout the prophets, God uses the symbol of marital infidelity to discipline Israel for her tendency to worship idols and the gods of other nations.

(Jeremiah 3:20) But like a woman unfaithful to her husband, so you, Israel, have been unfaithful to me," declares the LORD.

So, while covetousness or envy is an unrighteous desire to obtain what belongs to another, the jealousy that is referred to in Exodus 20:4-5 is indignation on God's part in response to unrighteous infidelity on the part of God's covenanted people. Israel willfully entered into a covenant with God as a wife willfully enters into a covenant with her husband. God is not desiring something that is not his, but instead he is angry and distressed by Israel's unfaithfulness to him. The nation of Israel belongs to God because he created it,

(Isaiah 43:1 NASB) But now, thus says the Lord, your Creator, O Jacob, And He who formed you, O Israel, “Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name; you are Mine!

And because- more importantly for this question- they covenanted themselves with him.

(Exodus 19:5-6 NASB) Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’

Let us then consider the passage from Galatians,

(Galatians 5:19-20 NASB) Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,

In this passage, Paul lists "jealousy" among the unrighteous deeds of the flesh. But Paul also says of God, in the context of consuming wine sacrificed to false gods, that is, to demons,

(1 Corinthians 10:21-22 NASB) You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than He, are we?

Notice that in this context Paul, who also wrote the passage in Galatians, warns that associating ourselves with idol worship provokes God to jealousy- the very same thing that the prophets had been saying.
It is important to consider that in many instances, God's actions are justified, even when the same actions taken by men would be considered unrighteous. God is Sovereign of Sovereigns, and so he is not subject to the commandments he has given us to follow. When a mother tells her son not to touch the matches, is it then wrong for her to light the stove to cook him a meal? Of course not, but she uses the matches to light the stove because she loves him and in her love provides a meal for him. Paul includes jealousy in his list of fleshly deeds, but we know well that God is greater than us, that he does not suffer from the same tendencies to act according to the flesh, and the expression of God's jealousy is righteous and justified. If it were not so, he would not say "I am a jealous God."


Author's words in Proverbs 5:20 compared to his way of living?

"And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?" (Proverb 5:20)
It is well-known that Solomon had many wives and concubines. It seems that the advice he is giving here contradicts to his own way of living.

There are no contradictions here because many wives and concubines were not "strangers" for king Solomon, they were his.
In words (Proverbs 5:3-20) the Holy Spirit by the mouth of Solomon warns against communication with a harlot or unfaithful wife:

For the lips of an immoral woman drip honey,
And her mouth is smoother than oil;
But in the end she is bitter as wormwood,
Sharp as a two-edged sword.
Her feet go down to death,
Her steps lay hold of hell.
Lest you ponder her path of life--
Her ways are unstable;
You do not know them.
Therefore hear me now, my children,
And do not depart from the words of my mouth.
Remove your way far from her,
And do not go near the door of her house,
Lest you give your honor to others,
And your years to the cruel one;
Lest aliens be filled with your wealth,
And your labors go to the house of a foreigner;
And you mourn at last,
When your flesh and your body are consumed,
And say: «How I have hated instruction,
And my heart despised correction!
I have not obeyed the voice of my teachers,
Nor inclined my ear to those who instructed me!
I was on the verge of total ruin,
In the midst of the assembly and congregation.»
Drink water from your own cistern,
And running water from your own well.
Should your fountains be dispersed abroad,
Streams of water in the streets?
Let them be only your own,
And not for strangers with you.
Let your fountain be blessed,
And rejoice with the wife of your youth.
As a loving deer and a graceful doe,
Let her breasts satisfy you at all times;
And always be enraptured with her love.
For why should you, my son, be enraptured by an immoral woman,
And be embraced in the arms of a seductress?


What is the case that 1 Corinthians 15:7 refers to James the Just, relative of Jesus, rather than James, one of the Twelve?

It seems more likely that Paul was referring to James the Just (Christ's familial "brother" or possibly a "brother" in name only), but we have no definitive way of knowing this.

Some considerations:

There is no agreement on whether or not Christ had a familial brother named James. Below is an excerpt from a commentary, "The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus: Anything New?" from Francois Rossier, at the University of Dayton, in Ohio (pdf).

  "...it cannot be said that the New Testament identifies them without doubt as blood brothers and sisters and hence as children of Mary... It remains true that the word "brother," in Hebrew, also means "blood sibling." Since it is the most obvious--but by far not the exclusive--meaning, it cannot be simply dismissed. The use of the word adelphos remains, therefore, a challenge for those who uphold Mary's virginity post partum. Yet, reading this word as referring only to actual siblings may also raise some difficulties."

As your passage indicates, he appeared to "five hundred brothers" but Christ didn't have 500 familial brothers. This became even more apparent in our lifetimes when the James Ossuary was allegedly discovered and it created quite a bit of controversy. Below is the famous inscription found on the ossuary. According to a 2012 article in Biblical Archaeology Review (pdf), it reads: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."

There were two apostles named James, not one: James, the son of Zebedee and James, the son of Alphaeus (often referred to as James the Less or James the Younger).

  "Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him." (Matthew 10:2-4, KJV)

Typically, James the Just is known as the familial "brother" of Christ but we don't have proof of this and these terms are debatable.

If Christ appeared to one of the apostles named James and not James -a familial brother of Christ- it's more likely that Paul would have specified which one since there were two.
Because of the way the passage reads, it's more likely that Paul meant a James that did have a familial relationship with Christ OR that he meant a James that was distinctive for another reason (there is none that we know of). I say this because he is setting apart James from "all of the apostles."

In 1 Corinthians 15:7, the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest manuscript we have of Corinthians, shows their website translating this passage even more definitively.

  "After that he appeared to James, after that to all the apostles."

There is no record that I am aware of that links Paul to any James other than James the Just -head of the church at Jerusalem. If it was not James the Just (Christ's familial "brother"), this would have been a unique reference from Paul.

  "And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry." (Acts 21:17-19, KJV)

The son of Alphaeus is typically known as James the Less (or James the Younger.)

  "There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome." (Mark 15:40, KJV)

In 2006, Pope Benedict addressed an audience in the Vatican city that, according to Catholic Online, was "Contributed to Integrate the Original Jewish Dimension of Christianity." His entire address is about James the Less and it can be found here: (pdf)

From Pope Benedict's address:

  "...another James appears in the gospel who is called James "the Less." He also forms part of the list of twelve apostles chosen personally by Jesus, and is always specified as "son of Alphaeus."


Why do high-church people call their personalized Bible study exercises "devotionals"?

The name 'devotionals' is actually fairly common, not just among high-church Christians. I've heard it used by Baptists, Mennonites, Anglicans of different persuasions and all sorts of people. There's nothing special about the name. "Our Daily Bread" describes itself as a 'daily devotional' and is certainly not 'high church'. The same applies to devotionals produced by crosstalk.com, biblegateway.org and Joyce Meyer.

However most important is that a 'devotional' is much more than just Bible study. 'Devotionals' may include prayer, worship, and possibly meditation, journaling or reflection. 'Devotionals' also applies to short homilies, which are again more than simple Bible study. Those that practice 'devotionals' will also do plain Bible study, which they call 'Bible study'. If it's more than that, they call it 'devotionals'.


It's in Luther's Explanation of the Lord's Prayer, Sixth Petition ("And lead us not into temptation"), paragraph 161.  Sample collection that includes the work is Luther on Christian Education, 1907, 12MB PDF which includes:

Luther's Small Catechism
Large Catechism
Explanation of God's Ten Commandments
Explanation of the Apostle's Creed
Explanation of the Lord's Prayer
Explanation of Holy Baptism
Explanation of Confession
Explanation of the Lord's Supper.

For historical interest, here's full quotation.  I'm impressed at how detailed the explanation is.  Makes me want to read the whole thing !

  THE SIXTH PETITION.

  "And lead us not into temptation."

  If the word "temptation" or "allurement" were not
  so much in vogue it would be better and clearer to say:
  And lead us not into trials. But in this petition we learn to
  realize the wretchedness of our life upon earth. For it is all
  trial; no man who is wise will look for peace and security
  here; he can never attain to such a condition. And though
  we all should desire it, it is still in vain. A life of trial it is
  and remains.
  Therefore we do not say, Take the temptation from me, but, Lead us not into it. What the supplicant means to
  say is. We are surrounded with temptations on all sides and
  cannot escape them, but, O our Father, help us not to enter
  into them, that is, not to consent to yield to them and so be
  overcome and overthrown. He who yields to temptation
  sins and becomes a captive of sin, as Saint Paul says, Rom
  7,23.
  Therefore, this life is, as Job says (7, 1), nothing but
  a warfare and a perpetual conflict with sin. And the dragon,
  the devil, continually assaults us and endeavors to draw us
  into his jaws. Saint Peter says : Dear brethren, "be sober,
  be watchful: your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion,
  walketh about, seeking whom he may devour," 1 Pet 5, 8.
  Behold, Saint Peter, our dear father and faithful bishop, says
  that our adversary seeks us, not at any particular place,
  but everywhere and at every point. He incites, stirs and
  troubles ail our members and senses from within and without.
  From within, by evil suggestions; from without, by
  wicked images, words and acts. Men and every creature
  are his agents. Unchastity, wrath, pride, covetousness and
  other sins are the objects of his temptations, and he uses
  every cunning device to induce us to yield. As soon as we
  feel so inclined let us swiftly raise our eyes to God in prayer
  :
  O God, Father, see how I am moved and tempted to this
  or that vice; see how I am hindered in this or that good
  work. Guard me, dear Father, and help me; let me not
  succumb and yield to it. How blessed would he be who
  would rise and apply this petition faithfully! There are
  many who know not when they are tempted nor what they
  should do in temptation.
  What is temptation? It is of two kinds. On the
  one hand, that which incites to anger, hate, bitterness, displeasure,
  impatience; such as sickness, poverty, dishonor
  and everything painful, especially the annoyance of having
  one's will or purpose, one's opinion, counsel, word or work
  rejected and despised. These things are of daily occurrence
  in this life, and God inflicts them through evil men or devils.
  If one feels a wrong impulse, he ought to be wise
  and not be taken by surprise, for such is the course of this
  life. He ought to draw forth this petition as a true bead
  in the rosary of prayer, and say : O Father, here is certainly
  a temptation, which is come upon me ; help me, that it may
  not result in my seduction and overthrow.
  When temptation assumes this form two kinds of
  foolish conduct are possible. First, when we say: Indeed,
  I would be pious and not get angry if I had peace. And
  some give our Lord God and his saints no rest until he
  takes the temptation from them. He must heal this man's
  leg, make that man rich, let this man secure justice. And
  they do whatever they can by their own efforts and the
  efforts of others to extricate themselves, and so they remain
  lazy and cowardly knights, unwilling to sustain attack, or
  to fight. Therefore, they are not crowned; ay, they fall
  into the opposite temptation, as we shall hear. But the
  proper course is not to slip by the temptation nor to escape
  it, but in knightly valor to conquer it. This is the sentiment
  which Job expresses when he says (7, 1) : "Is there not a
  warfare to man upon earth?"
  The others, who neither overcome the temptation
  nor are relieved of it, plunge into anger, hate, impatience;
  give themselves entirely to the devil ; work evil by word and
  w^ork; become murderers, robbers, slanderers, perjurers,
  backbiters, and makers of all kinds of mischief. The temptation
  has conquered them and they yield to every evil impulse.
  The devil has them altogether in his power and they are
  his captives. They invoke neither God nor his saints. But
  inasmuch as our life is called a temptation by God himself,
  and it is unavoidable that we are subjected to offenses and
  injustice in body, property and honor, we ought to look
  forward to trials with unruffled minds, receive them in a
  spirit of wisdom when they come, and say: Ah, such is the
  nature of life, what am I to do? It is and remains a temptation.
  It cannot be otherwise. God help me that I may
  not be moved and overthrown.
  Thus you see that temptation can be avoided by
  no one ; but resistance may be made and, with prayer and
  recourse to divine aid, we can put ourselves in readiness to
  meet such designs. In the book of an old father we read
  that a young brother expressed a desire to be rid of his
  thoughts. Thereupon the old father said: Dear brother,
  you cannot prevent the birds from flying in the air over your
  head, but you can prevent them from building a nest in
  your hair. So, as St. Augustine says, we cannot prevent
  offenses and temptations, but by prayer and invocation of
  the help of God we can prevent them from overcoming us.
  On the other hand the temptation is that which incites
  to unchastity, lasciviousness, pride, avarice, vainglory
  and everything that pleases. Especially does this kind of
  temptation come when one is permitted to have his way;
  when his words, counsel and deeds are praised ; and when he
  receives much honor and appreciation.
  This is the most dangerous temptation, characteristic
  of the time of the Antichrist. So David says in the
  Psalm (91, 7) : "A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten
  thousand at thy right hand." Its spread at the present
  time is alarming. For the world strives only for wealth,
  honor and pleasure. In particular is it true that the young
  acquire no training for the fight against temptation and
  carnal lust. They fall without an effort. Nothing is considered
  disgraceful any more. The whole world is full of
  lecherous songs and stories, as if this were the proper thing.
  In all this we witness the fearful wrath of God, who permits
  the world thus to fall into temptation because nobody calls
  upon him.
  It is indeed a sore temptation for a young person
  when the devil fans his flesh into a flame, sets marrow,
  bone and every member on fire, and, at the same time,
  incites him from without by seductive objects in the form
  of gestures, dances, clothes, words and attractive pictures of
  women or men. As Job says (41, 21) : "His breath kindleth
  coals." The world is now altogether mad in its devotion
  to dress and jewelry. But it is not impossible for us to
  overcome all this, provided we are in the habit of calling
  upon God and praying: "Father, lead us not into temptation."
  This should be our prayer also when tempted to
  pride in consequence of receiving praise and honor; likewise
  when wealth or any worldly boon falls to our lot.
  Why does God permit men thus to be tempted to
  sin? Answer: That man may learn to know himself and
  God. To know himself—that he can do nothing but sin and
  evil. To know God—that God's grace is mightier than all
  creatures. Thus man shall learn to despise himself and to
  praise and glorify God's grace. For there have been those
  who have tried to withstand unchastity by their own powers,
  by fasting and work. They have broken down their bodies
  thereby and yet have accomplished nothing. For evil desire
  is extinguished by nothing except the heavenly dew
  and rain of God's grace. Fasting, work and watching must
  indeed accompany it ; but they are not sufficient.

  Conclusion of the Petition

  Now, when God has forgiven us our debts, nothing
  is so much to be guarded against as the danger of falling
  again. For, as David says (Ps 104, 25), in the sea of this
  world are creeping things innumerable ; that is, many temptations
  and stumbling-blocks, which would draw us back
  into guilt. It is necessary that, without ceasing, we speak
  from our hearts : Father, lead us not into temptation. I do
  not ask to be altogether free from temptation, for that would
  be disastrous and worse than ten temptations like those first
  mentioned; but I ask that I may not fall and sin against
  my neighbor or thee. St. James says : "Blessed is the man
  that endureth temptation," Ja 1, 12. Why? Because temptations
  exercise a man, and perfect him m humility and patience,
  and make him acceptable to God, as his dearest children
  are. Blessed is he who takes this to heart. Now, alas!
  everybody seeks rest, peace, pleasure, and comfort in this
  life. Therefore, the reign of Antichrist is approaching, if
  indeed it is not already here.