What is the basis for not believing sola scriptura?

Sola Scriptura isn't taught in the Bible

Sola scriptura is a self-refuting doctrine because it is extra-Biblical and therefore not consistent with its own principle of "Scripture alone." Rather, we find the following biblical instructions to maintain traditions that were not passed down in biblical writings:

  "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you" (1 Corinthians 11:2, NRSV).

  "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter" (2 Thessalonians 2:15, NRSV).

In other words, the Bible itself teaches Scripture plus tradition(s).

Some might argue that verses such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 or Revelation 22:18-19 provide support for sola scriptura, but it should be kept in mind that γραφή (graphē | "writings"/"Scripture") almost always refers to the Hebrew Bible ("Old Testament").1

Sola scriptura did not originate until the 14th century and did not become widespread until the 16th century. It's already been established that the Bible does not teach sola scriptura, so where did it come from? It was clearly invented by men (Wycliffe, Luther, et. al.).

Most Christians didn't have Bibles

The books of the New Testament were likely not completed until the end of the first century.2 This means there were approximately 60 years between Christ's ascension and the completion of all of the works of the New Testament.

But even then, those works weren't compiled into any official canon until hundreds of years later in history, and many Christians only had some of the works and often several that are not part of the modern Christian canon. Also, the concept of 'canon' at that time had little to do with determining what books had 'authority' or were 'Scriptural' (that word simply means 'writings'), but rather which books would be read during public worship (in fact, Revelation was always excluded from this list until much later in history). It should also be noted that the 'Hebrew Bible' read by most Christians for hundreds of years was the Greek Septuagint which contained numerous books that are not in the modern Protestant biblical canon, and the text conflicts with the Hebrew/Masoretic in numerous places (and this is also the version of the Bible most frequently cited in the New Testament—not the Hebrew version used by Protestants today). In fact, Jesus himself quoted books that have been excluded from Protestant Bibles.3

To complicate things even further, literacy rates were generally low until the medieval period in the West (and history shows that heresy and higher literacy rates are strongly correlated4). Add to this the fact that books were generally too expensive for the common person until after the invention of the printing press in the 15th century, so for most of Church history, the majority of Christians have not had access to a Bible (including many clergy). This means that Christianity was largely passed on through tradition and word-of-mouth instruction for most of its history.

The Church produced the Bible—not vice versa

As evidenced above, the Church predates the formation of the Bible. Not only were there numerous books that were disputed and read in many Christian communities (even to this day), but there were also notable manuscript differences between existing copies of texts and vast differences between various translations of those texts and their supposed originals. In addition, the formation of the biblical canon was a long and complicated process with underlying pragmatic, theological, and even political concerns. Ultimately, various factions of the Christian church decided which books were 'canonical'—and there is still disagreement among Christians on which texts these are to this day.5 The basis for these decisions was usually whether or not these texts were faithful to the apostolic tradition(s) that has been passed down in the Church (keep in mind that no one agreed on which texts were 'authoritative' yet).

Proponents of sola scriptura must trust that the Church got the biblical canon right. If the books were 'self-authenticating' (as many Protestants like to claim), then why would so many Christians have disputed their status, to include folks like Athanasius, Jerome, and Augustine? Why would 'self-authenticating' works take hundreds of years to be accepted? The 'self-authentication' idea simply does not hold up under historical scrutiny. The Bible itself contains no authoritative list of what books are 'Scriptural' / 'canonical' or not (and even if it did, claims of authenticity are not guarantees of it, or else numerous Gnostic texts that the Church unanimously excluded would not have been).

None of the original biblical manuscripts are extant

All that we have are copies of copies of.... We have to rely on the copyists. The field of textual criticism has shown that copyists were far from being inerrant and infallible. The manuscript evidence shows that scribes sometimes modified the biblical texts to harmonize passages, to correct historical errors, and to establish later theological doctrines. The Bible itself makes no claims about God divinely protecting the transmission of manuscripts, and even if it did, it is clear that there are numerous transmission errors. Granted, many of these differences do not affect major teachings or sections of text, but some do. Even if one insists on God's preservation of the biblical texts, then would he not also perfectly preserve Jesus and the apostles' oral teachings as well?

The reality is that many proponents of sola scriptura also believe in an inerrant and infallible Bible that doesn't exist. It's just as much a leap of faith as belief in the preservation of apostolic tradition(s).

The 'fruit' of Sola Scriptura is division and disunity

Jesus taught that one of the criteria for identifying false prophets is to watch for 'bad fruit' (Matthew 7:15-20), and he prayed to his Father for his disciples "that they may all be one... so that the world may believe that you have sent me" (John 17:21, NRSV). The apostle Paul also often exhorted Christians to remain in peace and unity (1 Corinthians 1:10-17, Ephesians 4:1-16), pointing out that

  "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all" (Ephesians 4:4-6, NRSV).

Given that there were at least 33,000 Protestant denominations in the US alone in 2005, it's safe to say that Protestantism is extremely divided. Granted, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are not without their own controversies and divisions, but they handle them quite differently—generally remaining Catholic/Orthodox despite disagreement on some issues (and there is rarely disagreement on the big issues such as salvation, Eucharist, justification, etc. as in Protestantism, where most groups have distinctive teachings about such issues). This shows that Protestant teaching on many issues continuously changes over time, showing that biblical interpretation within a sola scriptura framework is often subjective and mutable. Indeed there are few Protestants who even maintain the teachings of their Reformation forebears (e.g. Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary).

Sola scriptura is a logical fallacy

In addition to the self-refuting axiom that the Bible itself doesn't teach sola scriptura (and thus it is a man-made doctrine), the argument can be shown to rely on faulty assumptions as well. A fundamental assumption of proponents is that the meaning of Scripture is clear enough that anyone could understand it by simply reading it, and thus no one needs the Church's (or any authority's) help in the process (despite the text itself saying the exact opposite about itself in Acts 8:26-40 and 2 Peter 3:161). If this were true, then why are there 33,000+ Protestant denominations all claiming to correctly interpret the Bible?

The reality is that subjective human reason is the ultimate authority for proponents of sola scriptura. One cannot read a text without having first learned the language in which it was written (this alone brings a huge subjective bias/context to the text, hence the study of hermeneutics). Since a majority of Bible-readers do not know Greek, Hebrew, nor Aramaic, most of them rely on translations. Setting aside translation bias (another significant factor), this means that most readers use a secondary source to read the text. On top of this, most folks are largely ignorant of the historical, linguistic, and literary setting(s) forming the context(s) of the biblical text(s), and scholars are continuously learning new things about these contexts that affect biblical interpretation. When variant readings are present, or a variety of possible meaning is present in a text, how is the correct interpretation decided? By subjective human reason and the choice of the individual. Thus sola scriptura elevates human reason as the final authority over the meaning of the text (regardless of how thousands of years of Christians have interpreted it in the past).

1 The notable exception is 2 Peter 3:16, which is likely pseudepigraphal and most likely written much later than a majority of other New Testament texts. Even so, scholars who accept 2 Peter as 'canonical' also recognize that γραφή refers exclusively to the Hebrew Bible for most NT authors. Even if it doesn't, much of the NT was not yet written nor compiled at the time of many such references (how could Timothy know Scriptures 'from infancy' that hadn't been written until he was a young adult?). In addition, 2 Peter 3:16 actually teaches that some texts are hard to understand, and 1:20 teaches that individuals should not derive the meaning of prophecy from private interpretation. Combined with texts such as Acts 8:26-40, a strong case could even be made that the Bible teaches that Scripture requires proper interpretation—and not privately by individuals.

2 I'm aware of the numerous disputes about the dating of various texts. For a hyper-conservative estimate, subtract 30 years from my calculations.

3 For some examples, compare the following passages: Matt. 6:14-15 with Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 28:2; Matt. 6:7 with Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 7:15(14); Matt. 7:12 with Tobit (Tobias) 4:16(15); Luke 12:18-20 with Sirach 11:19 (Ecclus. 11:19-20); Acts 10:34 with Ecclus. 35:15 (Sirach 35:12); Acts 10:26 with Wisdom 7:1; and Matt. 8:11 with Baruch 4:37.

4 Yes, yes, I know. Correlation does not equal causation. To evaluate this claim for yourself, cf. Peter Biller & Anne Hudson. Heresy and Literacy, 1000-1530 (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature) (Cambridge University Press, 1996). Cf. also Brian Stock. The Implications of Literacy: Written Language and Models of Interpretation in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Princeton University Press, 1987). It is interesting that the only historical proponents of arguing solely from Scripture were heretics (and even Protestants consider most of them to be heretics).

5 Cf. Lee Martin McDonald. The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, And Authority, 3rd ed. (Hendrickson Publishers, 2007). McDonald is an evangelical scholar. There is much more dissenting scholarship on the issue but this is a good start.


Is the sequencing of three tests of Jesus at Matthew 22 in chronological order?

The detail of the order in which the 'tests' (as you refer to them) are arranged is just one part of the evidence regarding the purpose of each book.
Each of the four gospel accounts is quite clearly covering the period of Jesus' presence on earth according to a certain aspect of Jesus Christ's Person.
That aspect is the purpose of the book - to convey a view of Him.
The four together form a complete revelation. Which is then supplemented by the apostolic doctrine of the epistles and the further Revelation in conclusion.
Each account of the 'tests' conveys a different aspect. And chronology is subservient to the expression of that aspect.
It may be that one of those accounts is in chronological order but which one it is, is not actually relevant. What is relevant is Whom He is and What He is.
For that is the purpose of the four books.
John tells us that such was the activity during that period of time, such the complication of interlocking events, such the extent and profundity of what was happening, that if all were documented in fine detail, then he supposes that the world (of men) itself could not properly contain (in sensible documented form) all the content.
But these are written, says John - that we may believe.
And Luke says that many took in hand to write accounts but they had  not the full knowledge to do so. Wherefore, he took the task upon himself.
What we have, is what we are supposed to have.
No more and no less.
It may be that what you have seen (a series of 'tests') was not actually a feature in the mind of the writers as they wrote. That there appears to be a certain 'pattern' may - or may not - be relevant.
What is important is the overall purpose of the four authors - and of the One Author of them all.


The Rosary is a very old artifact indeed and has evolved in time, the actual form of the Rosary is not what it was in the very beginning.

Rosary is a style of mental prayer that is based on repetition. This has been a tradition for many centuries since the early ages of monasticism. The emphasis upon repetition of brief, monologistic, prayer formulae laid the foundations for later monastic prayer traditions such as the Jesus Prayer and is the background for analogous forms of devotion in Latin Christianity such as the Hail Mary and Rosary.  (Columba Stewart OSB)

The modern form of the Rosary may took its form when Domique de Guzman preached in favor of it. This also led to the story that the Virgin Mary delivered the Rosary to Dominique.

In its actual form, the purpose of the rosary is to meditate in its mysteries while repeating Ave Maria etc… Repetition is useful to achieve concentration and focus. The Mysteries of the Rosary are essential facts in the life of Jesus, except for the Assumption of Mary and the Coronation of the Blessed Virgin which are related to very old church traditions. It is not the purpose of the question to explain all of the mysteries, but a full list can be found in wiki. Meditation in the mysteries of the rosary is something that most christians do but in different ways (reading/studying the Bible, public preaching etc).

Probably you should not get a Rosary. If you want one, or you are curious about this type of prayer I recommend you to read the article or Steward (link above) in order to have more insight in this form of prayer. Then you only need to pray the Rosary and get used to it. Maybe you'll notice how the grace sheds a new light upon the mysteries of our faith.


Do Catholics believe that Mary is above all other humans in holiness?

Mary's dignity and all of her privileges follow from her vocation, which is from all eternity God chose her to be His Mother, therefore this places her in a realm distinct not only from all the saints, but from all the angels as well.

  The Virgin Mary, who at the message of the angel received the Word of
  God in her heart and in her body and gave Life to the world, is
  acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and Mother
  of the Redeemer. Redeemed by reason of the merits of her Son and
  united to Him by a close and indissoluble tie, she is endowed with the
  high office and dignity of being the Mother of the Son of God, by
  which account she is also the beloved daughter of the Father and the
  temple of the Holy Spirit. Because of this gift of sublime grace she
  far surpasses all creatures, both in heaven and on earth. At the same
  time, however, because she belongs to the offspring of Adam she is one
  with all those who are to be saved. She is "the mother of the members
  of Christ . . . having cooperated by charity that faithful might be
  born in the Church, who are members of that Head." Wherefore she is
  hailed as a pre-eminent and singular member of the Church, and as its
  type and excellent exemplar in faith and charity. The Catholic Church,
  taught by the Holy Spirit, honors her with filial affection and piety
  as a most beloved mother. - Dogmatic Constitution on the Church,
  Lumen gentium, 53

And she is holier than they because she placed no obsatcle to this unique grace from God, saying yes to God all they days of her life, faithfully corresponding with all graces:

  And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to
  me according to your word.” - Lk 1:38 (RSVCE).

Many saints and doctors of the Church consider that the initial grace in Mary was greater than the final grace of all other beings.


Was Abel regenerated before the offering according to the Calvinist?

Calvin addresses this in his commentary on Genesis 4, arguing that Abel was already accepted by God when he made this offering:

  We must, however, notice the order here observed by Moses; for he does not simply state that the worship which Abel had paid was pleasing to God, but he begins with the person of the offerer; by which he signifies, that God will regard no works with favor except those the doer of which is already previously accepted and approved by him.

A bit later, Calvin states the general principle, that everything done "before faith" is offensive to God:

  All works done before faith, whatever splendor of righteousness may appear in them, were nothing but mere sins, being defiled from their roots, and were offensive to the Lord, whom nothing can please without inward purity of heart

In Calvin's thought, faith and regeneration go hand in hand – in this section, he writes "faith is a gratuitous gift of God, and a special illumination of the Spirit" – so thus we see that Calvin believed that Abel was already regenerated and saved at the time of this offering.


What is the purpose and basis of the stigmata?

Stigmata is a grace given to a follower of Christ₁, meaning
Stigmata is not public revelation, nor could it be. So it's not biblical in the way the 7 Sacraments (Baptism, Marriage, the Eucharist, Reconciliation, Holy Orders, Last Rites and Confirmation) are.
These private revelations often come directly from Christ Himself.  It is contingent on the authority of the Church ₂ to quash belief in a particular private revelation or allow it to continue.

₁ do all work miracles? (1 Cor 12:29)

₂ thou art peter (Matt 16:18))


Would Jewish religious leaders have travelled by horse or camel i.e. Saul?

This is actually an interesting topic because there is much debate about it!

Tradition has held that Saul/Paul rode a horse to Damascus, but when you read the verses that deal with this, a horse is not mentioned. So there seems to be a hint in tradition that he rode a horse but scripture does not back it up. So here it depends on how much you rely on tradition and the origins of this specific one.

Similarly, our nativity scenes (tradition) depict the wise men as riding camels. They were foreigners, not Jews, but this knowledge mixed with a knowledge of the middle east as being inhabited by horses and camels suggests they could have ridden either. It was also common to ride donkeys or asses (see John chapter 12, and this post).


To bless is related to to consecrate. Both imply an act of recognizing and/or declaring and devoting something to have a particular purpose or holiness.

If a father blesses his son's decision in a matter, we mean that the father supports and acknowledges the decision.

If a priest blesses a marriage, he declares, with the approval of the whole Church in the case of Catholic + Orthodox priests, the marriage to be a approved, valid, and holy.

Similarly, when a person or group blesses God, they declare their approval and recognition of God's value, holiness, and "worshippableness" in their own "private" world. It is similar to, but distinct from, praise.

And a blessing always demands a particular type of treatment of the blessed object or person. In the case of God, it demands worship.


According to Preterism has Matthew 19:27-30 been fulfilled? If so, when?

I haven't look at any full preterist sources, but partial preterists like the theologian John Gill take that this passage as fulfilled, so I suspect anyone who is preterist on this passage will agree to a large extent with following excerpts from John Gill's Exposition:

v28. And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, ...

in the regeneration

  not in the resurrection of the dead, or at the last judgment, but in this new state of things, which now began to appear with another face: for the apostles having a new commission to preach the Gospel to all the world

when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory,

  or glorious throne; as he did when he ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God

ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones: judging the twelve tribes of Israel;

  doctrinally and practically; by charging them with the sin of crucifying Christ, condemning them for their unbelief, and rejection of him, denouncing the wrath of God, and the heaviest judgments that should fall upon them, as a nation, for their sin; and by turning from them to the Gentiles, under which judgment they continue to this day.

v29. And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake ...

shall receive an hundredfold,

  in this world; which may be understood either in spiritual things, the love of God, the presence of Christ, the comforts of the Holy Ghost, the communion of saints, and the joys and pleasures felt in the enjoyment of these things, being an hundred times more and better to them, than all they have left or lost for Christ's sake; or in temporal things, so in Mark it seems to be explained, that such shall now receive an hundred fold,

and shall inherit everlasting life

  The other evangelists add, "in the world to come", which is infinitely best of all; for this is an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, which fades not away, reserved in the heavens, when all other inheritances are corruptible, defiled, fading and perishing; houses fall, relations die, friends fail, and lands and estates do not continue for ever: they then have the best of it, who being called, in providence, to quit all terrene enjoyments for Christ's sake, are favoured with his presence here, and shall enjoy eternal glory and happiness with him in another world.


Does the Christian Old Testament have the exact same list of books as the Jewish Bible?

The Christian Old Testament is the Jewish Bible.

They are the same books, but in a different order. Some Christian churches also add the deuterocanonical books, which are not held as scripture by the Jewish Bible.


Is there acceptable pride based on Galatians 6:4 and if so how is it different than regular pride?

Comparing versions of the same verse can be enlightening, but also frustrating. By going to biblestudytools.com, for example, you can compare 25+ versions on the same page! Here's what I found by doing so with the verse in question. I've grouped them according to cognates of the same root words (e.g., pride, glory, rejoice, boast, etc.):

take pride in; then you can be proud; then he/you will take pride; be proud of what you yourself have done; be proud of your own accomplishment; cause for pride

he shall have glory; glorying; cause for glory

then he shall have rejoicing

reason for boasting; he will have his boast; reason to boast; what he has to boast of

don't be impressed with yourself [The Message!]

get the satisfaction of a job well done [New Living Translation]

happy with doing a good job

By looking at various versions, then, we see that the word pride is but one word to describe the phenomenon to which you've drawn our attention. Pride could also be translated legitimately glory, rejoice, be happy and boast.
Furthermore, the denotation and connotation of whichever word you insert into the verse in question has to be flavored by the larger context of Paul's letter to the Galatians; namely, the church's problem with Judaizers, of whom Paul said,

they desire to make a good showing in the flesh (v.12).

A point of pride for them was to get their fellow Galatians to become circumcised (v.13), not because they were scrupulous law-keepers themselves, which they were not (v.13a), but because 1) they wanted to boast of their success in compelling others to conform to their twisted ideas, and 2) they were afraid of being "persecuted for the cross of Christ" (v.12b).
That larger context, then, gives us the smaller context for Paul's mention of pride (or glory, or boasting, or rejoicing, or happiness) in verse 4, since the only legitimate form of pride (and there is one!) has to be based on one's own accomplishments, particularly those which flow out of our devotion to Christ and love for him and for others.
The Judaizers were guilty of illegitimate pride (or boasting, or glorying) because they were more concerned with others' works, especially the visible and fleshly ones (such as circumcision), than they were with their own. In other words, they were blatant hypocrites, holding others to a standard to which they themselves did not hew!
A sinful form of pride, of which the Judaizers were guilty, emerges when we neglect focusing on our own responsibilities and begin to focus on others' responsibilities and how they measure up compared to us and how we measure up compared to them. Such comparisons are fleshly, not spiritual.
The "two-sided coin" of bearing one another's burdens and bearing one's own load brings balance to the Christian's life. We bear others' burdens out of our devotion to Christ and our love for him and for others (v.2). We bear our own load because we all, as Paul said in Philippians 2, are to

work out [our] salvation with fear and trembling (v.12a).

This working out of our salvation is a joint effort of course, with us doing our part and God doing his, since

it is God who is at work in [us] both to will and to work for His good pleasure (v13).

In conclusion, there is a legitimate kind of pride, but even legitimate pride needs to be tempered or reined in by realizing God is ultimately the source of any and all of our accomplishments. Like Paul, our boast should be in the cross of our Lord (v.14) where Jesus bore the infinite burden of the sins of the world, including mine and yours. Compared to his burden there, our burdens here on earth are very light indeed!


Are Paul's letters to be taken as God's word?

The Apostle Peter certainly treated Paul's letters as God's word, elevating them to the status of written scripture:

  He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

2 Peter 3:16, with my emphasis.


What, according to Catholic Church, does the name "Son of Man" signify?

According to the "Son of Man" entry in the Catholic dictionary by Fr. John Hardon, S.J., "Son of Man" is

  The most frequently used title of Christ in the New Testament, occurring eighty-two times and, all but once (Acts 7:55), in the Gospels. A messianic title (Daniel 7:2-14), it identifies the heavenly transcendence of the Savior while stressing his humanity, in contrast with the "Son of God," which emphasizes his divinity.


What is the Book of Mormon story of Christmas?

The Book of Mormon does not have a "story of Christmas" in the same sense as the Bible does, because it was not set in the land of Israel (except for the very beginning of the book.)  Therefore, there is no coverage of the birth of the baby Jesus and the events surrounding it.

It does, however, repeatedly prophesy of the coming of the Savior, that he would be born at Jerusalem and that he would be born of a virgin.  Also, in Helaman chapter 14, we have a prophecy of the birth of Christ, and also of his death, and of the signs that would be given.  Interestingly, these signs are consistent with the Biblical events mentioned, but also much greater than them.  At Jesus's birth, a new star appeared in the sky, and also the sky remained as light as day throughout the night, even though everyone saw the sun go down.  And when Christ died, there were not only earthquakes, but immense devastation throughout the land, consistent with a major volcanic eruption.

The bit about Christ being born at Jerusalem is very interesting, since the Bible clearly states that he was born in Bethlehem, a small town a ways away from the great city.  While at first glance this appears to be an obvious error in the Book of Mormon, modern scholarship has shown the exact opposite: the non-Biblical phrase "the land of Jerusalem" used in the Book of Mormon was an authentic term used to describe the entire region, as shown by writings found in both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Tell el Amarna letters.


You have not scoped this question to any particular Christian denomination, but pretty much all mainstream and even non-mainstream denominations would say that Jesus was not the last prophet.

The Bible contains prophecies that were written by people after Jesus (such as the book of Revelation), and it describes first-century Christian congregations as having prophets. (1 Corinthians 14; Acts 13:1)

Denominations which don't recognize the authority of the Bible still usually rely on private revelation or their own prophet to base their beliefs on.


Why is Satan commonly believed to rule in hell?

I can only answer from a Protestant perspective and that perspective would be from scripture itself, since Protestants professedly believe that scripture is 'binding' (I am quoting here from the the first of the 39 articles of the C of E for want of anything more broadly indicative.)

I cannot find anything that 'explains' why there is a misconception. But misconception, I agree, there definitely is, through (I would say) ignorance of the scripture itself.

So I would suggest that ignorance is the reason for the misconception rather than any party or parties deliberately putting about an error.

I would suggest that it is just superstitious rumour from non-religious sources and from paintings which attempt to depict hellfire, such as those paintings accompanying the written work of Dante Alighieri.

A previous question dealt with the common misconception that the Entity variously referred to as Serpent, Satan and Lucifer (in Hebrew descriptions); as Diabolos, Poneros and Antidikos (in Greek descriptions); and as 'the Devil' (a rather poor English translation) will have the power to torment the souls and bodies of resurrected humans in the lake of fire.

The first answer to that previous question explained from scripture that the misconception was false. However the second answer to the question introduced the concept of the Entity "ruling" in hell - something that the question had not asked.

So this present question focuses on the matter of 'ruling'.

I would agree with the OP here as I, also, cannot find any text of scripture that attributes future 'rule' (in hell) to the Entity so described above. (They are not personal names for no personal name is ever given to that individual, only descriptive titles that convey his activities and characteristics).

The texts only convey (as the OP states) the fact of the presence of Satan, not any activity open to him to conduct in the future.

==========================================================================

The last - specific - mention in the bible of that individual is in Revelation 20:10 :

  ... the diabolos that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone ... [KJV] (I have written 'diabolos' rather than 'devil'.)

Thereafter, in the closing two chapters of scripture, there are two general references in which he would be included with all who are in the same state as he.

Firstly there are those who did not overcome within the context of time and who shall therefore not inherit anything in the new heaven and the new earth, Revelation 21:8. The multiple description ends with the category 'all liars'.

  ... and all liars, shall have their part in the lake of fire which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. [KJV].

Secondly, there are those have no right to the tree of life and thus may not enter the gates of the new city, Revelation 22:15. This multiple description ends with the category 'and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie'.

They are described as being :

  without.

=====================================================================

Thus after being described for the last time, the individual under discussion is no longer given any specific attention and is classed among all those who behaved in similar fashion.

Which, I would say, is conclusive proof that the idea of him 'ruling' anything is a fiction.

To those men, who behaved towards Jesus in a way which was exactly the same as the way in which the Entity behaved towards him, he said :

  Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. John 8:44 [KJV].

The last chapters of the Apocalypse indicate that both the father of liars and  all who are liars like him, shall be together, none ruling another, for ever in the lake of fire.


When did the gathered church stop singing choruses?

Perhaps some early Christians sang choruses at the beginning of worship, but this was not a standard part of the order of worship.
New Testament
From the beginning, worship was centered around the Eucharist.
The New Testament does not contain an order of worship, but Paul mentions worship practices in a few of his letters. He talks about worship songs in two of his letters (see Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16), but he says these are things we should do at all times, not specifically during the weekly gathering. When Paul does speak explicitly of the worship gathering (e.g., 1 Corinthians 11:18-26), he focuses on the Lord's supper.

For, to begin with, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and to some extent I believe it. Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine. When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord's supper. For when the time comes to eat, each of you goes ahead with your own supper, and one goes hungry and another becomes drunk. What! Do you not have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I commend you? In this matter I do not commend you!
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Second Century
The Didache, a late first or early second century document, gives these instructions for worship:

Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day. But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: "In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations."

The Didache also includes specific prayers to offer before and after taking communion, as well as guidelines for how to act toward itinerant preachers and prophets who speak to the congregation. But it does not mention singing.
Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, describes the typical Christian worship of his day:

CHAPTER LXV -- ADMINISTRATION OF THE SACRAMENTS.
But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genoito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

Again, there is no mention of choruses.
But singing is mentioned in a letter from the Roman governor Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan. Pliny had been investigating an anonymous document that accused local Christians of subversive practices. Upon questioning the Christians, Pliny found the truth was more innocuous.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food.

Third Century
The Apostolic Tradition a treatise by Hippolytus of Rome, includes several liturgies for worship and church life. The only mention of singing is in chapter 25, following a community dinner.

After the meal they shall get up and pray, and the children shall sing songs, along with
the virgins.

Summary
I have not been able to find solid evidence that singing choruses at the beginning of worship was widely practiced by early Christians.


According to Reformed Theology, how does one make disciples?

Evangelism is the act of telling someone about Jesus Christ, in the hope that they will convert to Christianity - i.e. that they will become believers in Jesus Christ.

A disciple is someone who is a follower - specifically someone who obeys and puts into practice the teaching of their master. Making a disciple involves teaching people - by education and example - to do what Jesus calls them to do. This is different from someone who is simply a believer. Although belief is a necessary first step to discipleship, someone who is just  a believer may do so without putting his teaching into practice.

Most people and churches who evangelize do hope and expect that their converts will become disciples, and to that extent there is a large overlap. Most churches will do both at least to some extent, and the difference becomes a matter of emphasis.

In the extreme case, a church with a very heavy focus on evangelism can treat their new converts as having 'arrived' i.e. learned and done everything they need to do (with the possible exception of making other converts). All their resources are focussed on the unconverted, seeking to bring them to a point of belief. A church with a strong discipleship focus will teach and mentor new converts more, so that they learn more and follow Jesus better - such teaching continuing for the whole life of a Christian.


The priest referred to is actually William Henry Anderdon. Here is what the Catholic Encylopedia (via Wikipedia) has to say about him:

  William Henry Anderdon (26 December 1816 – 28 July 1890) was an English Jesuit and writer, born in London.1

  After three years at King's College London, he matriculated at Oxford, when about nineteen, and entered Balliol College. Soon after, he won a scholarship at University College, Oxford, and took a degree in 1840. He received Anglican ordination, became vicar of Withyam, and in 1846 of St Margaret's Church, Leicester. In 1850 he was received into the Catholic Church in Paris by Father Gustave Delacroix de Ravignan. Ordained at Oscott by Bishop Ullathorne in 1853, he was appointed a lecturer at Ushaw College and afterwards a preacher and confessor at University Church in Dublin. During his stay in Ireland the Franciscan convent of Drumshambo was founded, mainly through his efforts. In 1856, he was called to London by his uncle, Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, whose secretary he remained until he joined the Jesuits in 1872. From 1875 to 1889 he lived in Manchester, working as preacher, spiritual guide, and writer.

  Father Anderdon began his literary apostolate by writing Catholic tales: "Bonneval, the Story of the Fronde" (1857); "Owen Evans, the Catholic Crusoe" (1862); "Afternoons with the Saints" (1863), "In the Snow, Tales of Mt. St. Bernard" (1866). All these stories, save the first, went through nine or ten editions, and were translated into German and French. Other valuable works from his pen are "Fasti Apostolici" (1882), "Evening with the Saints" (1883) and "Britain's Early Faith" (1887). His method in his writings was to understand rather than to exaggerate. Among his works, the best known are "Is Ritualism Honest?", "Controversial Papers" (1878), "Luther's Words and the Word of God" (8th thousand, 1883), "Luther at Table", "What sort of man was Luther?" (13th thousand, 1883). What do Catholics Really Believe?", "Confession to a Priest" (1881).

  His newspaper work displayed a fine sense of irony in treating the polemics of the day. He was ever busy writing for the Weekly Register, the (English) Messenger of the Sacred Heart, the Xaverian, Merry England, the Month, the Irish Monthly, and other serial publications. His last works were The Old Religion of Taunton (1890); and Five Minutes' Sermons, the latter completed only in part at his death.

  References

  Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). "William Henry Anderdon". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.

  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). "William Henry Anderdon". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton.

A "priest of Rome" is, of course, not a Catholic designation, but a common period English designation for any Roman Catholic priest. The "layman" is certainly not Roman Catholic - the work referred to is an anti-Catholic diatribe and its author is most likely an Anglican.


Does Deuteronomy 18:21-22 still apply today?

Whether or not prophesying (or, at least future-telling prophesying) still happens today is up for debate (see What is the basis for Cessationism).  However, if it does still happen today, then most Christians would agree that the Prophet's Test you mentioned is still very important.

Prophecy is only defined as such when it is a revelation from God.  And since it is impossible for God to lie, any so-called prophecy that proves false must not have been from God.  The principle of the passage still applies: if a prophet speaks presumptuously, asserting God's authority when God's authority was not actually given, that "prophet's" credibility is shot - he cannot be trusted.


Roman Catholic nuns consider themselves a "Bride of Christ," and as such some wear a wedding ring.  This of course assumes that the nun you saw was a Roman Catholic nun.  Some nuns (or similar laity, such as Lutheran deaconesses) in other faiths are not bound by the same celibacy vows or simply do not wear wedding rings.

More information:  Wikipedia - Black Veil


Daniel's timeline - Yom Kippur dates 2024

The Biblical calendar is a "bound lunar" calendar. This means it consists of an exact number of lunar months, but the number of months in any particular year is 12 or 13. This ensures that Passover and other festivals  are always about the same time of year, but not exactly. This differs from the Islamic calendar,  which is "fixed lunar", in which a year is always 12 lunar months, and so Ramadan, and other Islamic observations drift earlier each year.

The question then arises as to whether any particular year in calendars with a Biblical basis should be 12 months or 13. The governing principle is that the Passover, in the month of Nisan, must be after the vernal equinox. If 12 months after the last Passover takes us to a full moon prior to the vernal equinox,  then an extra month must be added before Nisan, and so Passover will be  thirteen months later, not twelve.

12 full moons after Passover 2023 brings us to 25th March 2024. Since this is after the vernal equinox there is no need to add a thirteenth month. Passover is, according to the Biblical principle, March 25th, and Yom Kippur is , as always,  a lttle under 6 months later. That is what Torahcalendar does,  by directly applying astronmical facts to Biblical principles.

Modern Jews, like Catholic,  Protestant and Orthodox Christians, use mathematical models of the sun and moon when calculating Passover/Easter.  In this method a thirteenth month is added on a regular basis 7 times every 19 years. However this has drifted somewhat. The result is that a thirteenth month is added before Nisan 2024. This makes Passover April 23rd 2024, with Yom Kippur a little under 6 months later, October 12.

The month discrepancy is accounted for by the fact that the Rabinic Calendar wrongly (from the astronomical perspective) adds a thirteenth month in 2024 although it is not required or needed to ensure Passover is in the Spring. This will also occur in 2043, 2062 etc.


What is the Catholic practice to find God's will for lay Catholics?

I have found the Ignatian way of spiritual discernment to be helpful. It may not be immediately helpful as, like anything else of value, it takes time to learn. Basically, this practice involves meditation on Christ's life as a means to center and ground your own life in Christ. It also involves becoming more aware of your own affections and dispositions so you can evaluate them and change them as necessary with the goal of following Christ more nearly.
As you engage in this process, you come to see more clearly a path for your life. If there is a Jesuit retreat house near you, you could start there. Or you might explore this online resource: Making Good Decisions.


Other than JWs, which denominations (or religions) recognize God's personal name as the form "Jehovah"?

Matt Slick answers the question, What is the real name of God? YHWH, Jehovah, Yahweh? on his site. He says,

  The real name of God is YHWH, the four letters that make up His name found in Exodus 3:14.  However, there is no correct pronunciation for the name of God because the letters are only consonants, no vowels.

There is no Christian group that I know of that would disagree with that statement. The answer to your specific question is that essentially all Christian groups believe that the Hebrew word transliterated as YHWH or YHVH, and commonly represented in English as Jehovah, is God's personal name.

Two closely related questions are, how should the name be spelled and pronounced; and when should the name be used in addressing or talking about God? Until recently, the word rarely used. Early Christians often used the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, which substituted the Greek word Kyrios for God's personal name, and the Jews came to believe the name should not be used outside of the Temple.

In modern times many Christians are becoming aware of God's original name, and have come to believe it is appropriate to use it in worship. Jehovah's Witnesses are one of the first groups to do so, and have made it an important part of their practice. Many other Christians use a form of the name, either Jehovah, Yehovah, or Yahweh to affirm their personal attachment to God, but there are few or no doctrinal statements about using the name.


What substitutes for prayers for the Pope's intentions during sede vacante?

It's not a prayer for the Pope; it's a prayer for the intention of the Pope.

From the Enchiridion of Indulgences issued on 29 June 1968:

  26. To acquire a plenary indulgence it is necessary to perform the work to which the indulgence is attached and to fulfill the following three conditions:

  • sacramental confession,
  • Eucharistic Communion,
  • and prayer for the
     intention of the Sovereign Pontiff.

  It is further required that all attachment to sin, even venial sin, be absent.

  If the latter disposition is in any way less than perfect or if the prescribed three conditions are not fulfilled, the indulgence will be partial only.

  29. The condition of praying for the intention of the Sovereign Pontiff is fully satisfied by reciting one Our Father and one Hail Mary; nevertheless, each one is free to recite any other prayer according to his piety and devotion.

Although certain functions of the Papacy are carried out during a vacancy under the Cardinal Camerlengo, there is no "Sovereign Pontiff".

Given that a prayer for the intention of the Sovereign Pontiff cannot be properly fulfilled in a vacancy, it would appear that any indulgence will be partial only.


Are the names of all people originally written in the Book of Life?

As with many issues I start with the Summa Theologica (Summary of Theology), by Thomas Aquinas.  Here is one section of use:  http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1024.htm#article3.

Here is an interesting quote:

  "Let them be blotted out from the book of the living" (Psalm 68:29).

So, yes, people can be blotted out of the Book of Life.

We may think we know who should be in that book, as we feel that person is achieved a particular level of holiness, but, God knows all, so there is information He will have that we don't.  So, we may feel someone is definitely going to Heaven, but later they do something that casts doubt on that, so we say they may have been removed from the Book, when they may never have been in there in the first place.

This also leads to the idea of predestination, that Aquinas covers in two parts that help here, but that goes beyond the answer to this question, so I will just give references.
This one deals with whether the Book of Life is predestination
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1024.htm#article1

And whether those predestined for Heaven are chosen by God.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article4


Are Orthodox Christians all the same faith?

This kinda falls into general reference territory.  There are two major groups of "Orthodox" churches.

The Eastern Orthodox Church is one large group of churches that share a common theology. It separated from the Catholic Church (or vice versa, depending on your POV) in 1054 AD.

  Thus many Orthodox Churches adopt a national title (e.g. Albanian
  Orthodox, Bulgarian Orthodox, Georgian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox,
  Russian Orthodox, Macedonian Orthodox, Montenegrin Orthodox, Romanian
  Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox etc.) and this title
  serves to distinguish which language, which bishops, and which of the
  typica is followed by that particular congregation. In the Middle
  East, Orthodox Christians have also been often referred as Roman (or
  Rum) Orthodox, because of their historical connection with the Eastern
  Roman (Byzantine) Empire.

They are the "same type" of church in that they share a theology, but they tend to be ethnically tied - if you go into a Greek Orthodox Church in Texas, you'll still need to speak you some Greek. They don't have a pope, but the group of all their bishops are considered to be the ruling body of the church.

The Oriental Orthodox Church split off earlier (451 AD) over the Council of Chalcedon.

  Despite the potentially confusing nomenclature (Oriental meaning
  Eastern), Oriental Orthodox churches are distinct from those that are
  collectively referred to as the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Oriental
  Orthodox communion comprises six groups: Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian
  Orthodox, Eritrean Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Malankara Orthodox
  Syrian Church (India) and Armenian Apostolic churches.2 These six
  churches, while being in communion with one another, are
  hierarchically independent.

This is a pretty small group however; most Orthodox churches you'll see in the West tend to be of the Eastern Orthodox breed.

These churches are all the same faith in the sense that they recognize each other are Christian, but the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox branches are not in communion with each other (or anyone else, I believe) and consider other branches to be schismatic and more-or-less heretical.

There are a lot of churches with similar names and variants. Of course they are mostly synonyms, a trivial canvas of local denomination names and sub-denominations indicates you have to be quite specific. A commenter asked about "the Coptics;" there is a Coptic Catholic Church and a Coptic Orthodox Church, for example.


What was the first recorded near death experience of a Christian claiming to have one?

The earliest such account I am aware of can be found in the Gerontikon, sayings and stories of the so-called Desert Fathers of Egypt, compiled - it is thought - sometime in the 2nd or 3rd centuries.  There is a summary of the story from the Gerontikon in the Evergetinos about a careless monk who became ill and approached death:

  In the midst of his illness, he lost consciousness and his soul left his body and was taken off to be judged.  There among the damned he found his mother.  On seeing him, she said with astonishment, "My child, are you, too, condemned to this place of the damned?  For what reason are you, who said to me, 'I wish to save my soul,' here?"  The brother, shamed by all that he had heard, was struck with gloom, unable to answer anything his mother had said.  Afterwards, he heard a voice that said: "At once, Out of here."  He immediately woke from this ecstasy and unconsciousness and related with fear to those around him all that he had seen and heard, glorifying God, Who in every way seeks the salvation of sinners.1

As I said, there are probably accounts that date earlier than this, but this is earliest one I can find.  There are many more such accounts in the Gerontikon and in the Orthodox Synaxaria.

1. Book I, Hypothesis VIII.F (from an English translation by the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 2008; p.72)


What are some uses of the Magnificat, Benedictus and Nunc Dimittis in the Eastern Rites?

For the Eastern Orthodox Church:

Magnificat: Sung at daily Matins, after the Psalter readings and Psalm 50 (LXX)
Benedictus: I don't believe is sung regularly at any service.  It is, however, the Gospel reading for Matins and the Divine Liturgy on the Feast Day of the Nativity of John the Baptist (June 24)
Nunc Dimittis: Read during each daily Vespers, near the end of the service.

I believe this is the typical usage for most Typicons (e.g. Russian, Greek, etc.)


Have any Christian denominations publicly raised concerns about the Catholic Jerusalem Bible?

The original Jerusalem Bible is apparently still used as the Lectionary of choice for Catholics in many countries like England, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, India, and South Africa. You can refer to the USCCB's survey of Liturgical Books In The English Speaking World to see what a few [presumably Catholic] folks around the world are using.

I think it's important to note, however, that the Catholic Church does not subscribe to Sola Scriptura. In Church history, the bible has always been treated as a sort of compliment and/or supplement to tradition. All of our beliefs should be affirmed to some extent by scripture. We also draw some insight from scripture "itself," provided that insight is in harmony with the existing understanding. However, given that scripture in Catholicism is not authoritative alone, the accuracy of the translation, though still important, is not as important as it would be for most non-Catholics -- particularly those subscribing to Sola Scriptura.

Glancing at the Wikipedia article for the Jerusalem Bible, you'll see that some portions of it were based on the French translation of the original languages. As such, you'll likely find some "noise" in the translation. The New Jerusalem Bible limits the French influence a great deal, relying much more heavily on the original languages. If I subscribed to Sola Scriptura and were choosing between the two, I think I'd drop the JB in favor of the NJB in a heartbeat.


What is the significance of the three different gifts (gold, frankincense and myrrh) given to Jesus by the Magi after his birth?

We Three Kings

The verses to 'we three kings' are pretty wonderfully theological and wrap across most doctrines.

The gifts symbolize aspects of Jesus' ministry and purpose.

  Born a King on Bethlehem's plain
  Gold I bring to crown Him again
  King forever, ceasing never
  Over us all to rein

Gold is the gift to honor a King.  It is offered in acknowledgement that Jesus is the King of His Kingdom. Prince of Peace, etc...

  Frankincense to offer have I
  Incense owns a Deity nigh
  Pray'r and praising, all men raising
  Worship Him, God most high

Frankincense is the incense burned in religious ceremonies.  It is an offering to honor Jesus as God.

  Myrrh is mine, its bitter perfume
  Breathes of life of gathering gloom
  Sorrowing, sighing, bleeding, dying
  Sealed in the stone-cold tomb

Myrrh is the oil that is used to anoint a dead body before burial.  It is offered as a prophecy of the way he would die.

Prefiguring the New Covenant

There may also be some symbolism in the three offerings in terms of Jesus as Priest, Prophet and King.  Hebrews 9 says that inside the Ark of the Covenant was held a gold jar of Manna from Heaven, the Rod of Aaron which sprouted and the 10 Commandments.

These are also types for Jesus. Manna for Jesus as the Great Prophet, the rod for Jesus as the Eternal High Priest and the ten commandments for Jesus as the Lawgiver or King. And the Gifts reflect those items stored in the Ark.  Gold for kingship, Frankincense for priesthood and Myrrh for prophecy.

They're offered to Jesus, but it is Mary, who accepts them as the Ark of the New Covenant.

Alas, I just read this in the Catholic Encyclopedia

  The giving of gifts was in keeping with Oriental custom. The purpose of the gold is clear; the Child was poor. We do not know the purpose of the other gifts. The Magi probably meant no symbolism. The Fathers have found manifold and multiform symbolic meanings in the three gifts; it is not clear that any of these meanings are inspired

Apparently there is no inspired and obvious symbolism.


When does a tradition become a Tradition?

So the Catholic Church bases its beliefs on the truths revealed to it by God; that is, on Revelation from Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. This revelation comes in two parts: Scripture, which has been written down, and Tradition, which has been passed along by word of mouth.

In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received—whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;

in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing.”

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 76. The quotes are from the dogmatic constitution Dei Verbum of the Second Vatican Council, paragraph 7.)
Christ established his apostles, and their successors, to shepherd the Church; and he promised to be with it always, guiding and guarding it. The Church as a whole, therefore, and in particular the order of bishops in communion with the Pope, ultimately decide what is and what is not revealed truth. The God-given ability to do this rightly, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is called the Magisterium of the Church:

“The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them and guides them into all truth.

“The whole body of the faithful... cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, ‘from the bishops to the last of the faithful,’ they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals.“

(Catechism of the Catholic Church. The quotes are from Dei Verbum paragraph 10 section 2, and from the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican II.)
Tradition in the sense I'm speaking of is not a liturgical or devotional practice handed down through the ages. Helpful as these may be for private and communal worship of God, they are not things passed along to the whole Church, as needful for our salvation. As you've asked for examples, we're talking about things like the various beliefs regarding the Mother of God, the understanding of the nature of the Trinity, the belief in Purgatory, and so on. Indeed, the decision regarding which books were to be included in the canon of the Bible is itself a matter of tradition, though not proposed as dogma until the 16th century.
Tradition can be developed in a number of ways. Sometimes, as with the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception, it begins with a very widespread belief and practice of the whole Church. Sometimes (as with the Trinity) it begins with a rather abstract theological discussion. Often, though not always, these are eventually set out formally as in the Creed, or propounded as a dogma:

The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

(Catechism, paragraph 88)
So if the question is literally When does a tradition become Tradition? the answer is, it doesn't; either it is, all along (because it was given us by the Holy Spirit), or it never was. If the question is When do we know that a tradition is Tradition? the answer is more or less As soon as we see that the whole body of the Church must, has, and does accept it.


Why does God ask Abraham to walk blameless?

There are several accounts in the scripture where we can find Abraham lacking in the uprightness God desires of His children.

Although a man of faith as we know, there were times Abraham doubted the ability of God to provide, deliver and fulfil His promises. In Gen. 12, after God led him to the land of Cannan and famine struck, he didn't trust God for provision. This indeed is lack of faith although it was the early stage of his conversion. Hence, Abraham travelled Egypt to be confronted with a circumstance that made him engage in conspiracy to deceive the Egyptians (vs 12). Although many believers have called Abraham a liar and all sorts, words which I'm very careful to use because the scripture didn't explicitly say so. I rather stick to the point that Abram doubted God and deceived Egyptians. Thereafter, the doubt of Abraham and Sarah took a different dimension resulting in the extra- marital union with Hagar which preceded the birth of the troublesome Ishmael.

These are not blameless life God wants. Morever, a lot of other things that might not have been recorded in the scripture because they won't be necessary for our learning might had taken place necessitating God's rebuke. What this tells us is that Abraham was a man just like us and wrestled with challenges of life and sins as we do today. Another thing to learn is that God's standard has always remained the same: ' walk before me and be thou perfect'.


Why was the revelation that God has the Only Begotten Son not given in the Old Testament?

"Why was the revelation that God has the [an] Only Begotten Son not given to the ancient Hebrew people?"

There are two answers to this:  it was and it wasn't!  Answered in reverse order:

It wasn't.  Even though there are many hints, etc, that the coming saviour would be divine, these hints were not sufficient to control the thoughts of the Israelites/Jews in OT times concerning the coming saviour. Why is it that in the OT it is not made even more abundantly obvious that there is more than one person in the Triune Godhead and that the coming saviour would be the Son of God?

It needs to be remembered that in OT times all the surrounding nations worshipped a multiplicity of gods.  A main purpose in the OT is to persuade the covenant people of God that there is ONLY ONE GOD.  If the OT had spoken much about the coming Saviour being God then the temptation during the OT era would have been to suppose he would be a different god/ another god, that there is more than one God.

Once it has been established by the OT that there is only one God, the teaching of the NT about who Jesus Christ is becomes clear... he cannot be "a god" because the OT says there are no gods except the one true God.

The monotheism of the OT, then, lays the foundation stone of our understanding of the teaching of the NT concerning Christ our Lord.  In the early church of the NT period, it was heavily indoctrinated Jewish believers, heavily indoctrinated in the teachings of monotheism, who tell us that Jesus is God made flesh.  This lends much greater credibility to the teaching.  If the Jews had not been indoctrinated in monotheism then their testimony concerning the deity of Christ could have been easily explained away... in that they were heavily indoctrinated in monotheism their testimony cannot be swept away with unbelieving rationalistic explanations.

The JW teaching that Jesus is "a god" but not "the God" is the kind of teaching which the whole thrust of the OT monotheism is designed to undermine/negate.  God the Son, the Son of God, the one true God, became flesh and died for our sins. Praise Him.

"What think you of Christ? is the test,

To try both your state and your scheme;

You cannot be right in the rest,

Unless you think rightly of him.

As Jesus appears in your view,

As he is belovèd or not;

So God is disposèd to you,

And mercy or wrath are your lot.

.

Some take him a creature to be,

A man, or an angel at most;

Sure, these have not feelings like me,

Nor know themselves wretchèd and lost.

So guilty, so helpless am I,

I durst not confide in his blood,

Nor on his protection rely,

Unless I were sure he is God."

(John Newton, Pastor and former slavetrader)

It was.  It is revealed in hints, types, and shadows that the coming saviour would be the Son of God, Divine, God made flesh. Especially noteworthy are the following OT scriptures:-

See Genesis 3:15 - the one who will defeat Satan will be a man, but it is impossible that a mere man should be able to defeat Satan, therefore he will necessarily be both Man and Divine.  Job 19:25-26;  Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 9:6;  Psalm 110 - David knew the Messiah would be one of his own descendants, yet he calls Him "my Lord", knowing He would be more than just one of his descendants;  Psalm 45, the whole, esp v 6 and 7 - the Messiah will be divine; Ezekiel 44:2.


Did Mosaic covenants follow Ancient Near East Suzerain Treaties or was it the other way around?

A covenant is simply a binding agreement or treaty.  A suzerain covenant is a covenant between a sovereign king (suzerain), in effect an emperor, and a vassal king and thus with the vassal nation. The terms of such covenants are decided by the suzerain king, they are not negotiated between the two kings.

One of main issues of discussion amongst archaeologists (not theologians) is not where suzerain covenants per se orginated, but which covenant forms the covenants of the Pentateuch
are most similar to in structure.

So in the blue corner we have Professor Kenneth Kitchen with a lot about the different covenant forms over the centuries in the Ancient Near East (ANE).  In the red corner we have Dr Bryant Wood.

Both take the Bible seriously, both believe the Exodus actually happened, and both argue that the Pentateuch was written before 1200 BC: both are emphatic that the Pentateuch could not have been written after this date, and the match of covenant structure in the Pentateuch with covenants before 1200 BC is yet another piece of strong evidence against a late writing of the books.  This is what the evidence of the covenant forms from the Pentateuch compared to the covenant forms of the surrounding nations is telling them: and this is why the seeking of a match with the covenant forms of the surrounding nations is so valuable.

However, Kenneth Kitchen believes the Exodus happened about 1260 BC (Late Exodus) and Bryant Wood believes the Exodus happened 1446 BC (Early Exodus).  And the date of the Exodus obviously affects the date of the writing of the books of and by Moses.

Kenneth Kitchen gives a large amount of information about the changes to the suzerain covenant forms of the surrounding nations (during the era of the empires of those nations, such as the Hittite Empire, when they were producing Suzerain/Vassal covenants) in his book "On the Reliability of the Old Testament".  Since we know when those empires existed if we can see a distinct match between the Pentateuch covenants and those S/V covenants of other nations then a date can be placed on the writing of the Pent.  He then claims the best match of covenant puts the composition of the Pentateuch in the 13th century BC.

Bryant Wood claims that Professor Kitchen has been selective in his examination of the covenants in the Pentateuch and has resorted to a bit of special pleading.  Bryant Wood also counterclaims that the existence of oaths in the pentateuchal covenants place them in the 1600 to 1400 BC period.

Unfortuately I cannot give an article by Kenneth Kitchen on the issue since my source is his book "On the Reliability of the Old Testament".  Personally I think his date of the Exodus of about 1260 BC is wrong: he assumes that 1 Kings 6:1 is not to be taken literally, and this is a big mistake, in my opinion, but his book is still full of very valuable information for lovers of Scripture.

An article by Bryant Wood which touches on this subject can be found here:-

https://biblearchaeology.org/research/conquest-of-canaan/2579-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-13th-century-exodusconquest-theory?highlight=WyJraXRjaGVuIiwia2l0Y2hlbidzIl0=


Under what circumstances does God act on His anger?

By definition God is love, but sometimes you have to punish if you love, and when God is angry it isn't a sense of passion that drives Him, but judgement of justice, as explained in Objection 1 of Summa Theologica, Q47 (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2047.htm).

I think the difficulty is that you are trying to relate your anger to God's anger, and making His anger to be similar, or comparable, to ours.

This is a problem as God is angry at the sin and the sinner, but, He understands perfectly what is going on, what the motives are, and at times may need to punish in order to help try to rectify the actions.

There is nothing wrong with being angry.  Jesus was angry, for example.  It is an emotion, but why someone gets angry and what is done with the anger is the issue.

We can't judge why God chooses to get angry at one and not at another, as, much like a mosaic, you see only a tiny bit of the picture, so the best we can do is to have faith that God has a reason for what He chooses to do or not do.

For a longer discussion on Is God Angry Anymore?, you can read:

http://www.ccwtoday.org/article_view.asp?article_id=18


How do Trinitarians explain Jesus' response to the scribes and Pharisees at Luke 5:20-24?

In Trinitarian theology, Jesus is both God and Man, so the title "Son of Man" isn't incorrect in that regard.
Throughout Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus generally encourages the "Messianic secret" -- He doesn't directly state He is God. Instead He does or says things which lead sincere people to that conclusion.
This miracle relies on a somewhat subtle argument. The Pharisees accuse him of blasphemy for stating his sins were forgiven because only God can forgive sins. They aren't wrong on that point, but suppose Jesus were a fraud, He could say "Your sins are forgiven" which would, yes, be blasphemous as it would be claiming a power which belonged to God, but there would also be no way to prove or disprove that He wasn't God. Similarly if he stated, "but I am God," it couldn't be directly disproven.
Forgiveness of sin is not an observable act -- there is no physically discernible change that proves that Jesus did in fact accomplish what He said, so on the surface the Pharisees cannot distinguish the act of a blasphemer from God being present.
Hence, the miraculous healing. The argument thus becomes, given that Jesus can miraculous heal the paralyzed man, which only God can do, He must be God and thus can forgive sins.


What does the Bible say about Capital Punishment?

There are a host of references to capital punishment in the Bible - the first of which is in Genesis shortly after the Flood in Genesis 9:6:

  Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.

Christ did not condemn the Roman soldiers for executing the thieves who were crucified with Him.

Paul does not deny the government the right to execute him if he has done something worthy of death in Acts 25:11a:

  "If, then, I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die"

Excluding specific commands regarding what was worthy of death to the nation of Israel under God's special covenant, it would seem that the Bible takes a neutral-to-positive view of the death penalty: the Noahic covenant was made with only 8 people on the planet - the forebears of all of modern humanity. As with Adamic covenants, since the it was made to the federal representative(s) of humanity, it still applies today - especially in light of the end of the covenant (Genesis 9:12ff):

  God said, "This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations"


What is the ultimate goal of a human according to Bible?

One of the most famous answers to this question comes in the Westminster Shorter Catechism, question 1:

Q1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.

If you look there, they highlight 1 Corinthians 10:31, Romans 11:36, and Psalm 73:25-28.
I believe this is a typical answer to the question from a Reformed perspective.


There was no mandate that the gospels should appear in the order they were written once they were gathered into a collection.  This is true of the rest of the New Testament as well.  The order is

the gospel accounts,
the history of the early church,
the letters of Paul

to churches,
to people,

letters by other apostles, and
prophecy.

So, there are a lot of ways the New Testament could have been organized.  They could have organized all the letters according to when they were written rather than by whom and to whom.  Additionally, once John was written, they could have put that first, since its first statement corresponds to the first statement in the first book of the Old Testament.

Whatever the reason, the date of writing does not appear to be the primary consideration in organizing the books of the New Testament.

One possible explanation, however, could have been that Matthew seems to present Jesus specifically as the King of the Jews, while Mark presents Jesus as the Son of Man.  The idea that the gospel was for the Jew first and then also to the Gentile could have been the reason why Matthew was placed first.

I do know that some Jewish people, who do pick up the New Testament, are often shocked to find in the very first verses a link from Jesus to Abraham.  This can shatter some false stereotypes that the New Testament is antisemitic.  In fact, in his book Betrayed, Stan Telchin had this exact reaction.  So, again, that is at least a plausible explanation as to why Matthew is first.


Is there a special name for the room where sacramental bread is made?
It is simply called a bakery room. The practice of having a separate bakery room for making hosts is common in both Orthodox and Catholic Churches. Hosts in the Catholic Church are generally made in Monasteries of female religious. I imagine the same holds true in Orthodox Churches.
The Bread of Heaven: Where Do Communion Hosts Come From?
Instructions for making Priest’s Hosts and Peoples’ Hosts for Western Rite Orthodox Liturgy.
I have personally seen these bakery rooms in male monasteries in the Catholic Church. It makes sense that they are not made in the kitchen areas, where regular meals have to be prepared for the community.
One or two large ovens would suffice for the work involved as well as several host cutting machines.
Small patches can be made in simple kitchens.

The Council of Milan, 1576, prescribes the making of hosts in monasteries and forbids it to laymen. A council of Cambrai in 1631 ordains that "in each city there shall be a person charged with making the altar-breads from the best and purest wheat and after the manner indicated to him. He must previously take an oath to discharge faithfully the duties of his office. He shall not be permitted to buy from others the bread to be used in the Holy Sacrifice." As early as the fourteenth century the making of hosts had become a business. The confraternity of the oblayers (host-makers) had a special ecclesiastical authorization to carry on that work.
Some prescriptions of the Oriental Churches are worthy of notice; moreover, some of them are still in use. The Constitutions ascribed to St. Cyril of Alexandria prescribe that the Eucharistic bread be baked in the church oven (Renaudot, "Liturg. orient. coll.", I, 189); among the Copts, Syrians, Jacobites, Melchites, Nestorians, and Armenians, the altar-breads must be baked on the very day of their consecration. In the "Canonical Collection" of Bar-Salibi there are prescriptions concerning the choice of wheat which differ but slightly from those of the West. In Ethiopia each church must have a special oven for the making of hosts. In Greece and Russia the altar-breads are prepared by priests, widows, the wives or daughters of priests, or the so-called calogerae, i.e. nuns, whereas, in Abyssinia, women are excluded. The Nestorians of Malabar, after kneading the flour with leaven, are accustomed to work in some of the leaven left from the preceding baking. They believe that this practice dates from the earliest Christian times and that it preserves the leaven brought to Syria by Saints Thomas and Thaddeus, for, according to another Nestorian tradition, the Apostles, prior to their separation celebrated the Liturgy in common and each carried away a portion of the bread then consecrated. - Host


When was Good Friday first called "Good"?

When did Good Friday first get called “Good”?

To be honest, we do not know  for sure, but then possibly in 1290 if you accept "guode friday" as meaning Good Friday!

  We honestly don’t know. Linguists are unable to trace when and where and why Crucifixion Day came to be known as Good Friday. The word “good” is sometimes used in the Bible in the sense of “holy.” So the term Good Friday might be derived from some olden expression such as Holy Friday. The word good may also relate in its etymology to the word God. Our term goodbye is apparently a contraction of the phrase God Be With You. Perhaps Good Friday hails from a medieval phrase meaning God’s Friday. -  Why Is Good Friday Called Good Friday?

There are still some other possibilities of where this phrase may have originated, but as to when the term Good Friday was first used  is somewhat mysterious.

  There are two possible origins for the name "Good Friday". The first may have come from the Gallican Church in Gaul (modern-day France and Germany). The name "Gute Freitag" is Germanic in origin and literally means "good" or "holy" Friday. The second possibility is a variation on the name "God's Friday," where the word "good" was used to replace the word "God," which was often viewed as too holy to be spoken aloud. - Good Friday Origins

The following article has this to say about why Good Friday is Good?

  The origin of the term Good is not clear. Some say it is from "God's Friday" (Gottes Freitag); others maintain that it is from the German Gute Freitag, and not specially English. Sometimes, too, the day was called Long Friday by the Anglo-Saxons; so today in Denmark.

  If Good Friday were called good because English adopted the German phrase, then we would expect Gute Freitag to be the common German name for Good Friday, but it is not. Instead, Germans refer to Good Friday as Karfreitag—that is, Sorrowful or Suffering Friday—in German.

  So, in the end, the historical origins of why Good Friday is called Good Friday remain unclear, but the theological reason is very likely the one expressed by the Baltimore Catechism: Good Friday is good because the death of Christ, as terrible as it was, led to the Resurrection on Easter Sunday, which brought new life to those who believe.

When did Good in Good Friday become used as an expression? Magazine Monitor states the following:

  The earliest known use of "guode friday" is found in The South English Legendary, a text from around 1290, according to the dictionary.


What evidence is there to show that John Wesley and John Calvin did not believe that Jesus is Michael?

I'm pretty sure Wesley and Calvin did not actually believe that Jesus is Michael. Those two quotations you gave only show that in the verses they referred to, Michael typifies Christ, just as in many other places. Ie. Jonah typified Christ, or "you may refer Jonah in his being in the belly of the fish for 3 days and 3 nights as the person of Christ, who died and was resurrected in 3 days", but that doesn't mean that Jonah is actually Christ. So in those two passages you quoted, Wesley and Calvin are merely saying that Michael in those verses they were commenting on typifies Christ's person


From the Reformed perspective, what is the meaning of the tearing of the veil in Matt. 27:51?

This subject is dealt with very thoroughly in The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (New Studies in Biblical Theology)  by Greg Beale.

From a Reformed perspective, the temple and tabernacle are interchangeable as the dwelling place of God. The curtain that was torn was the curtain into the Most Holy Place, the manifested presence of God, his throne on earth. (cf. 1 Sam. 4:4 Where God is 'enthroned between the cherubim' of the Ark.) Heb. 9:3 "Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place". The first curtain separated the Holy Place, which was entered daily, from the courtyard.

The significance is awesome. After the fall, Adam & Eve were driven out of the original tabernacle - or divine dwelling - which was Eden. Before they were driven out, God promised a Savior who would undo the Fall (Gen. 3:15). God instructed Moses to build a dwelling place, but even then it was unapproachable except by the High Priest, one day a year. Reformed Theology has always understood the temple to be symbolic, and this symbolized that access to the presence of God was not yet available.

When Jesus came, God became flesh and made his dwelling among us, lit. 'tabernacled among us' John 1:14. When the body of Christ was broken, all separation was broken with it. We now, though vile, arrogant, and filthy, can enter the very presence of the Living God, and not just once a year but at any moment. This is exactly what Hebrews goes on later to say "Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God,let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and full assurance of faith." Heb 10:19-22


Did any actual Puritan congregations impose scarlet letters on adulterers?

I found only one instance of where a woman caught in the act of adultery was forced to wear the letters AD round her neck.  Whether this punishment was imposed on her by the Puritan congregation, or by the Court, I don't know.  However, that seems to be getting off lightly!

In 1631 the Massachusetts Bay General Court declared adultery a capital crime. Mary Latham, only 18 years old when she married a much older man, was executed for adultery.  She was convicted for committing adultery with one man and then confessed to having sex with 12 others.

  “The woman proved very penitent, and had deep apprehension of the foulness of her sin, and at length attained to hope of pardon by the blood of Christ, and was willing to die in satisfaction to justice. The man also was very much cast down for his sins, but was loath to die, and petitioned the general court for his life, but they would not grant it...  They were both executed, they both died very penitently, especially the woman, who had some comfortable hope of pardon of her sin, and gave good exhortation to all young maids to be obedient to their parents, and to take heed of evil company."

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/adultery.htm

In 1639 Mary Mendame was found guilty of committing adultery with an Indian man; she was whipped at a cart's tail, which meant she received a whipping while the cart was being drawn through town.  Her lover was "only" whipped at the post, a lesser punishment than the whipping she received at the cart's tail, because the judges said she had enticed him.

In 1641 Anne Linceford confessed to committing adultery and was punished by "an immediate severe whipping at the public post in Plymouth [and] a second whipping at the public post in Yarmouth [where the act was committed]," according to "Sexual Misconduct in Plymouth Colony." She also had to wear the letters "AD" on her clothing from that point on.

Married men who had sex with a single woman were charged with fornication, while married women who had sex with a single man were charged with the more serious crime of adultery.  You might find the information in this link helpful, part of which says:

  “Fornication was by far the most common sexual offence to come before the Plymouth courts. Between 1633 and 1691, sixty nine cases of fornication were presented. I include "carnal copulation," "uncleans," and births of illegitimate children with fornication. The enactment of 1645 that outlined the punishment for crimes of fornication distinguished between acts committed before and after the time of marriage contract. The fine for fornication after contract was only five pounds per person -- half the fine for fornication before contract. Interestingly, only four of the sixty nine cases clearly occurred during the period of marriage contract. The chart below shows the percentages of fornication cases that occurred during the period of contract, before contract but between couples who eventually married, and completely outside of intended wedlock. The split between eventually married and never married couples is a near fifty-fifty division.”

http://www.histarch.illinois.edu/plymouth/Lauria1.html


In Hebrews 1:10 Jesus is being addressed as the Creator which is God himself in Genesis

Absolutely, Jesus Christ is the creator even according to His own Father. Since the Son is the Father's agent in creating the universe and the ages through which it progresses (see 1:2), these words about Jehovah the Creator are fittingly used of Jesus Christ the Son.
In Psalm 102:24 it is "God" who is addressed, but in 102:22 He is identified as "Lord," which is the translation of the Hebrew word for "Jehovah."
In the Septuagint He is addressed as "Lord," that is, kurion. Consistent with his understanding of the Old Testament the writer of the Hebrews recognized Jesus is God and freely used passages of Scripture which speak about Jehovah in talking about Him.
Who else but the Son is both Creator and Lord? Jesus Christ existed before the universe because He created it. It is not everlasting; He is. Hebrews 1;10 is in perfect harmony regarding the Son at John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16, Revelation 3:14 and here at verse 10.
Since He is Jehovah God, there is no reason to puzzle or wonder why created beings like the angels will bow down and worship Him, confessing Him Lord of lords. This also means that Jesus Christ is not an angel like some organizations teach.
Now, Acts 2:36 was brought up stating, "God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both LORD and Messiah." First of all Jesus was born "Lord, Savior and Christ the Lord at Luke 2:11. "for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, WHO IS Christ the Lord."
What Acts 2:36 is teaching is the resurrection of Jesus Christ revealed or established He was Lord and the Christ/Messiah. The Apostle Paul confirms this at Romans 1:3-4. "concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, (why bring up according to the flesh?) Vs4, who was DECLARED the Son of God with power (how?) by the resurrection from the dead, according to the spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ OUR LORD."


What does Paul mean when he says "do not go beyond what is written."

That specific phrase is present in the New International Version:

Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.

The meaning of the part of the verse you quoted is fairly clear: God's word is sufficient. Do not invent more of it.

I'm not sure if about commentary from early scholars, but there is English commentary from several Reformation-era scholars. Of course, they often commented using the King James version:

And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

Matthew Poole (17th century):

And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes: by these words the apostle lets us know, that though he had said, 1 Corinthians 1:12, that some of them said, "We are of Paul, and others: We are of Apollos"; yet the names of Paul and of Apollos were but used to represent other of their teachers, which were the heads of those factions which were amongst them. In very deed there were none of them that said, "We are of Paul or of Apollos", (for those that were the disciples of Paul and Apollos were better taught), but they had other teachers amongst them as to whom they made factions, whom Paul had a mind to reprove, with their followers...
That you might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written; and that (as the apostle saith) all the church of Corinth, as well ministers as people, might learn to have humble opinions and thoughts of themselves, not to think of themselves above what, by the rules of God’s word, was written in the Old Testament they ought to think; or above what he had before writen in this Epistle, or to the Romans...
(punctuation modernized)

In other words, Paul used the hypothetical phrases "I am of Paul" and "I am of Apollos" (mentioned earlier in the epistle) to demonstrate the folly of relying on manmade words of the teacher more than than the God-made words of the scripture, and using those manmade differences as a source of pride.


What is the Catholic/Anglican understanding of how the Sacrament of Reconciliation began?

Your title implies that you are looking for an answer from a "Catholic-Anglican" perspective, but perhaps you will also accept an answer from the Eastern Orthodox perspective, which shares a common early Church tradition.

In the Orthodox understanding, the Sacrament of Reconciliation (or Repentance) was instituted by Christ Himself:

  The Lord instituted the Mystery of Repentance after His Resurrection,
  when, having appeared to His disciples who, except for Thomas, were
  gathered together, He solemnly said to them: Peace be unto you....
  And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and saith unto them:
  Receive ye the Holy Spirit. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are
  remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained
  (John 20: 21– 23). Moreover, even before this, Christ the Saviour
  twice uttered a promise about this Mystery. The first time He said to
  the Apostle Peter, when Peter, on behalf of all the Apostles, had
  confessed Him to be the Son of God: I will give unto thee the keys of
  the Kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall
  be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be
  loosed in heaven (Matt. 16: 19). The second time He testified to all
  the Apostles: If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee
  as a heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you: whatsoever ye
  shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall
  loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 18: 17–18).1

This accords with how the "Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation" is explained within the Vatican's Catechism of the Catholic Church 2.2.2.4.VI, which cites these same passages.

The commentary on Canon XI of the First Ecumenical Council in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series provides an overview of the how epithemia (penance) was viewed and administered in the early Church.  This can be summarized:2

  In the ancient Church there existed a rite of public repentance for
  the “fallen,” and in particular for those who had not held firm in the
  faith during the persecutions. According to this rite, the penitents
  were divided into four classes: (a) the “weepers,” who did not have
  the right to be present at the public Divine services and, stretching
  out their hands off the church porch, with weeping would beg those who
  entered the church to pray for them; (b) the “hearers,” for whom it
  was permitted to be in the narthex of the church all the way to the
  end of the liturgy of the Catechumens; (c) the “prostrators,” who
  entered the church itself but also did not participate in the Liturgy
  of the Faithful (after the Liturgy, on bended knees, they were
  vouchsafed the pastoral blessing); and (d) the class of those who
  “stood together” with the faithful for the whole Liturgy, but could
  not receive Communion of the Holy Mysteries.

The First Ecumenical Council was recognized by all five of the ancient Sees in antiquity, including Rome.

1  Michael Pomazanski, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (3rd ed.), p.293
2 Ibid.