How do you equate Christian teachings with certain worldly(non Christian) achievements/attitudes?

This question, as worded, might might not be best for this site, but I see an answerable question that can be answered by some of the most fundamental Christian thinking.

The question is essentially, "Why do Christians insist that everyone is a sinner even though a large portion of people are decent people?"

It is clear through out the Bible that everyone, even the most righteous, except Jesus Christ, were sinners as much as any other person, whether believers or not. Paul even plainly states it for us in Romans:

  There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
  Romans 3:23 (NIV)

"But they are good people. What difference does it make?"

The difference is in the standards between two parties. Not that Christians have better standards, practically speaking, or that they have a better understanding of morality than anyone else. The difference is even more fundamental than that. It is the difference in standards between all mankind and God Almighty. In Isaiah we read:

  “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
    neither are your ways my ways,”
      declares the Lord.
  Isaiah 55:8 (NIV)

God has a righteousness that we can only hope to understand (Luke 18:19). It one of the reasons Christians praise Him. The Bible is filled with praises about His righteousness. We just cannot compare to His standards, even when we are doing our best.

Further, Genesis tells us that God made everything (the method being irrelevant to this point) and that when He was done, it was very good. God made everything and it was all good. James also tells us that every good thing comes from God:

  Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.
  James 1:17 (NIV)

So, confidently, Christians insist that all mankind, past and present, are sinners.

To continue in the same thought, the question is now "Why do Christians think they go to Heaven?"

The same verses in Romans 3 plainly tell us (emphasis added):

  But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

God demonstrated his righteousness, His justice and judgement on all mankind, by sending Christ to the cross. Accepting that Jesus paid the price for your transgression is the central message of salvation that spares you from Hellfire.

God is truly merciful, as we see in the same verses in Isaiah 55 (emphasis added):

  Seek the Lord while he may be found;
      call on him while he is near.
    Let the wicked forsake their ways
      and the unrighteous their thoughts.
    Let them [the wicked] turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them,
      and to our God, for he will freely pardon.

Repent and turn from your evil ways and God will give you mercy. Accept the free gift of God, Christ's death on the cross, which pays your sin debt, and God will give you grace, eternal life in heaven (Romans 6:23).

This is the fundamental message that all Christians bring to the world.


Jesus' quotation of Septuagint - Greek or Aramaic?

The normal explanation is that Jesus quoted the scriptures in Aramaic*, but as the LXX was the readily available translation of the Greek (and the Gospel writers probably had large portions of the Greek memorized), the Gospel writers would defer to its translation instead of translating directly.

*Because the authors of the LXX had different resources than those which are available today, it is possible that Christ would have used similar source documents to those in the LXX. I do not believe there is sufficient information to judge this matter.


Yes adelphopoiesis could be used to join multiple persons as siblings. It was also used for children who were ether orphaned or needed to be sent abroad due to war or economic calamtities (or whatever). They would have a blessing to make them siblings and have each others backs.

The most famous case is that of Photius Kasavales Fisk, who was a U.S. Navy chaplain in the 1870's. At 15 years old he was orphaned from the Greco-Turkish War of 1821, and a Protestant missionary (Pliny Fisk) found him living amongst relatives in Malta. He secured Photius an education in America, where the local Greek priest, after examination of Pliny Fisk's intent, also sent his 11 year old son Anastasius together with Photius for a better life. It was agreed that the boys would not be separated upon arrival in America, and the priest performed the rite uniting the boys as brothers.

You can read about it from Photius Fisk biography, written in 1891. Note this blessing has nothing to do with marriage or sexual unions (that's an invention of the last few decades). It is more akin to an adoption ceremony.  Read Photius Fisk: A Biography, by Lyman F. Hodge pages 23-26.


Where in the Bible did God tell Adam and Eve that they have sinned?

Sin is described in the Bible as transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4) and rebellion against God (Deuteronomy 9:7; Joshua 1:18).  After creating Adam, God issued only one prohibition in His instructions:

  “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and keep it.  And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,  but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:15-17).

It was only after Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s command, after they had eaten of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that “their eyes were opened” – and they tried to hide from God:

  “But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.”  He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”  The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.”  Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate” (Genesis 3:7-13).

God does not use the word “sin” when he pronounces judgment on Adam and Eve for their disobedience.  But God does say WHY they have sinned against Him.  God says to Adam:

  “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Genesis 3:17-19).

Adam and Eve succumbed to the temptation “to be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:4).  They disobeyed God – and they knew they had done wrong.  That is the original sin that “came into the world through one man” – Adam – and a direct consequence of that sin is death:

  “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—  for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.  Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come” (Romans 5:12-14).

Through Adam sin entered the world, and so death was passed on to all men because “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).  That is what the Bible has to say about sin and how it originated.  Adam and Eve disobeyed God because they wanted “to be like God, knowing good and evil.”  That is sin.


What is role of speaking in tongues in Assemblies of God denomination?

Assemblies of God strongly believe and encourage speaking in tongues. It is considered as  the physical evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit.

This site   mentions about this matter. It says,

  The baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the
  initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of
  God gives them utterance. (Acts 2:4)

  The speaking in tongues in this instance is the
  same in essence as the gift of tongues, but is different in purpose
  and use.
  ( 1 Corinthians 12:4-10 , 1 Corinthians 12:28 )

The preachers in AG churches many times encourage their members to speak in tongues and sometimes it became a burden to some of the members who are not speaking in tongues, but this is some exceptional case. Some preachers take less importance to tongues but not diminish it. The worship in AG churches are all centered around inviting the Holy Spirit, singing, praying and speaking in tongues. Worship services are mostly lively and sometimes  noisy because many people speak in tongues loudly.


The inscription on the cross is common of a Saint Benedict Medal

Eius in obitu nostro praesentia muniamur
May we be strengthened by his presence in the hour of our death
St. Benedict Medal (Wikipedia)

And the person in Biblical Dress is probably St. Benedict of Nursia, the founder of the Benedictine Order, an ancient order of religious brothers from Italy.

Unless the liquid contained in it was blood, it's likely as not that it contained Holy Water.
It might well be a 3rd degree relic (i.e. a sacramental touched to a 1st degree relic), but it's clearly a sacramental of some sort (i.e. a blessed item; not something that should be sold).  I wouldn't think there'd be any reason to have an unblessed container of liquid in a holy medal.


According to Catholicism, is Adam or Eve more culpable for original sin?

Adam and Eve are both responsible for original sin.
Adam and Eve both sinned by pride, but Eve had more pride and Adam more culpability.
St. Thomas Aquinas writes in Summa Theologica II-II q. 163 a. 4 co. on whether Adam or Eve sinned more grievously:

the gravity of a sin depends on the species rather than on a circumstance of that sin. Accordingly we must assert that, if we consider the condition attaching to these persons, the man's sin is the more grievous, because he was more perfect than the woman.*

*viz., Adam should have known better and corrected Eve.

As regards the genus itself of the sin, the sin of each is considered to be equal, for each sinned by pride. Hence Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xi, 35): "Eve in excusing herself betrays disparity of sex, though parity of pride."
But as regards the species of pride, the woman sinned more grievously, for three reasons:

Because she was more puffed up than the man. For the woman believed in the serpent's persuasive words, namely that God had forbidden them to eat of the tree, lest they should become like to Him; so that in wishing to attain to God's likeness by eating of the forbidden fruit, her pride rose to the height of desiring to obtain something against God's will. On the other hand, the man did not believe this to be true; wherefore he did not wish to attain to God's likeness against God's will: but his pride consisted in wishing to attain thereto by his own power.

The woman not only herself sinned, but suggested sin to the man; wherefore she sinned against both God and her neighbor.

The man's sin was diminished by the fact that, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xi, 42), "he consented to the sin out of a certain friendly good-will, on account of which a man sometimes will offend God rather than make an enemy of his friend. That he ought not to have done so is shown by the just issue of the Divine sentence."

It is therefore evident that the woman's sin was more grievous than the man's.

Also, only Adam is responsible for transmitting original sin to his descendants.


Is the Russian Orthodox Church pressing the government of Russia to ban Jehovah's Witnesses?

I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Jehovah's Witnesses have not published any comment on a particular religious organization being behind the court cases. They are much more concerned about the outcome of the cases happening at present. Religious persecution is not new, and is rather seen as a sign of the Great Tribulation.
There have been many interviews with non-JW experts at court cases over the years, and these experts indicate that the source of claims against Jehovah's Witnesses most often comes from people with a personal agenda against Jehovah's Witnesses.
Since the majority of people in Russia are Russian Orthodox, it's more likely that these individuals come from that religion, but I don't know of any evidence of the Russian Orthodox Church itself encouraging these specific court actions. It is more of a debate of how much control the Church has over the Russian Federation in general.
Here are quotes from experts which mentioned the Russian Orthodox Church in their interviews:

“For 25 years, there have been different legal, political, and intellectual conditions in Russia and Ukraine. I am told, though, that impartial theological expertise has virtually ceased to exist in Russia. The experts—as a rule, scholars—do not have the same status and are not protected by any special legislation. It is biased people who are denomination-oriented, usually toward the Orthodox religion, who are drawn to expert examination. Being Orthodox, they cannot analyze any other way of worship in a neutral and unbiased manner. Perceiving any other religion as not true, they, in their ‘righteous indignation for the purity of their faith,’ emotionally and aggressively brand all others as extremists.”
—Dr. Liudmyla Fylypovych, professor, head, History of Religions and Practical Religious Studies Department, Philosophy Institute of the National Academy of Sciences; vice president, Ukrainian Association of Researchers of Religion, Ukraine

“Elements within the Russian Orthodox Church connive with the forces of order to promote their own interests and to suppress any perceived competition.”
—Dr. Jim Beckford, fellow of the British Academy

“Basically, the law is overbroad. The language of the law can be used by law enforcement to arrest or threaten individuals with religious views that are unpopular or the government simply doesn’t like. Common examples include arrests of Jehovah’s Witnesses, other minority groups, and even atheists. The law has essentially been used to protect the Orthodox viewpoints that are supported by the government, and to punish viewpoints that are perceived as alternative to or threatening to this Orthodoxy.”
—Ms. Melissa Hooper, lawyer, director, International Law Scholarship Project/Pillar Project, Human Rights First; formerly regional director for American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative in Moscow, United States

“A true Russian, if Christian, is a member of the Russian Orthodox Church. Russians belonging to the ‘wrong’ religious organization are isolated and excluded from society. Therefore, the civil rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses are being grossly violated.”
—Dr. Gerhard Besier, professor emeritus, European studies, Technische Universität Dresden; lecturer, Stanford University; director, Sigmund Neumann Institute for the Research on Freedom and Democracy, Germany

All of these quotes were supplementary to a 3-Part Article published by Jehovah's Witnesses:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3


Are there any examples of Jesus praying publicly?

When Jesus fed the 5,000, the Gospel of John records that Jesus took the bread and gave thanks:

  Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated. So also the fish, as much as they wanted.  John 6:11 ESV

Additionally, in Mark's account of Jesus feeding the 4,000, Jesus again gives thanks, presumably in a public setting:

  And he directed the crowd to sit down on the ground. And he took the seven loaves, and having given thanks, he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before the people; and they set them before the crowd.  Mark 8:6 ESV

So, Jesus does appear to pray publicly, albeit not to make a show as the Pharisees did.  In this case, it appears to be private prayer prayed in public.

  And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.  Matthew 6:5 ESV

So, it does not seem reasonable to conclude that it is wrong to pray in public.  Indeed, it is more reasonable to conclude that it is right to pray in both public and private settings, as long as it is with a right heart and not done for show.


What does the LDS Church teach about the pre-existence of each person prior to conception?

This doctrine teaches, in short, that we literally existed prior to birth into mortality on this earth, and were involved in the salvation plan.

See the below excerpts from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism...

  Pre-Existence (Pre-Earthly Existence)

  The term "pre-existence," or more accurately, "premortal existence," refers to a period of individual conscious and accountable life before
  birth into mortality on this earth. It is Latter-day Saint doctrine
  that living things existed as individual spirit beings and possessed
  varying degrees of intelligence in an active, conscious spirit state
  before mortal birth and that the spirit continues to live and function
  in the mortal body. The revelations teach that premortal spirit bodies
  have general resemblance to their physical counterparts.

  Council In Heaven

  The Council in Heaven, sometimes called the Grand Council, refers to a
  meeting of God the Father with his spirit sons and daughters to
  discuss the terms and conditions by which these spirits could come to
  earth as physical beings. The terms "Council in Heaven" and "Grand
  Council" do not appear in the scriptures, but are used by the Prophet
  Joseph Smith in referring to these premortal activities, allusions to
  which are found in many scriptures (Job 38:4-7; Jer. 1:5; Rev. 12:3-7;
  Alma 13:3-9; D&C 29:36-38; 76:25-29; Moses 4:1-4; Abr. 3:23-28; cf.
  Tpjs, pp. 348-49, 357, 365; T&S 4 [Feb. 1, 1843]:82).

  One purpose of the heavenly council was to allow the spirits the
  opportunity to accept or reject the Father's Plan of Salvation, which
  proposed that an earth be created whereon his spirit children could
  dwell, each in a physical body. Such a life would serve as a
  probationary state "to see if they [would] do all things whatsoever
  the Lord their God shall command them" (Abr. 3:25). The spirits of all
  mankind were free to accept or reject the Father's plan but they were
  also responsible for their choice. The Creation, the Fall, mortality,
  the Atonement, the Resurrection, and the Final Judgment were
  contemplated and explained in the council (TPJS, p. 220, 348-50; MD,
  pp. 163-64; see also First Estate). The plan anticipated mistakes from
  inexperience and sin and provided remedies. Many spirits were
  foreordained to specific roles and missions during their mortal
  experience, conditional upon their willingness and faithfulness in the
  premortal sphere and their promised continued faithfulness upon the
  earth. The Prophet Joseph Smith explained, "Every man who has a
  calling to minister to the inhabitants of the world was ordained to
  that very purpose in the Grand Council of heaven before this world
  was. I suppose I was ordained to this very office in that Grand
  Council" (TPJS, p. 365; cf. 1 Pet. 1:20; Jer. 1:5; Abr. 3:22-23).

  Although spoken of as a single council, there may have been multiple
  meetings where the gospel was taught and appointments were made. Jesus
  and the prophets were foreordained in the council. A redeemer was to
  perform a twofold mission in redeeming mankind from the physical and
  spiritual deaths brought about by the Fall of Adam and also in
  providing redemption, upon repentance, for sins committed by
  individuals. At a certain point in the council, the Father asked,
  "Whom shall I send [as the Redeemer]?" Jesus Christ, known then as the
  great I AM and as Jehovah, answered, "Here am I, send me," and agreed
  to follow the Father's plan (Moses 4:1-4; Abr. 3:27). As a
  counter-measure, Lucifer offered himself and an amendment to the
  Father's plan of saving mankind that would not respect their agency.
  The substitute proposal was also designed to exalt Lucifer above the
  throne of God. The Father's response was, "I will send the first"
  (meaning Jehovah). Lucifer rebelled and became Satan, or "the devil."
  A division developed among the spirits, and no spirits were neutral
  (DS 1:65-66). There was war in heaven (Rev. 12:7-8), and the third of
  the hosts who followed Lucifer were cast out (Rev. 12:4; D&C 29:36).
  These rebellious spirits, along with Lucifer, were thrust down to the
  earth without physical bodies (Rev. 12:9; cf. Isa. 14:12-17). The
  Prophet Joseph Smith explained: "The contention in heaven was-Jesus
  said there would be certain souls that would not be saved; and the
  devil said he could save them all, and laid his plans before the grand
  council, who gave their vote in favor of Jesus Christ. So the devil
  rose up in rebellion against God, and was cast down, with all who put
  up their heads for him" (TPJS, p. 357). Heavenly Father and the
  faithful spirits in heaven wept over them (D&C 76:25-29). Satan and
  his followers are still at war with those spirits who have been born
  into mortality (Rev. 12:9; cf. "War in Heaven," p. 788).


What is the purpose and meaning of the Christian Flag?

The "Christian Flag" was conceived by Charles Overton, who in 1897 was superintendent of the Congregational Sunday School at Brighton Chapel, Coney Island, New York, USA.1 (That community was incorporated as St Paul's Evangelical Lutheran Church of Coney Island in 1907, and it still exists today). On 26 September of that year, he gave a sermon musing about what kind of flag might represent the Christian faith, in the same way as the American flag represents the United States. Following on from that, he designed the emblem and formed a group (the Christian Flag Extension Society) to promote it. This included efforts to have the flag officially recognized by the US government, and adopted in its military chaplaincies. 2 The first flags made to his design were manufactured by the Annin company, which still makes them today. 3

According to Overton:

  It is truly symbolic. The ground, which is five-sixths of the whole, is white, the universal peace color, representing peace, purity, and innocence. In the upper corner is a blue square, the color of the unclouded sky, emblematic of heaven, the home of the Christian, also a symbol of faith and truth. In the center of the blue is the cross, the ensign and chosen symbol of Christianity. The cross is red, typical of Christ's blood. Every sect of Christ's followers can indorse the flag, and it is equally acceptable to all nations. It stands for no creed or denomination, but for Christianity.4

Additionally, "white is recognized as the flag of truce on every battlefield, and as soon as a flag of this color is seen the cannon's roar is silenced." 3 It may be that the red-white-blue combination of the Overton flag was chosen to echo the colors of the American flag.

The Overton design violates the heraldic rule of tincture by placing the red cross on the blue canton. This seems to be unintentional, though the arms of the Kingdom of Jerusalem deliberately did the same (gold on white) as a mark of honor.

Some alternative flag designs were proposed in the same era, including the so-called "Crusader Flag", a red cross on a white field bearing the motto "In this sign conquer". Several individual churches or denominations have their own unique flags as well. Perhaps the flag of the Vatican is the only one of these that qualifies as intended to be universal, though of course non-Catholics are liable to disagree with the claim. Conversely, the "Christian Flag" is Protestant in origin and remains most popular among American Protestants.

1. Deruyter Gleaner, 18 August 1898, p8
2. American Sentinel, vol 14, no 17 of 27 April 1899, p262
3. Missionary Education in Home and School, R. E. Diffendorfer, NY: Abingdon Press, 1917, p183ff
4. The Epworth Era, 12 January 1919, p150


Does Jude 1:9 mean that Moses went to hell?

This question presumes that the devil only exists in hell, which is clearly a false presumption.

If we look at Jesus' temptation in the wilderness (in Matthew 4:1-11), we see that Satan exists here on earth as well:

  Matthew 4:1-3 (NIV)
  Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”

It's clear and obvious that the devil exists here on Earth from the above passage.  However, if you read the full passage, it's even more clear.

Therefore, this verse does not indicate that Moses went to hell.


Who was the Christian missionary who helped reform English Missions?

Hudson Taylor for sure.

Have a read of this very short biography in Christianity Today

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/missionaries/htaylor.html


Are Catholics allowed to read the NIV translation?

That's a very tricky question which deserves some bullet points.

The scripture used during Mass and liturgical events and prayers (Benediction, Liturgy of the Hours) should always come from the Vulgate (Latin) Bible. In the United States we use the older New American Bible, with the revised edition waiting in the wings to be implemented at some future date (we'll be able to walk in the valley of the shadow of death again, yay!)

Dei Verbum (the dogmatic constitution on sacred scripture, which came out of Vatican II (the big 1960's Catholic get together)) printed at the beginning of many Catholic Bibles says this:

And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them. (Source)

So, there's a Catholic edition of all sorts of Protestant Bibles. I've got a "The Way" Catholic Edition and a "Good News" Catholic Edition and an Oxford Study Bible (With Apocrypha).
What a Catholic would look for at the start of any book is a nihil obstat (nothing stands in the way) and Imprimatur (let it be printed), meaning there is nothing in book that goes against Catholic doctrine.  "Make Way for Ducklings" could qualify for a nihil obstat. It's not sign of approval, but of non-disapproval.
Frankly the translation doesn't mean a lot to Catholics since we're not the ones who are supposed to interpret the Bible, and interpretation and translation are totally different things.

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on,  has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed. (Ibid)

So, we don't need to shield our eyes when someone gives us a verse from the NIV or anything, we just can't assume that we know what anything means unless it's been explained authoritatively to us through the Church.
And the explanation is the eternal unchanged explanation, in the context of the entirety of scripture and in line with the consistent teaching of the Bishops.
So, if we read that Mary was the happiest of women, we know that that happiness is the happiness that can only come from knowing that she is to be the Mother of God and that the term happiness is synonymous with blessed - even though in general happiness and blessedness don't mean exactly the same thing.


What are the "correct" steps for a layman to be a Christian?

Yes, belief in God's existence is the first step. As Hebrews 11:6 says,

  And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him

Beyond that, the good news of the Gospel is that Jesus already has taken the first steps toward you becoming a Christian.

  God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. 17 In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him ... We love because he first loved us. 1 John 4:16-20

While the exact process of "conversion" is a matter of some debate, the sign that it has occurred is not - you are to grow in Christ, bearing fruit in keeping with repentance. As Paul says,

  But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against these things! Those who belong to Christ Jesus have nailed the passions and desires of their sinful nature to his cross and crucified them there Galatians 5:24

Just remember, we obey out of love, not out of a need for love. As Jesus said,

  If you love me, you will obey what I command John 14:15

This is the way of the Gospel- that God loves us, and we in turn respond in obedience out of love,

  For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. Ephesians 2:8-9

Or, if you prefer it all one text, consider Titus 3:3-8

  At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another.  But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.


Why is Eben Ezer used as a shop's name in Chile?

n 1 Samuel 7, the prophet Samuel and the Israelites found themselves under attack by the Philistines. Fearing for their lives, the Israelites begged Samuel to pray for them in their impending battle against the Philistines. Samuel offered a sacrifice to God and prayed for His protection. God listened to Samuel, causing the Philistines to lose the battle and retreat back to their own territory. After the Israelite victory, the Bible records: “Then Samuel took a stone and set it up between Mizpah and Shen, and called its name Ebenezer, saying, ‘Thus far the Lord has helped us’ ” (1 Samuel 7:12).

The word Ebenezer comes from the Hebrew words ’Eben hà-ezer (eh’-ben haw-e’-zer), which simply mean “stone of help” (see Enhanced…, 1995). When Robinson wrote his lyrics, he followed the word Ebenezer with the phrase, “Here by Thy great help I’ve come.” An Ebenezer, then, is simply a monumental stone set up to signify the great help that God granted the one raising the stone. In Robinson’s poem, it figuratively meant that the writer—and all who subsequently sing the song—acknowledge God’s bountiful blessings and help in their lives.

Found on Apologetics Press


El (אֵל), as the Hebrew word for God or Divine Being, is used in various Hebrew word combinations to identify Deity and to reveal particular things about him. Thus El Elyon (אֵ֣לעֶלְי֔וֹן) means the Highest God, the Possessor or Creator of heaven and earth:

  And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God,
  possessor of heaven and earth: (Gen. 14:19);

El Shaddai (אֵ֣לשַׁדַּ֔י) signifies God Almighty

  And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to
  Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and
  be thou perfect. (Gen. 17:1);

El Elohe Yisrael (אֵ֖לאֱלֹהֵ֥ייִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ס) is the God of Israel

  And he erected there an altar, and called it El-elohe-Israel.
  (Gen. 33:20.)

Elohim is the plural of the Canaanite El or the Hebrew Eloah; consequently, its literal meaning is Gods. Accordingly, as the Prophet pointed out, such Old Testament passages as,

  "In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heaven and the earth" (Gen.
  1:1),

should more properly be translated,

  "In the beginning the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods," and they created the heavens and the earth. (Teachings, pp. 370-371.)

Elohim, plural word though it is, is also use as the exalted name-title of God the Eternal Father, a usage that connotes his supremacy and omnipotence, he being God above all Gods. (The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve, cited, Articles of Faith, pp. 465-473; 1 Cor. 8:6.)1

1 Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie.


Are there any sects of Christianity that still practice animal sacrifice?

According to this article, there are local churches in Israel that still practice animal sacrifice.  It says:

Although slaughter for sacrifice contradicts a basic belief of Christianity, it is practiced by local Catholics, Greek Orthodox and other Christians at the ruined Byzantine church of Saint George in the village of Taybeh, 20 miles from Jerusalem. "Around 70 to 80 lambs are sacrificed here each year," said the Roman Catholic priest, Father Raed. Similar sacrifices are also made in the towns of Lodd, Jaffa, al-Khadar and elsewhere in the Holy Land.

Unlike traditional sacrifices, the meat is then distributed to the poor rather than to the priests, but the purpose is very similiar.
From the article:

"The sheep are always facing east when a sharp knife goes through their necks," Khoury explained. "Sometimes sacrifices are offered as gratitude for the birth of a healthy child, help with a relation surviving a deadly illness or a major operation, or thanks for survival from a car accident."
During the killing, prayers are offered in the name of the father, son, and holy ghost and accompanied by entreaties to al-Khader (Saint George) to act as an intermediary.
Qleibo, although a Muslim himself, insists that Christian blood-sacrifice cannot be explained away as a Muslim influence: "Blood sacrifice was an important part of the ancient Canaanite religion and numerous pagan cults. Semitic blood sacrifices have persisted."

All this said, it seems to be a peculiar practice of a place, not so much as a denomination.  Syncretism is apparently not the sole province of the Samaritans...


Do Jehovah's Witnesses have their own version of the Bible?

Yes, they do. It's called  New World Translation.

There are several verses with a completely different meaning than other translations, such as John 1:1

  1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the
  Word was a god

Quite different than the NIV translation

  1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
  Word was God.

The difference is easy to see when you consider how it affects the doctrine of the Trinity, Christ's identity, and the idea of a single God vs. the idea that the word was "a god" - separate from The God.

Other, commonly accepted translations agree with the NIV translation.

The argument I've heard time and time again is that the Bible has been corrupted over time, intentionally, or not, and that they, the one true Church, have the only accurately translated version. (This was from three personal friends, all JW, and from several missionaries that I spoke with. I don't have official statements from the Watchtower Society claiming this.)

There are more differences, along the same vein, but I don't wish to get into a discussion on the validity of their claims vs. those of other denominations. Such discussion would be off-topic and frowned upon.

I included the above, only to show that the NWT is more than a slightly differently translated version. Most of the passages are the same,but those few that are different significantly alter the meaning relating to some foundational doctrinal views held by more (traditional? mainstream?) denominations.


Is brethren a currently used plural for brother (monks)?

I'm not sure this is a question about Christianity as such. The Oxford English Dictionary for “brother” has an entire section devoted to the religious sense of the word (section A.III), with examples from the 20th and 21st centuries, including the plural “brethren”.

In addition I noticed these secular uses of the word:

“His attempts at ‘contributing’ were not welcomed by many of his
brethren officers.” (Horn & M. Wyczynski in Warrior Chiefs; 2001)
“Scores of exiled Tibetans..set out on foot towards Tibet to support
their brethren who are facing oppression under the Chinese regime.”
(Hindustan Times; 2008)


What is the Biblical basis for thinking that Jesus died for me specifically?

In 1 Timothy 1:12-17, Paul - or someone writing as him - says (NRSV translation):

I am grateful to Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because he judged me faithful and appointed me to his service, even though I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and a man of violence. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.
The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners - of whom I am the foremost. But for that very reason I received mercy, so that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display the utmost patience, making me an example to those who would come to believe in him for eternal life. To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

The author describes himself as being the pre-eminent sinner, although (from context) we know that he does not mean that he is actually worse than other people. Rather, his intention is to say that whenever anyone sins, he or she is condemned; and that everyone who is saved from the domination of sin is saved by Christ. The author counts himself as the chief of sinners because there is no greater sinner he can hide behind. There is no excuse for us. We can all describe ourselves in this way - but equally, we can all say "Jesus came to save me". And because of this knowledge, we must be careful to remember (as you point out) that the same is true for other people - Jesus did not come to save only me.
In response to your clarification:
You would like to know whether Jesus had you, specifically, in mind during his Passion. What we know from Scripture is that Jesus "gave his life as a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28), and that "he died for all" to "reconcile us to himself", "not counting our trespasses against us" (2 Corinthians 5:15, 18-19). This act of reconciliation unites us with him in love; "our old self was crucified with him" (Romans 6:6) and now "we abide in him and he in us" (1 John 4:13). Further, it is written (Isaiah 53:4-6 and partially quoted in Matthew 8:17):

Surely he has borne our infirmities
and carried our diseases;
yet we accounted him stricken,
struck down by God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions,
crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the punishment that made us whole,
and by his bruises we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have all turned to our own way,
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

It is certain that every sin was part of his burden on the cross, including even those sins yet to happen. If this were not so, then our sins could not be redeemed, and we could not be united with him.
Jesus certainly suffered in his crucifixion, as the Gospels attest. We might argue about the extent to which he was conscious of each sin individually. While some would say that Jesus in his earthly life had only a human intellect, the transcendent nature of the Passion is surely a plausible candidate for an exception. In any case, he felt the pain of every sin, including yours and mine, regardless of precisely how he felt it.


(Jehovah's Witnesses view) Jesus statement about Great Tribulation and the situation due to which "no flesh will be saved"

Jehovah's Witnesses believe the prophecy at Matthew 24:15-22 has a double fulfillment.

The first fulfillment came about when the Roman army surrounded Jerusalem in 66 C.E., but then the attack was cut short when the Roman army suddenly withdrew. The faithful disciples in Jerusalem and Judea recognized this as their chance to escape, while the rest of the city thought it was a victory. The Roman army then returned and destroyed the city in 70 C.E.

In parallel, the second fulfillment will come about in the Great Tribulation. At that time, there will be an initial attack on religion by the "disgusting thing ... standing in a holy place," which is the United Nations. The attack will be cut short to spare the true religion from being destroyed also.

Here's an infographic from the 2013 Watchtower article, "Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?"

In summary:

The attack is against religions and their adherents.
The attack is caused by the world's governments by means of the United Nations.

For a much more detailed analysis of the events leading up to Armageddon, see the book God's Kingdom Rules, chapter 21: "God's Kingdom Removes Its Enemies."

P.S. I'm impressed by how in-depth this question is. There are a lot more research tools that can help you find answers quicker in the future. One of the most useful ones is the Publications Index, where you can find publications by Scripture or by topic. (It's what I used to find information for this answer.) You can also use the search feature on https://wol.jw.org for a broader range of articles than are available on just the main site.


In which Christian denomination(s), do people plan their weddings around the bride's menstrual periods?

Though I'm not a woman or a confidant of women, I've never heard this spoken of before in Protestant circles. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but I don't think this is a typical consideration.

Assigning (religious) impurity to menses would require adherence to the Law of Moses, I think. As a personal matter, there's nothing to prohibit someone from concluding that about herself, but since such a link between impurity and menstruation is ever made in the New Testament, I suspect that most protestants won't ever say that the two are inherently linked.


What is a Reformed substitute for Catholic Marian Doctrine in exemplifying the new dignity accorded women?

The question assumes (and seems to even presume) two major things:  1) That Christ came predominantly as an example to be emulated and 2) That the example of Christ, the man, has particular application to the male gender individually and societally.  Given these assumptions the question asks Reformed Theology for a female role model likened unto Mary as expounded in Catholicism.
A strong correlation is supposed to exist such that the historical increase of truths liberating women "emanating from Christ and Mary through the mediating influence of the Catholic Church are transforming the world and progressively reversing the curse upon Eve".  It would need to be demonstrated that the Protestant reformation and the formal advent of Reformed Theology represent a correlative subduing of these liberating truths regarding women in history since the 16th century.
A reformed look at the assumptions listed above would have to begin at Genesis 1:27:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Right from the very beginning there is a distinction in gender without a difference in humanity:  Man, as created by God, includes both male and female.  Both were formed by God from previously created matter (dust and a rib) and both, without distinction, are in His image.  Since Jesus Christ came, uniquely in the image of the invisible God and filled with all Divine fullness (Colossians 1:15, 19), formed by the Spirit of God within the already created matter of a woman, he is therefore able to represent the image of God in which Man was created irrespective of gender.  Thus He is savior of both male and female without distinction.
There is also, right from the beginning, a distinction in roles.  The man was created first and the reason given for the creation of the woman is:

“It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Genesis 2:18

This should not be taken to indicate that the male, in his humanity, was created with some lack or deficit since the Divine intention to create Man (in His image) as both male and female is stated prior to the formation of either Adam or Eve.  It should also not be understood from this that the woman was created with a "functional inequality" that the Church and the proclamation of the gospel should strive to overcome.  While it is certain that the sinful heart of Man has birthed and promulgated all manner of grievous societal ills it needs to be stridently maintained that gender, and certain roles assigned to gender, were created by God prior to the incursion of sin and are therefore included in the statement "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good".  It is therefore to be understood that gender finds it's meaning as divinely assigned roles for humans rather than distinctive valuations as humans.
Scripture is replete with godly women who are held up as examples for us to follow.  Prominent is Hebrews chapter 11 in which are listed Sarah and Rahab.  These women are lifted up along with the many men with which they are enumerated, not for gender specific tasks, but for the faith by which they lived:

By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. - Hebrews 11:11
By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies. - Hebrews 11:31

And, indeed, Mary is to be esteemed for the faith by which she humbled herself under the calling with which God called her while yet a virgin:

“Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.”

But to look to Mary or any other person for something gender specific that is supposed to be lacking in what the (male) Christ has exemplified is a category error for:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. - Galatians 3:28

It is therefore not a gender specific example that Christ has given us but an example of human faith to be lived out in whatever situation one finds themselves.

Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him,
and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the
churches. Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let
him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the
time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. For
neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but
keeping the commandments of God. Each one should remain in the
condition in which he was called.  Were you a bondservant when
called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your
freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) For he who was called in
the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who
was free when called is a bondservant of Christ. You were bought with
a price; do not become bondservants of men. So, brothers, in
whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God. -
1 Corinthians 7:17-24

Reformed Theology holds that there are God ordained roles for both men and women in the family, the church, and the world and that these not necessarily be identical.  It also affirms that the fallen nature of Man tends toward the abrogation and corruption of all that God has created.  The reconciliation of the two is in lifting up Christ and the clarion call for Reformed Theology specifically and Protestantism in general is as follows irrespective of gender:

For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. For, “Yet a little while, and the coming one will come and will not delay; but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.” But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls. - Hebrews 10:36-39

There is no need, in Reformed Theology, for a female example of perfection to lift up before women "to convey the truth that women can be perfected" since our perfection, both male and female, is in Jesus:

For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. - Hebrews 10:14


Is it allowed to deviate from the Catholic Liturgical Calendar during a pilgrimage?

Under certain conditions, the clergy may employ a votive mass on days where it is permitted in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary, especially on Saturdays. Traditionally, Saturdays are dedicated to Mary.

What is a votive mass?

  Votive Mass

  A Mass offered in honor of some mystery of the faith, or the Blessed Virgin, or of a saint or all the saints, but not in the liturgical calendar for that day. Votive Masses, with some exceptions, may be offered on any ordinary ferial day in the year, outside of Lent and Advent, and on other days that do not require the Mass of the day to be said. In general, votive Masses may be taken from among those listed as votive in the Roman Missal or from any other Mass of the year.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 376, has this a say about votive masses:

  "On obligatory memorials, on the weekdays of Advent up to and including December 16, of the Christmas Season from January 2, and of the Easter Season after the Octave of Easter, Masses for Various Needs, Masses for Various Circumstances, and Votive Masses are as such forbidden. If, however, required by some real need or pastoral advantage, according to the judgment of the rector (pastor) of the church or the priest celebrant himself, a Mass corresponding to such a need or advantage may be used in a celebration with a congregation."

But that is not all. The Vatican, under Pope John Paul II, published a Collection of 46 Marian Masses in 1986. Some of these masses are permitted to be celebrated in Advent, Easter and Lent.

  The Collection of Masses of the Blessed Virgin Mary, published by the Congregation of Divine Worship in 1986, is a set of forty-six Masses intended for use at Marian shrines and for communities who wish to celebrate the Memorial of the Blessed Virgin on Saturday. Originally published in two volumes, a Missal (Sacramentary) and a Lectionary, its status as an official liturgical book confers an authority both on the individual Masses as well as the principles contained in the General Introduction.

  The forty-six Masses are arranged according to the divisions of the liturgical year: Advent (three), Christmas (six), Lent (five), Easter (four), and Ordinary Time (twenty-eight). The Advent season celebrates "the two comings of the Lord: the first in lowliness when ... the Lord took flesh of the Virgin Mary ... and the second in glory, when ... the Lord will come to judge the living and dead and to lead the just ... where Mary has preceded them in glory." During Lent, Mary is "the model of the disciple who faithfully listens to the word of God and follows the footsteps of Christ to Calvary ...." - Collection of Masses of the Blessed Virgin Mary.


The primary purpose is to serve as an instrument to proclaim The Gospel of Jesus Christ. All other goals of the band are considered "Proper" when their ultimate goal is observed.
The brass band may be seen as an evangelical tool to generate a spiritual response by helping to set the mood & enhancing a spiritual message.
Member retention. Many members were introduced through to the Salvation Army through the brass band, & some may have strayed if not for their attachment to the band.
Drawing attention & Publicity for fundraising
Christian fellowship for players

The brass bands also seem to be more popular in the United Kingdom than in the United States.

Here is some more information about the Salvation Army Brass Band :

Some history & information
About the International "Staff" band of the Salvation Army (The top Salvation Army band)
A 1932 "Appreciation" flier (Back than, the band was called "Callender's Band")
The Wikipedia article

I hope this little bit of information was helpful.


According to Catholics at what moment did the ransom sacrifice go into effect?

Catholicism does not necessarily believe that there was a single moment at which Christ redeemed us:

Christ’s whole life is a mystery of redemption. Redemption comes to us above all through the blood of his cross [cf. Eph 1:7; Col 1:13–14; 1 Pet 1:18–19], but this mystery is at work throughout Christ’s entire life:

already in his Incarnation through which by becoming poor he enriches us with his poverty [cf. 2 Cor 8:9];

in his hidden life which by his submission atones for our disobedience [cf. Luke 2:51];

in his word which purifies its hearers [cf. John 15:3];

in his healings and exorcisms by which "he took our infirmities and bore our diseases" [cf. Mt 8:17; Isa 53:4];

and in his Resurrection by which he justifies us [cf. Rom. 4:25].

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 517; all Scripture references taken from footnotes to the passage)
However, the particular aspect of Christ's redemption of us which has to do with our ransom appears to have been fulfilled, that is completed, at the moment of his death:

The redemption won by Christ consists in this, that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mt 20:28), that is, he "loved [his own] to the end" (Jn 13:1), so that they might be "ransomed from the futile ways inherited from [their] fathers" (1 Pet 1:18).
By his loving obedience to the Father, "unto death, even death on a cross" (Phil 2:8), Jesus fulfills the atoning mission (cf. Isa 53:10) of the suffering Servant, who will "make many righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities" (Isa 53:11; cf. Rom 5:19).

(Catechism, paragraphs 622–623)
Along similar lines, Aquinas' Catena Aurea quotes Origen on the passage:

His ministry extended so far, that He fulfilled even in what follows, And to give his life a ransom for many, they, that is, who believed on Him; and gave it, i.e. to death. But since He was alone free among the dead, and mightier than the power of death, He has set free from death all who were willing to follow Him.

(emphasis added)
Thus it appears that our redemption, considered as a whole, is caught up with the whole of Christ's life and death; but his death is primary in ransoming us; so that it is at the moment of his death that the ransom was fulfilled.


The Luke 2 census - did everyone travel?

It is possible that Joseph's home was in Bethlehem and he had only temporarily moved to Nazareth because he was working on a construction project. I don't know of any case where an ancient government required the majority of people to travel a long distance for a census.

If we read Matthew's account of Jesus' birth, we find that Joseph and Mary intended to make Bethlehem their home upon returning from Egypt, but were persuaded that Jesus' life would be endangered if they settled in Archelaus' realm. Nazareth is not mentioned in Matthew until the family "turned aside" to go there in Mat 2:22-23.

Joseph's trade is specified as 'tekton', which has traditionally been translated as 'carpenter', but is a fairly general term for 'builder'. He may have been a construction worker at the time, moving around from place to place to find work. If so, he might have met Mary while he was working on a building project near her home town, Nazareth[1].

Here's a sermon, United Methodist but probably typical of Protestants who study the story closely:

http://www.dodgevilleumc.org/sermons/2011/joseph-of-bethlehem/

"if we do a careful study of these two Gospel accounts, we’ll find that Nazareth was Mary’s hometown … and I’m pretty sure Bethlehem was Joseph’s hometown"

Once Joseph had decided to accept Mary as his wife even though she was pregnant, the most natural thing for him to do would be to take her to Bethlehem, his home town. Doubtless the census encouraged the timing of the trip, as Bethlehem would be the ideal place for Joseph to register, if it was his permanent home. It may or may not have been mandatory for him to go there.

Joseph may indeed have been motivated by desire to register in the town of his ancestors, whether or not it was he thought of it as his hometown at the time. If Joseph's home was in Bethlehem, it may have simplified the registration process also. But even without the census, Joseph had reason to bring his new bride to Bethlehem, and perhaps find work that did not require as much travel.

[1]: Work opportunities


Which denominations believe in modern (ongoing) revelation?

The Society of Friends (Quakers) generally believe that each person has what they term the Divine Light, or "that of God," within them.  Because God is within and directly accessible to everyone, Friends generally value direct experience of the divine over religious texts (particularly the Bible).

The Dukhobors (a Christian movement that originated in Russia and Ukraine probably sometime in the 18th century and many of whom emigrated to Canada around the turn of the 20th century) have what is in many respects a similar belief pertaining to the value of religious texts, though they have historically tended to emphasize charismatic leaders and institutions over direct individual revelation (I should emphasize that this is a tendency, not a universally-true statement).


According to the Catholic Church, how did Paul become a saint?

The Catholic Church honors the Apostle St Paul as a Pillar of the Church and as a martyr.

The Church celebrates two  major events in the life of the Apostle. On January 25, Catholics celebrate the Conversion of St Paul. The martyrdoms of both Saints Peter and Paul is commemorated on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, June 29.

The moment that changed the persecutor Saul into Paul, the follower of Jesus was when he encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus. This was the life altering moment of Saul into the person we know as St Paul!

  Paul’s entire life can be explained in terms of one experience—his meeting with Jesus on the road to Damascus. In an instant, he saw that all the zeal of his dynamic personality was being wasted, like the strength of a boxer swinging wildly. Perhaps he had never seen Jesus, who was only a few years older. But he had acquired a zealot’s hatred of all Jesus stood for, as he began to harass the Church: “...entering house after house and dragging out men and women, he handed them over for imprisonment” (Acts 8:3b). Now he himself was “entered,” possessed, all his energy harnessed to one goal—being a slave of Christ in the ministry of reconciliation, an instrument to help others experience the one Savior.

  One sentence determined his theology: “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting” (Acts 9:5b). Jesus was mysteriously identified with people—the loving group of people Saul had been running down like criminals. Jesus, he saw, was the mysterious fulfillment of all he had been blindly pursuing.

  From then on, his only work was to “present everyone perfect in Christ. For this I labor and struggle, in accord with the exercise of his power working within me” (Colossians 1:28b-29). “For our gospel did not come to you in word alone, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and [with] much conviction” (1 Thessalonians 1:5a). - American Catholic .Org.

As for the title of saint goes, the Early Church only recognized martyrs as saints. St Paul made the ultimate witness of his faith when he was martyred in Rome some time around 66 AD.

  The early Church understood that only the Christian who followed Christ perfectly would go immediately into the heavenly Jerusalem. Others would enter the purifying fires of purgatory "to be made perfect," from which they would not depart until they had "paid the last penny" (Mt 5:26, 1 Cor 3:13, 15). Since perfection was conformity to Christ in His death, a process begun at baptism, the martyr (literally, witness) for Christ was seen to have achieved the goal. Thus, during the age of persecution (from Pentecost to 311 AD) esteem for those Christians who had been killed in hatred of the faith (in odium fidei) lead Christians to extol their example of heroic witness to Christ, to guard and preserve their relics (the trophies of victory over death), and to celebrate the anniversary of their birthday into eternal life. The Circular Letter of the Church of Smyrna on the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp (155 AD) illustrates this esteem perfectly. - The History of Canonization.


Does Christianity have any dietary guidelines?

Nope.  There are no restrictions.

We can even eat food sacrificed to idols.  This passage in 1 Corinthians talks about that.  The passage ends with the verse:

  1 Corinthians 8:8 (NIV)
  But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

Having said this, the author continues with:

  1 Corinthians 8:9-10 (NIV)
  Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols?

Essentially, we can eat anything that we can keep down that doesn't kill us.  However, this is providing that we do not cause others to sin.  (Though this is primarily in reference to food sacrificed to idols.)


Psalms 22, The correlation between King David and Jesus?

It's a teachable moment: even on the cross, Jesus remains the teacher

But first, the parallels between Jesus and David.  There are many.  There is an entire school of study that investigates, through types and typology, how Jesus and David are deeply linked even though the local Jews, hoping for a Messiah like King David, got a different kind of Messiah (annointed one) in Jesus.  They were in a lot of ways "similar but different."

Both were shepherds (David a shepherd in the field; Jesus the Good
Shepherd).
Both were born in Bethlehem.

Jesus was telling his enemies that their "victory" wasn't going to last

A way to understand his terse allusion to Psalm 22, one of King David's Psalms, is that Jesus was telling all those who would listen, and understand, that he knew how this (his crucifixion) was going to turn out, and that result was going to be a victory for the Lord,  not the apparent defeat of a humiliating death on the cross.
This kind of "public showing up of one's opponents" was a core element of the Mediterranean cultural context that is described in the works of John J. Pilch (theologian).  (Titles include The Cultural World of Jesus; The Cultural World of the Apostles, Introducing the Cultural World of the New Testament, and more)

A Rabbi is a teacher, and teacher's teach

  Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the
  Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know
  that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs
  that you do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered him, “Truly,
  truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the
  kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he
  is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be
  born?” (John 3:1–4) {snip}  Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?” (John 3:9–10)

To the last, and even to his last breath, Jesus was teaching all of those who had ears to hear.

  Mark’s (1:22): "He taught them with authority, not like the scribes."

Jesus is also referred to in a number of passages as "Master" which may also be construed to be equivalent to "Teacher" along the lines "Master" and "Apprentice" ...

  In the New Testament the term didàskalos is used 48 times in
  the Gospels, mostly applied to Jesus; and the verb didàskein, to
  teach, is 95 times...prevalently applied to Jesus. Hence Jesus is the
  "master" par excellence of the Christian community.

Many observers at the cross were observant Jews, to include some of the priestly classes.  They would all be familiar with Psalm 22.

Citing the opening line of a psalm can be used as a short hand to allude to the whole of the Psalm.  For example, if today you (assuming some familiarity with the 23rd Psalm) here someone open with "the Lord is my Shephard, I shall not want" it easily keys in your mind and understanding a to the whole of that Psalm.  Jesus is reminding the observers of the 22d psalm, which has a beginning and an end.
So how does Psalm 22 end?

Psalm 22, (25-32)

  For he has not spurned or disdained the misery of this poor wretch, Did not turn away* from me, but heard me when I cried out.
  I will offer praise in the great assembly; my vows I will fulfill before those who fear him.
  The poor* will eat their fill; those who seek the LORD will offer praise.
  "May your hearts enjoy life forever!”
  All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD; All the families of nations will bow low before him.
  For kingship belongs to the LORD, the ruler over the nations.
  *All who sleep in the earth will bow low before God;  All who have gone down into the dust will kneel in homage.
  And I will live for the LORD; my descendants will serve you.
  The generation to come will be told of the Lord, that they may proclaim to a people yet unborn the deliverance you have brought.

He, Jesus, knows that his Passion ends in victory.  By making reference to that Psalm, which is easily recognized by how it begins, Jesus tells all who have ears to hear, how this (what he's going through) ends.

Put into a modern context and into contextual phrasing, the message from Jesus up on the cross, in immense pain and suffering, is this: he is telling his tormenters and enemies "You may think you have me now, but I know where this is going - and you aren't winning."  As www.gffg.info pointed out ...

  "The Spirit of Christ, which was in the prophets, testifies in this
  psalm, clearly and fully, the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that
  should follow." -Matthew Henry


What's the tradition behind hand holding during the Our Father at Mass?

It is not a prescribed part of the liturgy, and appears to be an accretion from Protestant tradition. One authoritative source says

To find the rubrics (regulations which govern the Mass) concerning these gestures, one may turn to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (1970), On Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery Outside of Mass (1973), Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery (1980), and Instruction on Certain Norms Concerning the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery (1980).
However, in all of the liturgical documents for the universal Church or of those particular ones issued by the United States Bishops Conference, no where is the holding of hands during the Lord's Prayer mandated. Frankly, this gesture arose among the various liturgical innovations in the aftermath of Vatican Council II.

He goes on to surmise (probably accurately)

Perhaps the holding of hands was introduced with good intentions to highlight the unity of the congregation as they pray, "Our Father," not "My Father."

As you say, there are those whose attitude towards the practice ranges from uneasiness to revulsion, and for those people the practice must be counter-productive!
That same commentator goes on to explain why it's not even necessary.

The unity that is sought really comes later and after a spiritual progression: First, we fall on our knees as the priest offers the sacrifice of the Mass: we recall not only our Lord's passion, death, and resurrection but also our need as individuals to offer ourselves to Him. Second, we pray in the words our Savior taught us, the Lord's Prayer, in which we ask, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us," even the person next to us in the pew. Third, we offer the Sign of Peace, a gesture found in the earliest Masses to show a genuine unity based on peace and forgiveness. Finally, we receive Holy Communion, which truly brings us into communion with our Lord and with each other. Looking at the logic of this spiritual progression to real unity, the holding of hands at the Our Father is extraneous.

At least one bishop is reported to have explicitly discouraged the practice:

WCPO reports that Bishop Foys [of Covington KY] wrote:

Special note should also be made concerning the gesture for the Our Father. Only the priest is given the instruction to "extend" his hands. Neither the deacon nor the lay faithful are instructed to do this. No gesture is prescribed for the lay faithful in the Roman Missal ; nor the General Instruction of the Roman Missal , therefore the extending or holding of hands by the faithful should not be performed.


Does a Christian who commits sins against Christian doctrine and commandments still remain Christian?

My Background: predominantly Southern Baptist.

Summary: you can have works without faith but not faith without works. Your faith saves you but your works are evidence of your faith. It isn't that your bad works take away your salvation, they just show that it was never there.

Ephesians 2:8-9, along with a number of other verses, clearly state that our faith saves us apart from our works.

  "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of
  yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that
  no one may boast"

James 2:14-26 explains that our works demonstrate the existence of our faith. Just as Jesus said that a tree is known by its fruit. James also explains that faith isn't just an intellectual assent to facts but it is rather a decision to trust in those facts. He says in verse 19, "You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder". Satan believes in God, but he decided not to follow him. A human can believe that God exists but choose not to place his trust in Him.

Christians do sin, but it should be a struggle. Paul depicts this struggle in Romans 7:14:25 where he says, "For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate"(v15). We sin, but we hate it.

1 John 3 talks about this and can initially be confusing. Is says in verse 6, "No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him". After reading that chapter one could be left wondering who could ever be a christian. I think the key is verse 9 where it says, "No one who is born of God practices sin", with an emphasis on "practices". This chapter is talking about habitual sin. You will find this explanation in most commentaries that bring up the Greek verb tense means, "does not live a life style of habitual sin".

If you are looking to draw a line with which you can measure if someone is saved or not based on the quantity of sin in their life, then you will probably not find an answer. I used to struggle a lot with that. In the end I realized that I was asking the wrong question. How would an answer help me? Rather than asking, "how close can I get to the line", I realized that I should ask, "how close can I get to God". Then I started living for Him and forgot about the question.

So when you look at a life and you see habitual sin, it should reasonably make you doubt that person's faith and subsequent salvation. There could be people who have good works who don't have faith though. Since I am not God, and therefore do not know the hearts of men, I try not to judge that status of their eternal salvation. However, if their conduct makes me doubt, then I let that drive in me an urgency to make more sure of their salvation.

In conclusion, 2 Peter 1:5-11:

  "5 Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith
  supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, 6
  and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control,
  perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, 7 and in your
  godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. 8
  For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you
  neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus
  Christ. 9 For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted,
  having forgotten his purification from his former sins. 10 Therefore,
  brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling
  and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will
  never stumble; 11 for in this way the entrance into the eternal
  kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly
  supplied to you"


The wise men were spoken to, by God himself (not, as stated, by an angel) in a dream :

  And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way. [Matthew 2:12, KJV.]

If God spoke to them - and they clearly heard him, since they took note of it - then, being in communication with God (himself, not an angel), they thus believed in God.

And having gone on a journey which took two years to complete (the time which Herod took note of, in his calculation as to which children to slaughter) and which would necessitate another two years in which to get home, surely they did so not to merely visit the entry into the world of just another human being (not to belittle such events, but really, four years !) they came for a serious purpose.

  Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. [Matthew 2:16, KJV.]

They were wise. Wiser, in context, than the Jews who had received so much divine revelation, it appears. And is probably the whole point of Matthew recording the matter, in his particular account and with his particular aspect of Christ in mind, to highlight this devotion from outside of Israel as a testimony to unbelieving Israel.

Yes, I would say these men were believers and remarkably and devoted so, it appears.

  When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: [Matthew 2:11, KJV.]


Do Western Christians confuse Mysticism with Emotionalism?

I can tell you what Catholicism has to say about it, for the most part. Though, if you're looking for some survey of western Christians to get some sense of what all of them think mysticism is, this isn't the forum for that. But, even without a poll, I can say with high confidence that most Christians, especially those from larger denominations like Catholicism, don't know their own doctrines sufficiently. And they likely have no idea what what we mean when we call one of our saints a mystic.

That said, proper mysticism is not emotionalism, and it's not anti-rational; it's superrational.

Christian mysticism is the "quest" to come into an intimate, unitive relationship with God, God willing. And since God is well-beyond comprehension, mystical experiences and practices are necessarily "foggy" and "mysterious."  However, the fruits of a mystical experience (the fruits of contemplation) can always be verified rationally by comparing their message with that of Word of God and the Church.

But, the best way to see that proper mysticism is not an emotionalism, I think, is to examine some mystics, their experiences, and their insights. You'll definitely find some emotional experiences in their bios. And, you should expect to find emotion in a relationship. But, these aren't the highlights of their stories. The highlights are the ecstatic, confusing climaxes of their contemplative experiences, and the fruits that follow. Unlike what an emotional experience can yield, these experiences yield prophetic and/or genius-like insight, transcendent peace, and profound love (in the sense of willing the good of others as other).

Two very notable Catholic mystics.
 - St. Theresa of Avila (on Wikipedia and Catholic Encyclopedia)
 - St. John of the Cross, Doctor of mystic theology (on Wikipedia and Catholic Encyclopedia)

And I think it has been well-argued that John the Apostle and St. Paul were mystics. And you can refer to their NT writings. The Gospel of John, in particular, has a pretty heavy mystical feel to it.

I think it's also important to point out that Christianity -- Catholicism and Orthodoxy in the least -- are highly mystical religions. We don't necessarily call every Christian a mystic, but the practices (even basic prayer) have an end-goal that is ultimately mystical. That is, we're trying to unite with God in whatever manner God desires. And, we acknowledge that this relationship is beyond understanding (it's a mystery),but we work with God to attain (receive) that unity anyway -- that's mysticism.

But again, if you're looking for an answer that represent what most Christians believe, regardless of the dogma to which they subscribe, I'd wager most of them have little to no idea what mysticism is.


Do the Orthodox and Catholic Churches allow participation in each others' services?

From a Catholic point of view, there is no problem with (a) a Roman Catholic attending an Orthodox Divine Liturgy and receiving communion or (b) an Orthodox attending a Roman Catholic mass and receiving communion. This is, however, restricted to circumstances when a Roman Catholic mass is unavailable.

The Orthodox position is different; Roman Catholics would not be permitted to receive communion in an Orthodox church and Orthodox would not be permitted to receive in a Roman Catholic church.

I've had surprising difficulty finding documentation for this, but here's an EWTN article explaining the Catholic position and here's an Orthodox Church of America page explaining the Orthodox position. They aren't exactly the best sources imaginable, but they are accurate in my experience.


Is there a connection between St. Ambrose's "casta meretrix" and Apocalypse 17,1?

Rahab a type for the Church
St. Ambrose uses the phrase "casta meretrix" in In Lucam III:23 (Patrologiae Latina XV, 1681):

Rahab illa typo meretrix (Josue, ii, 1), mysterio ecclesia indicavit: quae multorum convenarum publicæ non recusat, et quo conjunctior pluribus, castior; immaculata virgo, sine ruga, pudore integra, amore plebeia, casta meretrix, vidua sterilis, virgo fecunda. Meretrix, quia a pluribus amatoribus frequentatur cum dilectionis illecebra, et sine colluvione delicti: "Qui," enim, "adhæret meretrici, unum corpus est." (I Cor., vi, 16). Vidua sterilis, quæ viro parare non norit absente: venit vir, et hunc populum plebemque generavit. Virgo fecunda, quæ hanc genuit multitudinem cum fructu amoris, sine usu libidinis.

Rahab [Joshua 2:1] — who as a type was a prostitute, but as a mystery is the Church — showed in her blood the future sign of Universal Salvation amid the world’s carnage; she does not refuse to unite herself with numerous fugitives, and is all the more chaste in the extent to which she is closely joined to the greater number of them; she is the immaculate virgin, without a wrinkle, uncontaminated in her modesty, plebeian in her love, a chaste whore, a barren widow, a fecund virgin.* A whore because she frequents many lovers with the enticements of love: For "he who is joined to a harlot is one body" (1 Cor. 6:16). A barren widow who does not bear when her husband is absent; the husband coming, she gives birth to this people and nation. A fertile virgin who gives birth to this multitude with the fruit of love, without the use of lust.

*translation up to here from St. Ambrose scholar Cdl. Giacomo Biffi's Casta Meretrix: “The Chaste Whore,” An Essay on the Ecclesiology of St. Ambrose, as quoted in Br. André Marie's "Is the Church a 'Harlot'?"; what followers is my translation.
St. Ambrose's "casta meretrix" illustrates the sanctity of the Church and its necessity for salvation.
Br. André Marie's "Is the Church a 'Harlot'?" also includes the following quote from Casta Meretrix: “The Chaste Whore,” An Essay on the Ecclesiology of St. Ambrose, which shows that St. Ambrose was arguing for the doctrine that extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation):

Ambrose says that she “as a type was a prostitute but as a mystery is
the Church, united now to the Gentiles by the sharing of the
sacraments.” …
The “typical” use of Rahab — a contradictory character, to whom was
attributed both an unworthy profession and a praiseworthy and
providential action — was already a classic in Christian literature.
Matthew’s Gospel has recalled her in the genealogy of Jesus (Matthew
1:5). The Letter to the Hebrews had featured her as an example of the
faith which saves (Hebrews 11:31). St. James, concerned with other
aspects of theology, had emphasised her justification obtained through
works, i.e., through the good deed that she did for the Hebrew scouts
(James 2:25). Clement of Rome, almost as though trying to synthesise
and reconcile the two texts, had written, “Through her faith and her
hospitality, Rahab the prostitute was saved” (I ad Corinthios 12:1).
After Clement, who dwells a long time on the episode of Joshua 2:1-21,
reading it in the light of the Redemption worked by Christ (cf. I ad
Corinthios 12:1-8), a definite ecclesiological interpretation of the
figure of Rahab is clearly delineated — from Justin to Irenaeus, to
Origen, to Cyprian. Indeed, it is through reflection upon the “house
of the prostitute” — the only house in Jericho which preserved its
occupants from death — that the famous principle emerged of extra
Ecclesiam nulla salus [outside the Church there is no salvation].
“No one could be deceived in this regard,” writes Origen, “no one
could be mistaken; outside of the house, that is to say outside of the
Church, there is no salvation.’ (Om. in Josue 3:4).
Cyprian in turn writes, “Do you think that you can live if you detach
yourself from the Church, building yourself other houses and different
dwelling places, when Rahab, prototype of the Church, was told that
anyone who left the door of her house would be guilty?” (De unitate
ecclesiae 8).
[In a footnote, His Eminence adds:] “In Cyprian, the principle of
“extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” is linked to the truth of the maternity
of the Church: “no one can have God for a father who does not have the
Church for a mother” (De unitate ecclesiae 6).

The Fathers do not interpret the whore of Apocalypse 17:1 as the Church.
As quoted in the Rheims English New Testament (PDF p. 586), (pseudo?-)Ambrose wrote:

This great whore sometime signifieth Rome, specially which at that time when the Apostle wrote this, did persecute the Church of God. But otherwise it signifieth the whole city of the Devil, that is, the universal corps of the reprobate.

Tertullian wrote (Liber adversus Iudaeos):

Babylon in St. John is a figure of the city of Rome, being so great, so proud of the Empire, and the destroyer of the saints.

Fr. Kramer's The Book of Destiny, the most recent in-depth exegesis on the book of the Apocalypse, commentates on Apocalypse 17:1:

A harlot is given to fornication. Ezechiel (XXIII.) calls Israel and Juda harlots, because they practiced the idolatry of the pagan nations bordering on Israel. Fornication and adultery in prophetical language mean apostasy from the true faith and from God. Hence this GREAT harlot is a city whose apostasy from the true faith is a monstrous thing. This may point to Rome. Rome is the Holy City of Christ, the center of His eternal kingdom, as Jerusalem was the center of the theocracy. And the apostasy of this city, and her becoming the head of an empire that would lead all possible nations and peoples into antichrist-worship would indeed merit for her the title of THE GREAT HARLOT. The apostles called ancient Rome "Babylon" (1 Peter V. 13). So the conclusion is near that the great harlot of the future shall be Rome. However, in this narration, St. John uses ancient pagan Rome as the model for his portrait of the Babylon of the future. And whichever city it shall be, it will obviously be one that was once entirely Catholic, apostatized from the true faith and became the capital of the kingdom that leads all nations into Antichrist-worship. Primasius says: "meretricem vocans, quia relicto Creatore daemonibus se prostituit" [calling it a harlot because it left the Creator and prostituted itself to demons]. (Swete, p. 213).

related: What is the Catholic interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 [that Antichrist "sitteth in the temple of God"]?


What are the main differences between the Catholic Popes and the Mormon Prophets?

Note: My knowledge on Catholic beliefs is spotty. If anyone Catholic wants to go ahead and fill in the gaps, go ahead. I do not intend to offend any Catholics with it.

When you prophets, I will assume you are talking about the President of the Church, not the other non-president prophets (i.e. members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles).

Before I go on to your six questions, I would like to note the main theological difference: The Pope claims to be able to receive no revelation, but rather is making decisions based on what he thinks is best, and according to scripture. The prophet claims to use both scripture and revelation from God (hence the name) instead of his own decision making.

Anyways, to your six questions.

  (1) If both claim the Petrine Seat(by succession or?).

They both claim to succeed Peter in being the head of the true church of christ, in a documented line of succession from Peter to themselves.

  (2) If both have a College of Bishops/"Highest Teachers" in union with the Pope or Prophet.

I do not know about the Pope, but in the LDS Church there are (usually) 14 other prophets in addition to the prophet. These prophets are also Apostles, seers, and revelators.

  (3) If both have universal jurisdiction as universal pastors of their
  respective churches. Meaning that they can operate in all churches as
  if they were the head of those individual churches, no need to appeal
  to the locals.

I assume the Pope may do so. The Prophet has all the keys of this dispensation, including the leading of local congregations. He usually does not "usurp" local congregations though, since his main duty is being a prophet.

  (4) If both are completely immune from stepping down from the office unless it is their own decision to step down.

I do not know about the Pope. The prophet is subject to God, who can remove him from office if he attempts to lead the church astray (see Official Declaration 1). Additionally, he is subject to disciplinary council of the church if he commits a serious sin.

  (5) If believers are encouraged to listen to the leader above any other in the hierarchy in case of disagreement between the leader and others on none dogmatic issues, as well as disagreements outside of the Church on politics for example.

I assume this is true of the Pope. It is generally recognized in the LDS Church that the Prophet is more accurate than local leaders, though both try to stay in harmony with God (and therefore with each other, indirectly).

  (6) If both claim to be infallible under certain conditions(if so what are they?) by virtue of their office in the eyes of God.

I'm not sure about the Pope. For the LDS Church, see What does the LDS Church teach about infallibility?.


Does anyone know the name of the pharaoh that Joseph brought his family to meet?

I have spent rather too long on this very question... on and off for two or three years.. or was it more? can't remember exactly.  I came to the conclusion that, for the 12th dynasty (about 2000 - 1800 bc), Ulrich Luft's dating was the best offer of the expert Egyptologists.  The other Egyptologists are Ludwig Borchardt, Richard Anthony Parker and Rolf Krauss all with "slightly" differing chronologies considered within the standard chronology which has scope for variation.  Arriving at the real chronology for Egypt is like a huge jig-saw puzzle in which new pieces are being discovered by archaeology all the time.  Some important pieces of the jig-saw have been found since the days of Borchardt relating to co-regencies and reign lengths, and astronomical accuracy has improved since Parker, which leaves just the views of Ulrich and Krauss.
The standard chronology of Egypt puts Userkaf at the beginning of the 5th dynasty about 2500 bc.  This is too early for the life of Joseph.  The only way he might have been Pharaoh is if the Egyptian standard chronology is wrong, and one of the unconventional chronologies, such as that of David Rohl, is correct.
The problem with finding who was Pharaoh is not with the Biblical chronology but with the Egyptian chronology.
However, by taking what we know of the Egyptian chronology and seeing synchronies with the Bible account in the life of Joseph we can have some confidence that Jacob first appeared before either Senusert II (Greek name - Sesostris II) or Senusert III.  Both these ruled during the 12th dynasty of the Middle Kingdom era.  The latter half of the 12th dynasty is said to have been a golden age for Egypt. It is clear to me that Joseph played the central role in bringing about that golden age.
Astronomical data to help discover the reign years of the Pharaohs of the 12th dynasty include 1. the lunar observations from Il Lahun; 2. 40 other lunar observations; 3. a heliacal rising of the star Sirius on 4 Peret 16 in the 7th year of an unnamed Pharaoh (but who was either Senusert III or Amenemhat III).
The problem with dating based on lunar observational dates is that the moon follows a 19 year cycle so that dates tend to be close to repeating themselves every 19 years.
The problem with dating based on a heliacal rising of Sirius/Sothis is that though the most likely candidate was the city of Memphis, we cannot be sure from what location the observation was made, and if the observation had been made from Elephantine in southern Egypt then the year of observation is several decades later.  Rolf Krauss favours observations from Elephantine, Ulrich Luft believes the observations were made from Memphis.  The ancient Egyptians said that Sirius disappeared for 70 days in spring/early summer each year - exactly 70 days only happens at Memphis.  The history of Moses only fits Egyptian history if Memphis was the city of observation in the 18th dynasty; in later history, in the 6th century AD we are told that the observations were done at Memphis ("Ancient Egyptian Chronlogy" edited by Hornung, Krauss & Warburton, 2006, p440); and Memphis best fits for a synchrony of Egyptian history with the life of Joseph as well.
Whatever the reasons why Krauss would want to shift the city of location (ibid, p441), if we are to believe the scriptural account of the life of Moses then we must hold to Memphis as the city of observation.
[In a nutshell: Moses returned to Egypt after 40 years living with his father-in-law Jethro, after the death of the pharaoh who sought to kill him (Exodus 2:15, 2:23, 4:19; Acts 7:23, 7:30).  If the heliacal rising of Sirius was made from Memphis then this plainly fits with the long reign of Thutmoses III ending in 1450 bc.  The other proposed city of observation puts the death of Thutmoses III at 1425 bc, which does not fit an Exodus date of 1446 bc: no other pharaoh of the 18th dynasty before Thutmoses III had a reign longer than 25 years.]
The Biblical Chronology
Jacob entered Egypt with the children of Israel in 1876 bc at the time that would later be called Passover. This can be calculated from Exodus 12:40,41. At least two independent methods establish the date of the Exodus as 1446 bc.
The first method was calculated first by Valerius Coucke and then independently by Edwin Thiele: they both calculated the beginning of the Temple construction by Solomon in 967 bc. Then 967 + 479 gives 1446 bc for the Exodus (1 Kings 6:1).
In the second method the Seder Olam, a chronology produced in the 1st century, tells us that Ezekiel is writing about a Jubilee Year in Ezekiel 40:1 and that this was the 17th Jubilee Year since entering the Promised Land.  Compare this verse with Leviticus 25:9 - Rosh Hashanah, New Year's Day, fell on the 10th of the month only in a Jubilee Year.
The cuneiform inscription VAT 4956 is an astronomical record of Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year and contains enough astron. information to confidently date it to the year starting 1st Nisanu 568 bc.  The complete configuration of all the planets described on VAT 4956 only happens every few thousand years - eg Saturn's described position only happens every 29.5 years (so the Watchtower proposed year of planetary observations on VAT 4956 of 588 bc is not possible).  VAT 4956 effectively puts the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar at 587 bc (Jeremiah 52:29) and the Year of Jubilee in Ezekiel 40:1 as 573 bc....   573 bc + (49 * 17) + 40 = 573 + 833 + 40 = 1406  + 40 years in the wilderness = 1446 bc.
In my opinion the date of 1406 bc for the beginning of the conquest of the Promised Land is convincingly supported by the evidence found in the archaeological site at Jericho.  (For more on this see: How do Christians reconcile archeology with the Bible in the account of the Battle of Jericho?)
And 430 years before 1446 is 1876 bc (Exodus 12:40,41).
Even though his date for the Exodus is about 1446 BC, David Rohl puts Joseph as ruling Egypt about 1667 bc and Jacob's descent into Egypt at about 1662 bc ("A Test of Time", p331).  He does not take account of Exodus 12:40,41 in his chronology, so his chronology does not agree with Scripture.
In the early part of the Twelth Dynasty the local "nomarchs" (barons) had enormous power undermining the power of the pharaoh.  During the reign of Senusert III this power was broken and a huge centralised royal administration sprang up with great speed.  Egyptologists recognise this transfer of power did not happen because of any civil war.

_The domestic policy of Senusert III "centred on the re-organization of the administrative system.  Since the Old Kingdom (2686-2181 BC), the major threat to royal power had probably come from the nomarchs, the provincial governors; a shift in the funerary patterns of the elite (a decline in [the grandeur of] provincial tombs) may indicate that Senusert III reduced their authority drastically by removing many of their established privileges.  The means by which this was achieved is unclear, but henceforth it was the king's 'viziers' who oversaw all branches of administration." ("British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt", Shaw & Nicholson).

This mystery of the Middle Kingdom era fits neatly with the seven years of famine when Joseph bought Egypt for the Pharaoh.
For more on the amazing synchronies between the Bible and Egyptian history using the Egyptian standard chronology of Ulrich Luft see my answer here:- Why we do we "know" that Joseph wasn't Hyksos?.
Books
To those interested in a general overview of Egyptian history I recommend "British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt" by Ian Shaw and Paul Nicholson (2nd edition).
Those who want to try and get to grips with the chronology of the 12th dynasty (2000 - 1800 bc) will sooner or later need to get to grips with "Die chronologische Fixierung des agyptischen Mittleren Reiches nach dem Tempelarchiv von Illahun" by Ulrich Luft, 1992.  Though I cannot read German I found I this indispensible for info on the "40 other lunar observations". If you can read German then please translate the work into English!
Also "Lunar and Sothic data from the archive of El-Lahun revisited"; A paper by Rita Gautschy in "Current Research in Egyptology 2010 - Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Symposium - Leiden University 2010".
"Ancient Egyptian Chronology", edited by E. Hornung, Rolf Krauss,  and D. Warburton, 2006.
Free Online Information
LYNN ROSE
The Astronomical Evidence for Dating the End of the Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt to the Early Second Millennium: A Reassessment
Website: The Star Sirius in Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, by Rita Gautschy
http://www.gautschy.ch/~rita/archast/sirius/siriuseng.htm
Website: Last and First sightings of the lunar crescent, by Rita Gautschy  (Egypt used the last sighting of old crescent, everyone else (Babylon, etc) used first sighting of new crescent to determine first day of each month)
http://www.gautschy.ch/~rita/archast/mond/mondeng.html