How does Luke 11:5-13 fit as corollaries to the Lord's teachings on prayer [Luke 11:1-4]?

Jesus appended the illustrations of a midnight request from a friend, and a father never giving his child a bad thing when asked for a good thing, to encourage his disciples to ask God as Father who is also a friend.

However, there may be a problem grasping the application to ourselves if we simply assume that God is our heavenly Father. Bear in mind who Jesus was speaking to - his disciples, all of whom were Jewish people in covenant relationship with God, the Yahweh of the Old Covenant (or, Testament). They already knew God as their heavenly Father, and that he viewed them (and all Israel) as his covenant people, bearing his name. That entitled them to address God as 'Father'. But the pagans could not do that! You had to be in God's covenant to have that close relationship with him before you could call him 'Father' or 'Abba'. Romans 8:14-16 explains this by saying to Christians,

  "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of
  God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but
  ye have received the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
  The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the
  children of God..."

It might be worth suggesting that only when that situation obtains with individual believers can they grasp the significance of what Jesus was saying about praying to God as "our Father". Then we will hallow (or, revere) God, and then we will be bold to persist in asking him for good, and correct things. We will know him to be our loving heavenly Father, and also our friend.

The story of the midnight traveler and the father-son illustration in Luke 11:11-13 are then clearly seen as the warp and the woof of the one cloth of praying to God as Father and as friend. There was no need for Jesus to mention what I have mentioned to his disciples as they already knew their standing before God as children of his covenant, but there might be a need to mention this today as not all who assume God to be their heavenly Father might yet be sons of God. They have to be brought into the New Covenant Jesus instituted the night before he died:

  "This cup is the new testament [or, covenant] in my blood, which is
  shed for you." (Luke 22:20)

I hope this is helpful in grasping the immense significance of those corollaries in boldly petitioning God in prayer, as Father.


Did Jerome’s doctrine of Mariology affect his translation?

This isn't a full-blown answer to your question, but instead a partial one.  I suppose one would have to write some sort of magnum opus to answer all three of your questions in a way that does justice to them.
But as a sort of beginning, I do know that translators over time have moved away from away from the Vulgate because of its emphasis of Mary in places she does not belong. The best known example of this is Genesis 3:15. To so many Christians this is the protevangelium (the first gospel promise pointing to Christ) in the bible.  Genesis 3:15 reads as follows:

”וְאֵיבָה אָשִׁית בֵּינְךָ וּבֵין הָאִשָּׁה וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ וּבֵין זַרְעָהּ הוּא יְשׁוּפְךָ רֹאשׁ וְאַתָּה תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ עָקֵב׃“ (Gen 3:15 BHS-T)
“I will put hostility between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.” (Gen 3:15 HCSB)

You'll notice the "he" vs. "he" construction.  But in the Vulgate we find this:

“inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius” (Gen 3:15 VULG-T)

Instead of "he will crush your head," it reads "She (ipsa) herself will crush your head."  In this we see a strange, unfounded translation of a clearly masculine word in the Hebrew (הוּא) into a feminine word (i.e. Mary).
I hope this helps, at least a little in working toward the bigger, better explanation this question deserves.


What do Bible lexicons, like Strong's, mean when they use the phrase, "by extension"?

I once owned a Strong's concordance and lexicon, but no longer do, and so I cannot verify what I can only describe as an opinion at this point.  Therefore, if participants feel this answer must be down voted, I'll understand.

Strong's use of "by extension" basically means, "or, you can look at it this way...."  James Strong first published his concordance in 1890 and back then people were much less willing to ascribe to God behaviors that would appear to be very mortal or worldly.  The idea of a benevolent god hating someone (such as Esau) is, if you think about it, a bit terrifying.  If He can hate one person, whom else might He hate?  Indeed, in a number of congregations within and without my own denomination I've met people who believe hate (and anger, to continue the example) are sins — and since God cannot sin, He cannot hate, and therefore something must be wrong with the translation.

It's worth noting as a side note that there may, indeed, be something wrong with the translation.  What we call the "original Greek" is not Jesus' original language, and there could be a more "original" document that would better express what He was saying.  Further, the particular quote about Esau is Paul talking, and he may not be remembering the exact quote or, worse, he may be embellishing (which he occasionally did).

Or, the scriptures may be dead on accurate and we need to deal with the fact that God may have some very strong, very negative emotions that we may experience if we're not on the up-and-up.

To continue, In Strong's day it would have been very normal to suggest and alternative way of looking at a verse or word that was more culturally sensitive.  Therefore, if you are bothered by the idea that God may hate someone, it may be more palatable to believe that He simply "loved that person less" than those whom He loved.

Regrettably, this is a specific idea that many parents then and now can easily relate to.  Some kids are easier to love than others....

It is unfortunate that I can't remember my use of Strong's Concordance well enough to remember what the parenthesis would mean, but I'd be willing to bet a milkshake they mean "I think" or "it's possible that."  Which is a fancy way of saying, "I'm not sure, but maybe...."


What is the difference between the first and second resurrection in the book of Revelation?

The two events only differ on two points:

Who is raised.
When they are raised.

Both parties are actually judged equally, and we assume the method of the raising is the same.
The First Resurrection takes place at Christ's coming and consists of the Righteous Christians only.

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
1 Thessalonian 4:16-17

The First and Second Resurrection and the Final Judgement of all souls is detailed further in Rev. 20.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. [This is who takes part in the First Resurrection. They are those that are in Christ; they are Christians; they are the righteous]
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. [If there is a 1st resurrection there must be at least a second]

It will be 1000 years after the resurrection of the righteous that the remaining souls, the wicked, will be resurrected for Judgement.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God [This is the only place that makes sense for the second resurrection, and we already know from verse 5 that it is 1000 years after the First Resurrection]; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. [After being raised they are judged]
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. [Every dead person will be raised at some point]

These verses (the whole book, even) are very poetical, but these verses together show that the wicked dead are indeed resurrected, just as the righteous 1000 years earlier.
Summary
The First Resurrection consists of the Righteous Christians, which will be raised at the end of days upon Christ's coming (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).
The Second Resurrection will follow 1000 years later (which may be a non-literal 1000 years) and will consist of all the remaining dead (the wicked) (Revelation 20:5).


Biblical basis for the separation of church and state

Some people use Mark 12:17 towards this goal.

  17 And Jesus answering said unto them, "Render to Caesar the things
  that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they
  marvelled at him.

The argument goes something like this:  The government is here to govern the society here on Earth.  God has been given to us to govern our hearts, minds, and souls.  So, we should allow the government to do what it does best and allow God to be in control of all the other things.

The argument is generally followed with the idea that we need to elect Christians into government and pray for our government officials, but that religion should be separate from the state.

Personally, I think this is a bit of a stretch.  The more solid arguments are the non-biblical ones (prevention of the majority overriding the minority, insuring freedom of religion, etc.)


According to Jehovah's Witnesses, when/how do the 144,000 ascend to Heaven?

This is from the perspective of Jehovah's Witnesses.

The how and when of the 144,000 being gathered is answered by Jesus' illustration of the Wheat and the Weeds described at Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43:

  24 He presented another illustration to them, saying: “The Kingdom of
  the heavens may be likened to a man who sowed fine seed in his field.
  25 While men were sleeping, his enemy came and oversowed weeds in
  among the wheat and left. 26 When the stalk sprouted and produced
  fruit, then the weeds also appeared. 27 So the slaves of the master of
  the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow fine seed in
  your field? How, then, does it have weeds?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An
  enemy, a man, did this.’ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us,
  then, to go out and collect them?’ 29 He said, ‘No, for fear that
  while collecting the weeds, you uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let
  both grow together until the harvest, and in the harvest season, I
  will tell the reapers: First collect the weeds and bind them in
  bundles to burn them up; then gather the wheat into my storehouse.’”

  ...

  36 Then after dismissing the crowds, he went into the house. His
  disciples came to him and said: “Explain to us the illustration of the
  weeds in the field.” 37 In response he said: “The sower of the fine
  seed is the Son of man; 38 the field is the world. As for the fine
  seed, these are the sons of the Kingdom, but the weeds are the sons of
  the wicked one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the Devil. The
  harvest is a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are
  angels. 40 Therefore, just as the weeds are collected and burned with
  fire, so it will be in the conclusion of the system of things. 41 The
  Son of man will send his angels, and they will collect out from his
  Kingdom all things that cause stumbling and people who practice
  lawlessness, 42 and they will pitch them into the fiery furnace. There
  is where their weeping and the gnashing of their teeth will be. 43 At
  that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the
  Kingdom of their Father. Let the one who has ears listen.

Here's an info-graphic from a 2013 Watchtower article - “Look! I Am With You All the Days”

How

Angels will harvest (or "reap") the wheat class of anointed Christians, bringing them into Jesus' storehouses. These storehouses represent the restored Christian congregation. They are then brought to heaven in these ways:

Anointed Christians who were already asleep in death at that time are resurrected and begin ruling with Jesus in heaven.
Upon the death of an anointed Christian after the harvest has begun, they will immediately be resurrected to their position in heaven, “in the twinkling of an eye.” (1 Cor. 15:52)
Anointed ones which live all the way up until the great tribulation will receive their final sealing shortly before Armageddon and be brought to heaven invisibly (note that Jehovah's Witnesses don't use the term “rapture,” because it has a connotation of happening visibly).

When

The harvest season “is a conclusion of a system of things,” which began in 1914. Anointed Christians have been gathered into the storehouses of the congregation since 1919, and the exact times of the Great Tribulation and Armageddon are at some unknown time in the future.


Is the orientation of a grave facing East required in the Catholic Church?

At one time, it was true that Catholics must be buried facing the east. Is that no longer true, and was it a part of the same law which said that the altar in a Catholic Church must face the east.

As anywhere, you may find older Catholic cemeteries that still accommodate this tradition.

  There is no requirement in church law regarding the position of burial. The only thing that comes close is a reference in the Roman Ritual of 1950 (no longer in effect) that stated that at the funeral Mass the coffin was to be placed so that the feet of the deceased should point toward the main altar.

  Presuming the church had been constructed so that a priest celebrating Mass would face the east, the deceased at the funeral would face in that same direction.

  Although there was no canonical requirement, it was in fact customary for people to be buried facing the east, reflecting the traditional Christian belief that, at the end time, Jesus would return from the east. (An even earlier pagan tradition had the deceased buried facing the east because it was where the sun rose.)

  Correctly, you suggest that the same values guided the traditional placing of a church’s main altar, so that the priest celebrating Mass could face the east. This evoked the Christian expectation as to Christ’s return. (See Mt 24:27: “For just as lightning comes from the east and is seen as far as the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.”) - Must one be buried facing east?

There is no fixed rule nowadays and I know of some very traditional Catholic Benedictine cemeteries where the brethren are buried facing the south due to limited burial space.

  Historical precedents provide that, if the corpse is a layman, the feet are to be turned towards the altar. If the corpse is a priest, then the position is reversed, the head being towards the altar. The earliest reference to this is in Johann Burchard's "Diary". Burchard was the master of ceremonies to Pope Innocent VIII and Pope Alexander VI. The idea seems to be that the bishop (or priest) in death should occupy the same position in the church as during life, facing his people who he taught and blessed in Christ's name.

  According to another tradition not now considered obligatory in the Roman Rite, the feet of all Christians both before the altar and in the grave should be pointed to the East. This custom is alluded to by Bishop Hildebert at the beginning of the 12th century,[14] and its symbolism is discussed by Guillaume Durand. "A man ought so to be buried", he says, "that while his head lies to the West his feet are turned to the East..." - Catholic funeral

If the corpse is a priest, then the position is reversed, the head being towards the altar. There are still dioceses and Religious Orders that still follow this tradition and I have personally been present at a priest's Funeral Mass where this is the custom.

Sub question #1: Generally, do Catholic cemeteries follow the same tradition or would the head of the coffin for some reason face West?

Some do and some do not. Let me explain.

Ideally the custom of burying the faithful facing east is still popular in Catholic cemeteries, especially the old ones. Even in past centuries, exceptions can easily be found. Early martyrs were often buried under the altars of local churches.

  The fact that the tombs of the martyrs were probably the earliest altars (cf. Apoc., vi, 9), together with the eager desire to be buried near God's holy ones, gradually led up to the custom of permitting certain favored individuals to be interred not only near but within the church. It may be said that the Roman emperors led the way. Constantine and Theodosius were buried under the portico of the church of the Apostles in Constantinople. At Rome, when the restrictions against burial within the city began to be set aside, the entrance of St. Peter's became the usual place of interment for the popes and other distinguished persons. - Burials in Churches

Other exceptions to the Church's desire to bury her faithful facing east in modern days is due in part to local civil law.

  It would be impossible here to deal in detail with the various legislative enactments which now almost everywhere prevent the Church's requirements from being carried into effect. (See Christian Burial.) - Cemeteries and Civil Law

Like I said before that the Church would be still desirous that this tradition still be intact, but because it is not always possible in our days, the Catholic Church no longer requires that the faithful keep to the tradition of the faithful facing east when buried.

Some of the newer Catholic cemeteries have the faithful facing east, while others do not. Sadly civil laws have jurisdiction over cemeteries and civil law must be respected.

Sub question #2: Considering this tradition, I would think you would need to stand facing east to read the print normally. The vault/coffin would be there in front of you -- west of the headstone. Is this a correct understanding?

Yes, that is correct.

Sub question #3: Another Catholic cemetery is similar to this image but the printing is on the other side(west) of the headstone. This seems odd.

Although not the traditional way of burying the faithful facing east, it may be due to either civil law, which takes precedence or due to the terrain of the locality.

  As you might gather from all the other answers, “Headstones” are far more common than are “footstones” At least they use to be. In some cemeteries they still are. And in many rural and small-town cemeteries, the graves are laid out with the feet all to the East, with the symbolism that all will be facing the rising sun on resurrection day. More modern cemeteries are not so picky, and lay out the graves so as to most efficiently use the available space.

  Footstones are VERY common, particularly in large commercial cemeteries, or any cemetery established in recent years. And there are a couple of reasons.

  The first is that the cemeteries involved in the “Memorial Park” movement earlier in the last century went for large expanses of open lawn, with a small flat marker for each grave (often at the foot). This meant it was easy for a visitor to NOT focus on the vast number of “other” graves and monuments, but on the ones that were important to them, in the midst of a lush park-like setting.

  Also, some cemeteries are laid out something like this:

  There might be clusters of 6 or 8 graves around a central family monument (or upright marker). Each of the individual graves will have the head towards the large family marker, and at the foot of each grave (where I placed a dot) will be an individual flat foot-marker, or foot-stone.

  Sometimes the entire plot will be for one family, other times there might be two, as “Thomas” and “Richards” in my example. Each cemetery will have their own rules about how the overlap is to be handled. - Why do they bury people with the gravestone at their feet instead of at their head?

Please keep in mind civil authorities may have guidelines that must be followed at the same time.


Does Catholic and Orthodox belief say 'antichrist' has already come and gone?

Did Nero "sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as though he were God" (1 Thessalonians 2:4)? Before Nero, was there "a revolt [αποστασια = apostasy] first," after which "the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (ibid. 2:3)?

Cardinal Manning writes:

  St. Jerome, with some others, interprets this revolt to be the rebellion of the nations or provinces against the Roman Empire. … They have revolted, and no manifestation has appeared.

Thus, the revolt that must precede Antichrist is spiritual, not temporal.

Yes, Catholics believe Antichrist's reign is one sign of the end of the world. {The others are: a general preaching of the Christian religion, conversion of the the Jews, return of Enoch and Elijah, a great apostasy, perturbations of nature, universal conflagration, the Trumpet of Resurrection, and the sign of the Son of Man appearing in the heavens (source).}


Is there a German version of the Message Bible?

Not currently.

According to Worldcat.org (links to the original new Testament version, for expansion including Psalms and Proverbs see here, for complete Protestant canon Bible see here), the Message version has only been published in English.


Does the catechism teach not to kill animals for food?

From what you have quoted I would say that we can kill animals for food.

"Just satisfaction" meaning to satisfy our reasonable needs - e.g., we need food to live.

That we need to treat them kindly speaks to how they are allowed to live and that we "dispatch" them with out causing pain or distress.

This, in my opinion, affects the eggs and chickens we buy - an industrial form of agriculture that has seen much ill-treatment of the animal in the name of profit.


Was Jesus command to watch in Matthew 26 just for that night or was it a general caution for the Church?

In the context of this passage, I would consider it Risky Exegesis™ to apply it to people beyond who the speaker intended (based on what he says). In this case, he is speaking "to the disciples." I take that to mean meaning the three that went with him farther in: Peter, James and John. The text seems to indicate the objects of his speaking, and so redirecting the statement to new objects is the point at which I would be very cautious.

If you want a command from the Lord about prayer and temptation, the Lord's Prayer would probably suffice:

  Matthew 6:9-13 KJV  After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come . Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

This command has no limitations on audience or duration, and I read this section (the Sermon on the Mount) as applying to all Jesus' followers, henceforward throughout time.

An related question of interest might be, "How can I know if a Biblical mandate applies?" I see a number of people choose commands from the Bible (that they like, presumably) and say that those things apply to them, even though I cannot (personally) make build a logical case to support the idea.


How do proponents of the perpetual virginity of Mary view Matthew 13:53–57?

The link you quote (which I will also link to here) explains the view of Catholics on this passage in some detail. The article explains how they interpret the passage, and gives examples of other places where 'brother' does not imply coming from the same womb. If it was a normal usage of the time, then there is no reason why people of Jesus' hometown would not have used it of course, and 'sisters' presumably has similar usage.

Not all Christians agree with the interpretation, and if you are not a Catholic you are free to hold a differing view.


Why don't Reformed Christians consider it necessary to confess to a priest?

Firstly, penance was rejected at the time of the reformation because the doctrine was based on a mistranslation of the Greek word metanoia - "repentance". The Latin Vulgate had, poenitenitam agite - "doing acts of penance". Martin Luther was the one who originally made this discovery.
Secondly, although James 5:16 says "confess your sins to each other", the New Testament does not contain anything to do with confessing to a priest or doing penance for confessed sins. Protestants believe that confession is something which is a good thing to do in the Christian community, individually and corporately, but it is not something which believers have to do to a priest. Which leads onto...
Thirdly, there is an important difference between Protestant understandings of priesthood and the sacraments. For example, Protestants would reject a pastor being a "priest" (because of the priesthood of all believers, e.g. 1 Peter 2:9 "you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood". In the Church of England, the word 'priest' was retained but only inasmuch as it is derived from a medieval contraction of the Greek word presbyter - elder). Protestants also believe in only two sacraments - the Lord's Supper and Baptism (e.g. 39 Articles, article XXV).
In sum, to answer the question properly you really have to explore the much bigger difference of priesthood in Catholic and Protestant understandings as well as the Sacraments, Scripture and Tradition. And, because repentance is such a big part of the Christian life, it goes even further back to what Catholics and Protestants believe about the Christian life (e.g. sanctification and justification). So it's no small question!


Who, how many are the authors of the book of Genesis?

Traditionally, Genesis was finished mostly by Moses, having the creation stories and stories of Abraham handed down to him (and the Hebrews) by previous generations.

I think rather than asking about the credibility of Genesis, one should question the credibility of the Torah (1st 5 books of the OT). While narrative books such as Chronicles and prophetic books like Isaiah are shown OVER TIME by the Jews to be inspired, the Torah has been considered by the Jews as sacred and inspired for many generations - at least from 9th century (depending on what date you want to give the Torah).

It's historical credibility boils down to how one believes the world was created and whether the flood actually happened etc. Some are convinced that there is scientific evidence to back creation as well as the flood. It really depends on what you're willing to be open to - whether you want to look into evidence for creation and the flood.
Other than that, Genesis' credibility can be found in its theology. It's the theology and philosophical truths of Genesis that has made the Jews believe in its divine inspiration and, therefore, has given the author credibility.


This question is actually pretty cut and dry. At the core the main thing you ask is "Can I go to heaven even rejecting Christian belief by substituting some set of actions?"

No. No amount of works of any kind will get you into heaven. There is no substitute for faith.

  Hebrews 11:6 (ESV)
  And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

In fact it is not even necessary to split this up by different traditions inside Christianity. All of us pretty much agree on this point. The disagreements about works only come in when you discuss whether you need some works IN ADDITION TO faith or whether it is possible to have faith but no works at all. Mainstream Christianity doesn't believe you can get into heaven if you reject faith.

In fact, still speaking for the majority of Christianity and not just my tradition, I can say that this faith also has to be in Jesus.

  John 14:6 (ESV)
  Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

The question about works should be asked in another question. Whether some kind of works are a requirement in addition to faith is the source of much debate in Christian circles. Yes some traditions "put value on them" that others do not, but those views have no bearing on your question because at the core none of those different views allow you to substitute faith with anything, only perhaps supplement (or legitimize) it. Since they are not relevant to the main question I will refrain from inserting them here. Also, questions about exactly what faith in Jesus needs to look like will turn up many variations. Save those for other questions. Also not in scope here is what happens to people who haven't heard or have heard and believed miss-information.


Why are the ten commandments in Exodus 34 different?

Those aren't the words written on the second stone tablets.

The original tablets were written by the Lord:

  Exodus 24:12 (ESV)
  The LORD said to Moses, "Come up to me on the mountain and wait there, that I may give you the tablets of stone, with the law and the commandment, which I have written for their instruction."

Compare to the passage referred to in the question. The Lord says he will write the tablets, but the commandments cited in the question are left for Moses to write:

  Exodus 34:1 (ESV) [emphases mine]
  The LORD said to Moses, "Cut for yourself two tablets of stone like the first, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.

  Exodus 34:27 (ESV) [emphases mine]
  And the LORD said to Moses, "Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."

After the Lord gave the original ten commandments (Exodus 20), he also gave other commandments (Exodus 20:23-23:33). A similar thing happened here: there were other things that the Lord said to Moses, besides just writing the new tablets.

The quite logical explanation is, then, that the Lord wrote the new tablets and gave them to Moses. Then the Lord spoke other words and told Moses to write them down. The content of the tablets is not recorded in Exodus for a second time, since the content was the same as originally.


A theophany is a manifestation of God in the Bible that is tangible to the human senses. In its most restrictive sense, it is a visible appearance of God in the Old Testament period, often, but not always, in human form.  Frequently, the term “glory of the Lord” reflects a theophany, as in Exodus 24:16-18; the “pillar of cloud” has a similar function in Exodus 33:9. A frequent introduction for theophanies may be seen in the words “the Lord came down,” as in Genesis 11:5; Exodus 34:5; Numbers 11:25; and 12:5.

However, when the pre-incarnate Christ has appeared, that is called a Christophany.  These appearances are usually identified by the expression “the angel of the Lord” and are found in Genesis 16:7-14; Genesis 22:11-18; Judges 5:23; 2 Kings 19:35; and other passages.  While there are no indisputable Christophanies in the Old Testament, every theophany wherein God takes on human form foreshadows the incarnation, where God took the form of a man to live among us as Emmanuel, “God with us” (Matthew 1:23).

Since any pre-incarnate appearance of Christ in the Old Testament is called a Christophany and not a Theophany, then I really don’t know how this links to the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) in the Old Testament.  Perhaps you could provide some additional information from your research?

EDIT: Thank you for clarifying your question.  With regard to the theophany in Genesis 12:7, my NIV Study Bible (2000 edition) makes this comment:

  The LORD appeared: The Lord frequently appeared visibly to Abram and to others, but not in all his glory (see Exodus 33:18-20; John 1:18).

“The LORD came down” is the clue that indicates it was a Theophany.  The NIV Study Bible notes on the incident in Numbers 12:3 when the Lord came down in a pillar of cloud to speak with Moses, Aaron and Miriam make this comment:

  Came down – Often used of divine manifestations.  In Numbers 11:5 he came down in grace; here and in Genesis 11:5 he came down in judgment.  In a sense every theophany (appearance of God) is a picture and promise of the grand theophany, the incarnation of Jesus, both in grace and judgment.

There is another incident (Joshua 5:13) where Joshua “saw a man standing in front of him.” The NIV Study Bible notes say this:

  The experience is taken by many to be an encounter with God in human form (theophany) or with Christ (a Christophany).  But angels also were sent on missions of this kind (Judges 6:11; 13:3), and some were identified as captains over the heavenly armies (Daniel 10:5, 20; 12:1).

Yes, because Jesus is part of the One Being of God, there is a sense in which we can say a theophany is also a Christophany – but not with absolute certainty.  Opinion is divided.  The incident in Genesis 12:7 is positively identified as a theophany, but not all appearances are so clear cut.  Here are some Old Testament examples:

  Genesis 18:1-33 – One day, Abraham had some visitors: two angels and God Himself. He invited them to come to his home, and he and Sarah entertained them. Many commentators believe this could also be a Christophany, a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ.
  Genesis 32:22-30 – Jacob wrestled with what appeared to be a man, but was actually God (vv. 28-30). This may also have been a Christophany.
  Exodus 3:2 - 4:17 – God appeared to Moses in the form of a burning bush, telling him exactly what He wanted him to do.
  Exodus 24:9-11 – God appeared to Moses with Aaron and his sons and the seventy elders.
  Deuteronomy 31:14-15 – God appeared to Moses and Joshua in the transfer of leadership to Joshua.
  Job 38–42 – God answered Job out of the tempest and spoke at great length in answer to Job’s questions.

When the Bible says “the angel of the Lord” appeared, it means a Christophany.  The important thing to remember is that after the incarnation (Matthew 1:23) the appearances of “the angel of the Lord” cease after the incarnation of Christ. Angels are mentioned numerous times in the New Testament, but “the angel of the Lord” is never mentioned in the New Testament after the birth of Christ.
Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/angel-of-the-Lord.html


Demon Possession of Jesus' Time - Today's Diagnosable Mental Disorders?

I'm going to self identify for the purposes of this answer. I have a multitude of mental illnesses. Schizoaffective disorder (hallucinations of all types, delusions of several types, mania and major depression) and OCD as well the lesser subsyndromal OCD (obsessive behaviour and intrusive thoughts). On bad days the Dyslexia (trouble with language) and Autism (experiencing reality differently) are also a problem. All my symptoms are under control though sometimes I still experience hypomania and depression but not mania and major depression.
I understand your concern that I might be demon possessed however such concerns are not realistic. My brain is broken the methods by which it is corrected is a medication by no biblical definition would it fit demonic possession.

Luk 13:16  And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?

Mental diseases are no different than physical diseases. They are satanic bondage and oppression/bondage/affliction is not possession. The woman in Luke 13 was bound by the devil and a child of God. This is why:

pos·ses·sion pəˈzeSHən/Submit noun
1.the state of having, owning, or controlling something.
2.an item of property; something belonging to one.

-Google dictionary

Mar 3:25  And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

Demon possession is the opposite of salvation. It is to be owned and controlled by the devil. To be filled with the devil in the same manner in which those who are saved are filled with the Holy Spirit. Spiritual houses are not divided against themselves either you belong to God or you do not.

2Co 10:5  Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Those who have religious intrusive thoughts (unwanted random thoughts generated by broken neural pathways about religious figures) and personality disorders have to put up with things which would scare normal Christians. Just because our burden is greater does not mean we belong to the devil. It means we must have medication to help us cast down that which does not conform to the word of God.

Job 2:9  Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die.

Your tempted to commit adultery; we're tempted to commit adultery. We're tempted to curse God and die; you're not. Our temptations and faults don't make us evil in the manner of demonic possession.

Jas 5:11  Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.

We just are more patient than you.


What happens to people who have never heard about Jesus?

At the heart of this question (and many similar ones) is another question: Is God fair?

If God requires acknowledgments of truths that people haven't had a chance to hear in order to be saved, then of course He is not fair.

If we begin with the assumption that God will never act unjustly or unfairly though, then we can assume that He will make Divine provision for everyone, including tribes in remote jungles, to respond to Christ. This provision does not need to be a human delivering a message, but can be angels, dreams, visions, or other unknown methods.

Look at the following quote from Jesus:

  Joh 5:24-25 NIV  "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and
  believes him who sent     me has eternal life and will not be
  condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. (25)  I tell you
  the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear
  the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.

What is meant by "the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God" can be understood different ways, but I think one of the ways we may possibly understand it is those who have died without the opportunity of receiving Christ will have that opportunity.

However God offers this choice to people, if you assume He is good and will always act justly, whatever He needs to do to accomplish this (He is God after all) He will do. Believing in God's essential goodness is in itself a mark of faith (as you quoted in your question):

  Heb 11:6 NIV  And without faith it is impossible to please God,
  because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that
  he rewards those who earnestly seek him.


Why is the Old Testament included in the bible if we are no longer under those old laws?

Paul gives us a pretty good answer to this in his letter to the church in Rome:

  "For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope."  Romans 15:4 NASB

The Old Testament record reveals the character of God in many different ways.  In it we see His faithfulness, His justice, His compassion, His holiness and many other things.

We can be encouraged to go to God in prayer, knowing that He has both the power and inclination to act on our behalf--just as we see He did in the Old Testament time and time again.

Additionally, the Old Testament contains many prophecies and pictures of Christ that gives us confidence in the truthfulness of the Gospel and also lets us see the beauty of God's dealings with mankind.  Isaiah 53 is an amazing prophecy of the suffering Messiah and the Snake in the Desert beautifully demonstrates the Gospel.

It should be noted that much of the Old Testament is actually not simply laws to follow, but stories of God's interaction with mankind.  The Law is contained in the Old Testament, but Genesis, Psalm, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon and the much of the prophets have little or nothing to do with instructions on the Law.


The Greek word /monogenes/ is the key here.  I did a word study on this a number of years back.  The word actually appears in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrews Scriptures).  Here it is actually used in reference to Isaac as the /monogenes/ son of Abraham.

Interestingly enough, Isaac was not the only son of Abraham and not even the first.  Ishmael was born first and Abraham had six other children with Keturah after the death of Sarah.

So, /monogenes/ does not indicate that Isaac was the only son.  The word comes from the combination of two other words -- /mono/ and /genes/.  /mono/ is, of course, indicative of "one".  /genes/ refers to kind.  In a sense, then, /monogenes/ refers to "one of a kind" or "something wholly unlike any other".

Since Isaac was not the only son of Abraham, in what sense was he a one of a kind?  Specifically, he was unique in his miraculous birth and in his being the fulfillment of the promise of God.  No other son was born in fulfillment of a promise from God and no other son was born miraculously.

Jesus is identified as the /monogenes/ Son of God. Typically, this is translated as "Only Begotten".  It is true that Jesus is not the only son of God or only child of God, because, as you identified, all of those who have faith in Jesus are children of God.

However, the Sonship of Jesus is unique.  Indeed, His Sonship is wholly unlike any other.  Its uniqueness is that it is eternal.  Jesus never became a son of God, but was always the Son of God and God the Son.

So, Jesus is not the only son of God, but He is a Son unlike any other in His divinity.


Ephesians 2:2, which one comes first in the Calvinist view?

From Calvin's commentary on Ephesians 2:2 :

  We may now draw from it also this inference, that ungodly men have no excuse in being driven by Satan to commit all sorts of crimes. Whence comes it that they are subject to his tyranny, but because they are rebels against God? If none are the slaves of Satan, but those who have renounced the service, and refuse to yield to the authority, of God, let them blame themselves, for having so cruel a master.

Choice B. Those who refuse to yield to the authority of God become subject to the tyranny of Satan.


What is the earliest manuscript of the Gloria in excelsis Deo (Greater Doxology) hymn?

According to Adrian Fortescue's The Mass: A Study in the Roman Liturgy, "§6. Gloria in Excelsis", p. 238, the Gloria in excelsis

  is found first [in Greek] in St. Athanasius' treatise: de Virginitate1 as part of morning prayer (with Ps. lxii, and the Benedicite) and in the [Greek Old and New Testament manuscript, the] Codex alexandrinus (Vth cent.).21. C. 20 (P.G. xxviii, 275). The authenticity of this work, long disputed, now seems more generally admitted. See Eichhorn : Athanasii de vita ascctica testimonia (Halle, 1886) pp. 27 seq., and especially von der Goltz in Texte und Untersuchungen, N.S. xiv, 2 a.2. As an appendix to the psalms at the end.

cf. also "Psalter" and my answer to the question "How did the Catholic Church function logistically/liturgically prior to the invention of the printing press?"


Are there "rational" criteria for which books appear in the Bible?

This is a difficult question, given that human reasoning is itself flawed. But if we were to look at the canonization process, the most we could say is that it must be not be absurd; Consider how Matthias was chosen to succeed Judas; even though the process of 'drawing lots' seems irrational, the lots were being drawn against a few possible candidates and not merely randomly at large. So the lots were used to make the decision against equally qualified candidates final in a way that no-one could claim favoritism. A very rational choice if there is one.

From my own study (and it has not been perhaps as extensive as many) these seem to be the criteria that explain the process in the most rational fashion:

Traditional usage. Writings being added to the rule required that they were traditionally accepted for the use in teaching, admonishing, public exhortation, quotation and so forth. The reasoning here is obvious; this is the primary reason or use for the canon itself: So that a given locality does not have to ask the Bishop who has to ask this other Bishop who has to look at what they're about to read to determine whether its okay to be quoted, to be taught from, to be interpreted as prophecy, or to be announced publicly in liturgies and other prayers. What I mean by this is simply that one may consider this or that book quite true, but if it had no traditional usage, its position would be tenuous. This explains why some other epistles did not get added to the rule; there's only so much time for public exhortation in prayers and liturgies of the scriptures themselves.
Not redundant. Some amount of redundancy is allowed, but later letters (if you look at the Apostolic Fathers) contained a fair amount of redundant material, simply re-iterating what was in the Gospels and Epistles of Paul, Jude, John, James and Peter.
Has a special position. The writings of St. John had, as far as I can tell, a special position in the minds of the early Church. He was a great hero of the faith, and as we may recall, was the one surviving Apostle. His works - especially Revelation - are given special consideration because of the magnitude of his reputation as a true Theologian.
Not praxis. This means, documents which were pure praxis (rules for practices) were excluded such as the Didache. You will notice that there are often problems with Paul's letters where he is 'speaking as a man' - giving practical advice for a given community's situation. Looking back now, we don't know the situation he was speaking to, and thus it is easy to misunderstand his advice. So pastoral letters were mainly excluded, though Paul's seem to have an elevated status (even Peter recognizes this in one of his own letters.) Paul's letters may be pastoral, but they are also theological and prophetic.
Part of the Septuagint. Everything in the Septuagint was accepted without question as far as I can tell, since it was the prior canon (what the 'scriptures' meant if a New Testament document refers to them.) The Septuagint - the Greek Old Testament - was the Early Church's canon of scripture.
Not pseudopigraphia. This is to say, the author/authorship was known and accurate as far as they knew. So Hebrews was believed to be the work of Paul (which it probably was.) The works attributed to John were either his own words or authorized by him (as with the Gospel of John.) The gnostic gospels were pure pseudopigraphia; faked names against unknown sources.
Not written by a heretic. Simply put, some men who entered the faith later recanted; their works would be considered suspect and not included.

So take these criteria and look at The Shepherd of Hermas. Very popular, but never met criteria 1: being read or declared in church. It was a symbolic, poetic work and is difficult to understand. It would fall in the category of something like The Great Divorce, being that it is probably true and perhaps prophetic even, but is the wrong genre to be in the canon entirely.


Reasons for Restriction of Tridentine Rite post Vatican II

There will never be published any official reasons for the seemed restrictions of the Tridentine Mass and it's liturgy. If one can find some then they are free to make a response to this very question.

The real reasons for the restriction of the Tridentine Mass promulgated by Pope St. Pius V seem to be more of a conundrum than anything else.

Before getting involved in this answer, I wish to state that I attend both Forms of the Sacred Mass in use within the Roman Rite (the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (EF) and the Ordinary Form of the Mass (OF)). I do not like to  criticize either Mass within the Roman Rite. Both can be prayed in a holy manner and both are valid forms of Catholic worship. However as I tell many others, the Tridentine Mass in more conducive to my spirituality and thus is the one I prefer to attend. If a traditional priest is continually blasting apart the New Mass from the pulpit, I will likewise go somewhere else. For myself the opposite is equally true.

I know of a certain French prelate that desired to say the Mass of Pope Pius V and went to Rome in 1978 to seek out permission. Rome reply  from the particular congregation was simple: "No, say the New Mass only." It is obvious that Rome truly wanted the New Mass in and the Tridentine Mass out.

Just a few points before really digging into this question.

As for your research (which you do not say what), you state that "in 1974 the congregation for divine worship announced that no more permissions would be given to those who intended to celebrate the liturgy according to the Pre-Vatican II formulae." That is not completely accurate. For example, in France the clergy were not obliged to say the New Mass until the French bishops had actually approved the French translation of the Mass. That happened in 1977. I remember a certain French abbot telling me that when this took place, he told his community to obey and hope for better times and hope that the former "Old Rite" may come back.
Priests of a certain age were never obliged to say the New Mass.
Pope Benedict XVI stated the Mass of Pope St. Pius V was never abrogated.
Rome actually published yet another Missal during the Second Vatican II Council, which almost everybody in unaware that really existed: The Interim Roman Missal of 1965?. I have actually seen this Missal, even though they are now extremely difficult to find. The Missal was in Latin and English and was basically the same Mass as in use in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

Now for the crux of the matter in question. The Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, commonly known as the Second Vatican Council or Vatican II, addressed relations between the Catholic Church and the modern world. The council, through the Holy See, was formally opened under the pontificate of Pope St. John XXIII on 11 October 1962 and was closed under Pope St. Paul VI on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception on 8 December 1965. As you state in your question "the Second Vatican Council ordered the revision of the liturgical books based on the constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. These revisions where carried out in the years after the council and [were to be] implemented in 1969/70," as seen in Pope Paul's Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum. "We order that the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect November 30th of this year, the first Sunday of Advent."

What were the reasons for the restriction of Tridentine Rite following Vatican II?

Rome desired that the New Mass be made available to all the faithful and clergy alike. After all, Pope Paul's Constitution on the Missale Romanum clearly stated that "we order that the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect November 30th of this year (1970), the first Sunday of Advent." Thus the Mass of Pope Pius V had to be put on the back burner. That much is obvious.
One of the most common reasons one will hear is that Rome desired more Scripture readings for the faithful. A fact that the New Mass tries to bears out. "Sacred scripture is of the greatest importance in the celebration of the liturgy. For it is from scripture that lessons are read and explained in the homily, and psalms are sung; the prayers, collects, and liturgical songs are scriptural in their inspiration and their force, and it is from the scriptures that actions and signs derive their meaning. Thus to achieve the restoration, progress, and adaptation of the sacred liturgy, it is essential to promote that warm and living love for scripture to which the venerable tradition of both eastern and western rites gives testimony." - General norms Pope Paul"s Apostolic Constitution goes on to state that "in prescribing that "the treasures of the Bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God's Word" (ON NEW ROMAN MISSAL) It also goes on to state: "According to the prescription of the Second Vatican Council which prescribes that "a more representative portion of the Holy Scriptures will be read to the people over a set cycle of years," and of the readings for Sunday are divided into a cycle of three years. In addition, for Sunday and feasts, the readings of the Epistle and Gospel are preceded by a reading from the Old Testament or, during Paschaltide, from the Acts of the Apostles. In this way the dynamism of the mystery of salvation, shown by the text of divine revelation, is more clearly accentuated. These widely selected biblical readings, which give to the faithful on feast days the most important part of Sacred Scripture, is completed by access to the other parts of the Holy Books read on other days."
The Tradentine Rite had only one Eucharistic Prayer (The Roman Canon) whereas the New Mass has the Roman Canon, plus three additional Eucharistic Prayers that the celebrant was free to choose from.
It was also desired that the Laity have a greater participation in the Mass. Thus vernacular languages were introduced into the liturgy, something that the Old Rite seriously restricted. The Sacrosanctum Concilium document desired "to promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence."
Rome desired more Eucharistic concelebrations under certain circumstances. These were not done in the ordinary usage of the Tridentine Mass.

  Concelebration, whereby the unity of the priesthood is appropriately manifested, has remained in use to this day in the Church both in the east and in the west. For this reason it has seemed good to the Council to extend permission for concelebration to the following cases:

  a) on the Thursday of the Lord's Supper, not only at the Mass of the Chrism, but also at the evening Mass.

  b) at Masses during councils, bishops' conferences, and synods;

  c) at the Mass for the blessing of an abbot.

  Also, with permission of the ordinary, to whom it belongs to decide whether concelebration is opportune:

  a) at conventual Mass, and at the principle Mass in churches when the needs of the faithful do not require that all priests available should celebrate individually;

  b) at Masses celebrated at any kind of priests' meetings, whether the priests be secular clergy or religious. - THE MOST SACRED MYSTERY OF THE EUCHARIST

These are the main reasons why Rome seems to have restricted the use of the former Mass of Pope St. Pius V. There are certainly others, such a priest facing the people during Mass. But it is still permitted to say the Mass of Pope Paul VI ad orientem.

What I truly find as a real conundrum is that the Missal of 1965 permitted  most of the changes we see, yet remained in essence the Mass of Pope Pius V! Some have actually called it the  “Mass of Vatican II.” A copy of this "Vatican II Missal" as approved for the use in the United States of America can be found here and here. Some religious communities are using this Mass in their liturgy with the approval of Rome.

In desiring a greater love of the Mass and the Sacred Liturgy, some point out the use of communion on the hand as an innovation of Vatican II. Nothing is further from the truth. Sacrosanctum Concilium does not even mention it at all. Nor does any of the successive documents speak of it, nor the New Roman Missal, but only Memoriale Domini, which establishes it in terms of an indult.

  The practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand first began to spread in Catholic circles during the early 1960s, primarily in Holland. Shortly after Vatican II, due to the escalating abuses in certain non-English speaking countries (Holland, Belgium, France and Germany), Pope Paul VI took a survey of the world's bishops to ascertain their opinions on the subject. On May 28, 1969 the Congregation for Divine Worship issued Memoriale Domini, which concluded: "From the responses received, it is thus clear that by far the greater number of bishops feel that the present discipline [i.e., Holy Communion on the tongue] should not be changed at all, indeed that if it were changed, this would be offensive to the sensibility and spiritual appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful." After he had considered the observation and the counsel of the bishops, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long-received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should not be changed. The Apostolic See then strongly urged bishops, priests and the laity to zealously observe this law out of concern for the common good of the Church.
  Despite the vote, in 1969 Pope Paul VI decided to strike a compromise with his disobedient bishops on the continent. Given “the gravity of the matter,” the pope would not authorize Communion in the hand. He was, however, open to bestowing an indult – an exception to the law – under certain conditions: first, an indult could not be given to a country in which Communion in the hand was not an already established practice; second, the bishops in countries where it was established must approve of the practice “by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority.” Beyond this, the Holy See set down seven regulations concerning communion in the hand; failure to maintain these regulations could result in the loss of the indult. The first three regulations concerned: 1) respecting the laity who continue the traditional practice (of receiving kneeling and on the tongue), 2) maintaining the laity’s proper respect of the Eucharist, and 3) strengthening the laity’s faith in the real presence. - Truth About Communion in the Hand While Standing

No matter what Ecumenical Council the Church holds, there are those who will be at odds with it's decisions, no matter how trivial they may seem. Archbishop Lefebvre was actually was in favor of the Missal of 1965, but not the New Mass of Pope Paul VI from the very start. What went wrong is anyone's guess? Rome wanted the New Mass in and the Tridentine Mass suppressed. It's not clear exactly why. Some traditional groups, Deo Gratias, just would not give up the Traditional Mass and this forced Rome to start reopening up in favor of the Tridentine Mass. If it was not for them the Old Mass would have the way of the dodo bird.

For example, after Vatican I, Fr. Charles Jean Marie Loyson (10 March 1827 – 9 February 1912), better known by his religious name Père Hyacinthe, was excommunicated for refusing to acknowledge the infallibility of the pope. He was so sure of this that he left the priesthood and eventually got married.

Yet a more bizarre one from Vatican I is the case of Bishop Edward Mary Fitzgerald of Little Rock, Arkansas is as follows:

  Summoned to Rome for the First Vatican Council in December 1869, he was one of two bishops to vote against the dogma of papal infallibility — an act that earned an entry in Universal Church history as “Big Rock versus the Little Rock.” Bishop Fitzgerald explained later that he voted as he did because he believed affirming infallibility would hinder his efforts to convert non-Catholics back in Arkansas. - Bishop Edward M. Fitzgerald

Unlike Fr. Hyacinthe, the Bishop of Little Rock was not excommunicated. In fact, he accepted the final outcome of the Vatican Council I. True to his own deep faith, Bishop Fitzgerald acknowledged his own faith in the theological truth of papal infallibility and was asked by the pope to be at the side of His Holiness when he officially proclaimed that papal infallibility(Pastor aeternus) as a dogma of the Catholic Church. He did.


Are you considered to be Catholic?

The short answer is no.

  Finally, each and every Catholic, as also the baptized of every non-Catholic church or denomination who enters into the fullness of the Catholic communion, must retain his own rite wherever he is, must cherish it and observe it to the best of his ability, without prejudice to the right in special cases of persons, communities or areas, to have recourse to the Apostolic See, which, as the supreme judge of interchurch relations, will, acting itself or through other authorities, meet the needs of the occasion in an ecumenical spirit, by the issuance of opportune directives, decrees or rescripts. -  Orientalium Ecclesiarum

According to the above statement you have not entered into full communion with the Catholic Church.

In order for that to happen several thing must happen first.

Validly baptized non-Catholics who desire to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church must complete an RCIA course which explains the basic beliefs professed in Catholicism, prior to making a profession of faith in the Catholic Church.

  The Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA), or Ordo Initiationis Christianae Adultorum   (OICA) is a process developed by the Catholic Church for prospective converts to Catholicism who are above the age of infant baptism. Candidates are gradually introduced to aspects of Catholic beliefs and practices. The basic process applies to adults and older children, with younger children initiated through an adapted version sometimes incorrectly referred to as the Rite of Christian Initiation of Children (RCIC). - Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults


Are these Bible verses referencing UFOs?

Depends on how UFO is being defined. Extra-terrestrial? God and his angels are also extra-terrestrial! But, I assume you are meaning life outside of Earth, but not including heavenly beings. In which case, then, these cases you mentioned aren't "UFO's"

In the first example, the things being referred to can be seen in verse one:

  Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth [month], in the fifth [day] of the month, as I [was] among the captives by the river of Chebar, [that] the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God.

This where the wheels came from. It can be clearly seen that, the wheels, came from Heaven. Being so, it would have been a heavenly object, thus, disqualifying it from being a UFO.

The second example given, was actually the angel of the Lord, not any extra-terrestrial object, thus, not a UFO either.

A whirlwind is obviously not an extra-dimensional vehicle, as whirlwinds appear everyday.

What might pass of as an extra-dimensional vehicle, could be the "chariots of fire, and the horses of fire" that took Elijah up into heaven:

  1 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, [there appeared] a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

However, it could be argued that, as these are coming from Heaven, these are still heavenly beings or objects, and thus, not UFOs


What is the Biblical basis against Melchizedek being the Holy Spirit?

The Book of Hebrews speaks of Melchisedec 9 times (5:6,10; 6:20; 7:1,10,11,15,17,21) and in each case it is to inform us that Jesus is made a priest in the order of Melchisedec. The theology of Hebrews is strange, but no more so than in its portrayal of Jesus as a priest in the order of Melchisedec. The filioque clause that now forms part of the Nicene Creed, states that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and from the Son [Jesus]. I think this clause requires some serious mental gymnastics to read from Hebrews that Melchisedec is the Holy Spirit.

Melchisedec is first mentioned in Genesis 14:18, where he is the King of Salem and priest of the most high God. Again, it is not traditional to think of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, as merely a priest of God. Melchisedec can not be the Holy Spirit.

Hebrews 7:3 speaks of Melchisedec in terms that could at first read like divinity: without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God.  The NAB footnote to this passge explains:

  4 ... this is perhaps a quotation from a hymn about Melchizedek. The rabbis maintained that anything not mentioned in the Torah does not exist. Consequently, since the Old Testament nowhere mentions Melchizedek's ancestry, birth, or death, the conclusion can be drawn that he remains . . . forever.


Why is Jesus at the center of everything

Reason 1

According to reformed theology, the Bible is about the Glory of God.
Jesus is God.
Thus, the Bible is about Jesus.

More concretely, some would go so far as to state that the Elect is the father's gift to the Son (I'm not sure if this can be scripturally verified). That would be further reason for the Bible focusing on Christ.

Reason 2

Without Jesus, these would be no forgiving of sins. Without the forgiving sins, the Bible would be a very different book.


Where in Scripture is the Holy Spirit said to be speaking directly?

Of course there are many specific occurrences of the Spirit speaking in the Bible. All prophecy and scripture is the Spirit speaking. Thus says the Lord, is the same as thus says the Spirit.

And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’ ” (Acts 21:11, ESV)
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. (Rev 2:2, ESV)
Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, “Today, if you hear his voice (Heb 3:7)

And many other similar references could be tallied.
With regard to the specific verse you mention, the Spirit is to ‘explicitly say’ this seems to imply more then the general inspiration of scripture but particular prophecies that speak directly to a specific situation, i.e. a horrible apostasy from the gospel in the ‘last times’.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, conveniently identifies a few verses, the Spirit has spoken about on this particular subject.

the Spirit-speaking by the prophets in the Church (whose prophecies rested on those of the Old Testament, Da 7:25; 8:23, &c.; 11:30, as also on those of Jesus in the New Testament, Mt 24:11-24), and also by Paul himself, 2Th 2:3 (with whom accord 2Pe 3:3; 1Jo 2:18; Jude 18).
expressly-"in plain words." This shows that he refers to prophecies of the Spirit then lying before him.

The Apostles all seemed to have a clear vision of this ‘future event’ as it shows up in various locations in the Bible. ‘The Spirit speaking explicitly’ the apostle understands not a revelation made to him alone, but that the infallible Spirit of God and the Spirit of prophecy guided he and the rest of the apostles to instruct the church and prepare it for this specific future danger. This Spirit of prophecy is the Spirit speaking.


Is Jesus still suffering in heaven for our sins?

No Jesus suffered once in the flesh then he said it is finished.

Joh 19:30  When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Notice the once:

1Pe 3:17  For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.
1Pe 3:18  For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

Notice this once as well:

Heb 9:28  So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

And finally this once:

Heb 10:10  By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Also notice the tense here is past:

1Pe 4:1  Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
1Pe 4:2  That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.

However there does remain suffering left to be done for the work of Christ just not by Christ Himself and not as a sin offering for the World. As we correctly suffer for Christ persecution, affliction and resisting temptation we fill up what remains of the afflictions of Christ.

Col 1:24  Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:


Was it just Daniel who prayed toward Jerusalem or did all exiles do so?

Joyce Baldwin's commentary on Daniel says (pg. 129):

  Verse 10 supplies welcome evidence concerning prayer habits during the later biblical period. Windows . . . open toward Jerusalem is a literal understanding of Solomon's petition [at the dedication of the temple], 'When [foreigners] hear about your great reputation and your ability to accomplish mighty deeds, they will come and direct their prayers toward this temple. Then listen from your heavenly dwelling place and answer all the prayers of the foreigners.' (1 Ki. 8:41-43; cf. 2 Ch. 6:34) [Baldwin quotes the KJV, but I added more context and changed it to the NET.] The fact that Jerusalem was in ruins called forth faith that it would again be restored because the God who had set His name on the city was the continuing, unchanging God, in control of history (Ps. 106:44-47; Lam. 3:31-33). Prayer towards Jerusalem is mentioned also in later Greek books: Tobit 3:11; 1 Esdras 4:58.

The Pulpit Commentary on the verse says, "The practice of prayer 'toward Jerusalem' is acknowledged to have arisen in Babylon during the Captivity."

John Gill's commentary says:

  opened "towards Jerusalem"; not towards the king's palace, as if he prayed to him, and so eluded the decree; nor towards the east, as the Heathens did; but towards Jerusalem, which lay to the south of Babylon; and that, either because of his remembrance of that city, his affection to it, and concern for its re-edification; or having some respect to the words of Solomon, 1 Kings 8:33, &c.; and so, according to the Jewish writers, it was the custom of their people. Ben Gersom, on the above place, says, that though they did not pray within the temple, yet they prayed, turning themselves towards it, as much as possibly they could; and even when it was destroyed, as now, yet they in praying turned to the place where it had stood, as Saadiah, Aben Ezra, and Jarchi observe: and chiefly Daniel did this, because the temple was a type of Christ, through whom the persons and prayers of the saints are acceptable unto God.

The Talmud records conflicting opinions on whether Jews should pray toward Jerusalem, and at one point says they are to "mentally turn" toward Jerusalem.

Conclusion: Daniel wasn't the only one who prayed toward Jerusalem during the exile, and many Jews do so today. But it doesn't appear to have been a universal practice, just a common one. He appears to have done so not in compliance with his understanding of the law, but out of remembrance of the temple and defiance of those who competed for his allegiance to God.


How did the early church respond to the accusation that Christianity forbid ‘all uses of images’ even if only ‘representing the Divine Being’?

Celsus believed in the logos that transcended images and idols, so he admits that worshipping mere idols, without understanding the spiritual nature of what an image represented was meaningless. His problem with Christians is that they have no kind of image in their own religion so they are like the Persians who worship ‘no god’ because to Celsus an invisible god is nothing, for the gods must have some physical form, as represented by the images of them:

Let us now see what follows. "Let us pass on," says he, "to another point. They cannot tolerate temples, altars, or images. In this they are like the Scythians, the nomadic tribes of Libya, the Seres who worship no god, and some other of the most barbarous and impious nations in the world. That the Persians hold the same notions is shown by Herodotus in these words: 'I know that among the Persians it is considered unlawful to erect images, altars, or temples; but they charge those with folly who do so, because, as I conjecture, they do not, like the Greeks, suppose the gods to be of the nature of men.' (Origen quoting Celsus)

Celus also admits that philosophers do not confuse the mere ‘wood, brass, or gold’ with the actual god but are merely ‘representing the Divine Being.’  It is this refusal to allow physical objects as something to represent the Divine being that most infuriates Cesus against the Christians. Furthermore, not only so but Christians in their rejection of worshiping the one and true invisible God with images actually believe that the Greeks who use images actually only facilitate a worship of demons through them.

Heraclitus also says in one place: 'Persons who address prayers to these images act like those who speak to the walls, without knowing who the gods or the heroes are.' And what wiser lesson have they to teach us than Heraclitus? He certainly plainly enough implies that it is a foolish thing for a man to offer prayers to images, whilst he knows not who the gods and heroes are. This is the opinion of Heraclitus; but as for them, they go further, and despise without exception all images. If they merely mean that the stone, wood, brass, or gold which has been wrought by this or that workman cannot be a god, they are ridiculous with their wisdom. For who, unless he be utterly childish in his simplicity, can take these for gods, and not for offerings consecrated to the service of the gods, or images representing them? But if we are not to regard these as representing the Divine Being, seeing that God has a different form, as the Persians concur with them in saying, then let them take care that they do not contradict themselves; for they say that God made man His own image, and that He gave him a form like to Himself. However, they will admit that these images, whether they are like or not, are made and dedicated to the honour of certain beings. But they will hold that the beings to whom they are dedicated are not gods, but demons, and that a worshipper of God ought not to worship demons." (Origen quoting Celsus)

Although later church history would show otherwise concerning the use of images in worship, Origen admitted that Christians were ‘exactly like Jews’ in this rejection of all graven images:

But Christians and Jews have regard to this command, "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve Him alone;" and this other, "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me: thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them;" and again, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God. (Origen)

The reason why Origen thinks an image has no place in the worship of God is that he says God is invisible and so we must shut our physical eyes to worship him in spirit and truth. He calls this using the yes of the soul:

But a Christian, even of the common people, is assured that every place forms part of the universe, and that the whole universe is God's temple. In whatever part of the world he is, he prays; but he rises above the universe, "shutting the eyes of sense, and raising upwards the eyes of the soul." And he stops not at the vault of heaven; but passing in thought beyond the heavens, under the guidance of the Spirit of God, and having thus as it were gone beyond the visible universe, he offers prayers to God. (Origen)
All true Christians therefore have the eye of the mind sharpened, and the eye of sense closed; so that each one, according to the degree in which his better eye is quickened, and the eye of sense darkened, sees and knows the Supreme God, and His Son, who is the Word, Wisdom, and so forth. (Origen)

Conclusion: Therefore being that God is invisible Origen defends Christianity for not using images by saying we really need to shut our eyes, not use physical things to help our thoughts, but deny such use of icons and images in the pure worship of God. In this way we can see with the eyes of the mind and soul.


Was the "Nicene Creed" of AD 381 an update of the Nicene Creed of AD 325?

There are many differences in wording, although with very similar meaning, allowing the assumption that the two creeds are independent of each other, linked only by being based on an earlier baptismal creed. Even so, the authors of the 381 Creed were inevitably aware of the Nicene Creed of 325. Actual evidence that the Creed of 381 is dependent on the Creed of 325 is found in the words "being of one substance [being] with the Father."

Elaine Pagels says, in Beyond Belief, page 174, that this phrase was inserted into the Nicene Creed at the insistence of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, in order to fully exclude the views of Arius, whom Alexander had excommunicated for alleged heresy. Thus, these words could not have been received from a pre-Nicene document, and their existence in the Creed of 381 makes that document at least partly dependent on the Nicene Creed of 325.

Further circumstantial evidence is that the longer and more sophisticated wording of the later Creed is a theological elaboration that is typically found in later versions of a document, and therefore potential evidence that the 381 version is an update of the 325 document rather than of an even simpler, earlier document. The reference to Mary likely to be a result of the Mariology that developed over the later decades of the fourth century.


In Catholicism, what can the Saints be patrons of?

A search of the Catechism, as well as of the Vatican website and of the Catholic Encyclopedia article, do not reveal any particular official protocol to decide whether a given saint is to be considered a patron saint, and of what.

Searching through the Vatican's website for the term "patron saint" yields a number of references to patron saints, including at least one document officially establishing a saint (Thomas More) as patron saint of a profession or class (statesmen). This document is a motu proprio, issued by the Pope on his own initiative, though in this case at least he was impelled by requests from others:

  Recently, several Heads of State and of Government, numerous political figures, and some Episcopal Conferences and individual Bishops have asked me to proclaim Saint Thomas More the Patron of Statesmen and Politicians. Those supporting this petition include people from different political, cultural and religious allegiances, and this is a sign of the deep and widespread interest in the thought and activity of this outstanding Statesman.

(E Sancti Thomae Mori section 1)

It appears then that no particular protocol is required beyond the interest of the faithful and the decision of the Pope, or (in cases of older saints especially) simply a tradition of associating saints with particular causes.

As one reads through lists of patron saints, one does notice certain patterns occur. Saints are often declared patrons of:

locations (real or virtual): e.g. St. Mark as the patron of Venice, Italy; or Our Lady of Guadalupe as the patron saint of the United States; or Isidore of Seville as the patron saint of the Internet
occupations or professions: St. Thomas More, patron saint of politicians; the Blessed Virgin as patron saint of sailors (from her title "Stella Maris": "Star of the Sea")
groups of people in general: St. Stanislaus Kostka as patron saint of the young; Our Lady of Loreto (and Saint Padre Pio), patron saint of air travelers
people with specific illnesses or disabilities: St. Dymphna as patron saint of those with epilepsy; St. Damien of Molokai as patron saint of those with leprosy

Continuing through your list: the only "patron saint of relationships" I could find are Saints Joachim and Ann, parents of the Blessed Virgin and patron saints of parents. Saint Francis of Assisi is patron saint, not of animals but of ecology and ecologists. (St. Felix of Nola is apparently the patron saint of lost pets. Keep that in mind.)

Similarly, Saint Christopher is still the patron saint of travelers, though the Church admits he probably didn't exist (!!).

In terms of holidays—or holy days—those are specifically dedicated to God, or to one or more saints; but the respective saints are not called "patron saints" of those days.

Generally speaking, though, it appears that there are no particular restrictions on what saints may or may not be patrons of, nor any authoritative teaching on the subject.


The only reference in Scripture to the seraphim is in the book of Isaiah (though the apocryphal Book of Enoch makes several references to the seraphim as well):

Above him [God] stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!" And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!" Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: "Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for."
(Isaiah 6:2-7 ESV)

According to the translation notes of the NET Bible:

[The] Hebrew שָׂרָף (saraf, "seraph") literally means "burning one," perhaps suggesting that these creatures had a fiery appearance (cf. TEV, CEV "flaming creatures"; NCV "heavenly creatures of fire"). Elsewhere in the OT the word "seraph" refers to poisonous snakes (Num_21:6; Deu_8:15; Isa_14:29; Isa_30:6). Perhaps they were called "burning ones" because of their appearance or the effect of their venomous bites, which would cause a victim to burn up with fever. It is possible that the seraphs seen by Isaiah were at least partially serpentine in appearance.

There may be indirect references to the seraphim in other passages, such as Psalm 104:4 (Hebrews 1:7): "He makes His messengers winds; His ministers a flaming fire." It has been speculated that Satan was a seraph because he has been described as a serpent.


It depends who you ask.

If you ask the Catholics, the 2010 catholic.com article Was James the Real Leader of the Early Church? makes the case that despite Acts 15 appearance that James was the leader, if we take into account the number of times Peter's name appear in the whole book (54) compared to James (4) and the prominence of Peter in the Gospels, Acts 15 alone wouldn't be sufficient to establish James as the leader.

The 3 theories of authorities mentioned in the article are:

  1) Peter and the other members of the twelve were concerned with a Christian mission far more extensive than just Jerusalem. They were never really local church leaders, once Jerusalem became big enough to require such caretakers. James was the first leader of the local church at Jerusalem (at least for the Hebrew Christians) and remained there after Peter and the other members of the twelve left the scene, whether through death or on travels. James had authority only in Jerusalem (and its “province”), but his name was known more widely because he was a blood relative of Jesus. Paul’s loyalty was to the “mother church” or community of saints in Jerusalem. His respect for James was a respect for the local leader of that church.

  2) Peter was a local leader at Jerusalem (even though he was known more widely because he had been a close follower of Jesus during the ministry). James took Peter’s place as the local Jerusalem leader (when Peter left Jerusalem or even earlier). Neither of them had a role as leader in the Universal Church, for, in fact, there was no single leader in the Universal Church.

  3) Peter was a universal leader, operating from Jerusalem as the center of Christianity, and was succeeded by James. In other words, the position of universal influence that Peter had at Jerusalem (except his apostleship) was transferred to James when Peter left Jerusalem or even earlier.

  The first theory aligns essentially with the Catholic belief; the second covers a wide range of mainline Protestant perspectives; and the third—the most extreme view—is embraced by more radical, liberal scholars.

The article noted of the "unlikely allies" supporting theory #2: Fundamentalist and Liberal scholars, both have strong anti-authoritarian sentiments and thus rallied against  the Catholic theory #1.

At any rate, the article tries to be even handed by referencing scholarly books supporting each theory so the readers can decide for themselves.


Who first came up with the phrase "an over-realized eschatology" and in what context?

The term appears to me to be original to William Lane in his 1965 discussion of the beliefs of the Corinthians to whom Paul wrote (Lane, William L. "I Tim. IV. 1–3. An Early Instance of Over-Realized Eschatology?." New Testament Studies 11.02 (1965): 164-167.) Bernardin Schneider derives his 1967 use of the term and notion solely from Lane.

The term was undoubtedly influenced by C.H. Dodd's popularization of the term and notion of "realized eschatology", but does not appear to originally have been a theological reaction to his work.

The following are early sources discussing the over-realized eschatology of Corinthians, which I do not have in front of me, and may or may not use the term:

E. Käsemann, Essays on New Testament Themes (ET, London: SCM, 1964)
171
C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (London, 1968), p. 109
E. Käsemann, New Testament Questions of Today (E.T. London, 1969) pp. 125-6.
F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians (London, 1971), pp. 49-50

I expect these will be similar to Bartsch (1965), who discusses debate between realized eschatology and non-realized eschatologies in early Christian thought without using the terms "realized" or "over-realized".

The term became frequently used in discussions of the eschatology of 1 Corinthians (Barker, 1969; Talbert, 1977; Thiselton, 1978; Bauckham, 1980), and later in discussions of Luke (Talbert, 1977; Mattill, 1979).

References

Barker, Glenn W. The New Testament Speaks. Harper & Row, 1969, p. 176.
Barrett, G. K. 'Christianity  at  Corinth'  in   Bulletin  of   the  John  Rylands Library   XLVI   (1963-4), p. 269-97
Bartsch, Hans-Werner. "Early Christian Eschatology in the Synoptic Gospels." New Testament Studies 11.04 (1965): 387-397.
Bauckham, Richard. "The Delay of the Parousia." Tyndale Bulletin, vol. 31, 1980, pp. 3-36.
Mattill, Andrew Jacob. Luke and the Last Things: A Perspective for the Understanding of Lukan Thought. Western North Carolina Press, 1979.
Schneider, Bernardin V. "Corporate Meaning and Background of 1 Cor 15:45B." The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 3, July 1967, pp. 450-467
Talbert, Charles H. What is a Gospel?: the genre of the canonical Gospels. Fortress, 1977, p. 120
Thiselton, Anthony C. "Realized eschatology at Corinth." New Testament Studies 24.04 (1978), p. 510-526.


How does the feast of Corpus Christi fit into the church calendar?

When the feast was established in 1264, the feast of Pentecost had an octave1 and effectively lasted a week, up to Trinity Sunday. This meant that the first "unimpeded" Thursday following Maundy Thursday was the Thursday after Trinity — the season of Easter impeded2 all the Thursdays up to Pentecost, which had its own octave covering the Thursday after that.
The text of the Bull Transiturus which established the celebration is published in a Google Book, and it does set the day:

§2 Nos itaque ad corroborationem & exaltationem Catliolicæ fidei, digne, ac rationabiliter duximus statuendum ut de tanto Sacramento præter quotidianam memoriam, quam de ipso facit Ecclesia, solemnior & specialior annuatim memoria celebretur, certum ad hoc designantes, & describentes diem, videlicet feriam quintam proximam post Octavam Pentecostes, ut in ipsa quinta feria devotæ turbæ fidelium propter hoc ad Ecclesias affectuosæ concurrant & tam Clerici, quam Populi gaudentes, in cantica laudum surgant. ...

My Latin isn't really up to it, but I can see that he specifies "the fifth day next after the octave of Pentecost, that is the fifth day of the week" which is the Thursday after Trinity (Sunday is the first day of the week).

This is my attempt at a translation:

And so, we,  for the affirmation and exaltation of the Catholic faith, have properly and reasonably determined that besides the daily memorial of so great a sacrament, such as the Church does, a solemn and special memorial is to be celebrated annually, specifically designated for this, and describe the day, namely the Thursday next after the octave of Pentecost, that in this the fifth day of the week, for the sake of the happiness of the devout multitudes of the faithful, clergy with the rejoicing people come together in the churches and arise in a song of praise. ...

A better translation would be greatly appreciated. The last clause at least is a bit iffy.

1 Octave: A period of extending a feast-day over the following week, making eight days in total. See the Wikipedia article. Pentecost is slightly unusual as its Octave does not include the following Sunday. That Sunday is a feast of its own, Trinity Sunday.
2 Impede: A celebration of lower rank is impeded (or suppressed) by a celebration of higher rank. Although Corpus Christi was intended to be "solemn and special", nothing outranks the days of the season of Easter. The General Norms for the Liturgical Year and Calendar say "The fifty days from Easter Sunday to Pentecost are celebrated in joyful exultation as one feast day, or better as one 'great Sunday'", so it would be improper to introduce another element into that celebration. [The ranks of various feasts and seasons during the 13th century are now rather obscure, but Easter has always ranked above everything else.]


The following is taken from a section of the Introduction in the "Complete Jewish Bible", English Version by David Stern, entitled The Canon

  Scholars agree that the canon of the Torah achieved its present form before the time of 'Ezra (around 445 B.C.E.), the Prophets later and the Writings last. But the final review of the canon was made by the Council of Yavneh (Jamnia) convened around 90 C.E. by Rabbi Yochanan Ben-Zakkai in the wake of the destruction of the temple by Romans twenty years earlier. Several books now included in the Tanakh were questioned—Daniel and Ezekiel, because of their startling visions and experiences; Esther, because God is not mentioned in it; Song of Songs, because of its overtly sexual character; and Ecclesiastes, because of its depressed world-viewpoint (except for the last two verses, which redeemed it). Ecclesiasticus (not the same as Ecclesiates) was rejected by the rabbis of Yavneh but is found in the Apocrypha, a collection of fifteen ancient Jewish books that include Tobit, Judith, 1-2 Maccabees and the Wisdom of Solomon. Catholic and Anglican Bibles include the Apocrypha. Some sixty other ancient books are collectively called the Pseudepigrapha. English language editions of the Apocrypha and the Pseudipigrapha are available.

There are several more pages of history regarding the formation of newer versions, New King James, etc. and the attribution of writings (who wrote which book) for the books of the Tanakh (Old Testament) in the Introduction I've sighted above. However, the passage above seems to best answer the question about the actual "compiling" of the Old Testament.


Why did Jesus use bread to turn into His body?

One aspect I don't see addressed in other posts is the significance of bread and wine. Yes, it's because that's what Jesus said to do, but he did not merely pick to random substances to represent himself.

Although I would argue that John 6 does not have sacramental overtones in mind per se, we do see Jesus using bread to represent himself. A couple of observations from that chapter:

"Bread" is used as shorthand for the manna given in the wilderness (see v31), as pointed out by the people. Jesus uses this to show them that bread in general, and specifically the True Bread, is given by God
Bread was the main sustenance of the day. Food in general is that without which you die. Yet the food itself is a living thing, so either it dies, or you do. In other words, bread in general and the True Bread must give up its life for you to have life
Jesus uses bread to contrast something that must be done repeatedly (eating daily), with partaking in him, which is done once (v35). He pushes the metaphor then away from simply eating to security as children of God. Bread is taken repeatedly and still does not prevent death. Likewise, the Jews sacrifices were performed repeatedly, but do not ultimately remove sin. But with Jesus, his one act is sufficient to secure one's place in heaven with him by faith. (see, e.g., v39)


Giving to the church or giving to the poor?

(From an Evangelical, Sola Fide perspective)

The question is based on a false dichotomy.  Neither is more pleasing to God.

Both types of giving are a sign of obedience to God, and an act of love and mercy if our motive in doing either is pure.  If we are doing either simply to do so, or to "earn points" then neither is pleasing to God.  If we're trying to earn points with God, then it isn't an act of love or charity, but rather one of selfishness.

Of course, love is the greatest commandment.

  Matthew 22:36-40 (KJV) 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?  37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
  with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.  38
  This is the first and great commandment.  39 And the second is like
  unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.  40 On these two
  commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

The verses supporting Sola Fide (Salvation by Faith Alone) are covered extensively elsewhere on the site, so I'm omitting them in the interest of brevity.  Suffice it to say that the doctrine teaches that our "good works" don't get us to heaven, and are not, in and of themselves, pleasing to God.  Isaiah 64:6 state that our righteousness is no more good than "filthy rags".

The giving a tithe or an offering can be compared the sacrifices brought to the Temple in Old Testament times.

  Hosea 6:6 (KJV) For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

In other words, it's the heart condition - the love that counts - what David calls the "Inner parts" in Psalm 51:6 (KJV)

  Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden
  part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.

Giving offerings is also an act of mercy (depending on what the Church actually does with the money.)  In our Church, for example, there is a distinction between tithes and offerings.

Tithes are the 10% of our income that we give to the Church, which is used to support the business of the Church - pay for the building, electricity, Hymnals, Bibles, and other mundane needs.  These allow the Church to do its business - training up Christians, teaching us the principles of God, teaching us to love our neighbors, and equipping us to witness to others and see them get saved.  The motivation for giving tithes should be two-fold.  One reason is simply because God demands it, and we obey.  The other is that we know that ultimately, the money all works directly or indirectly toward saving people from an eternity in Hell, and that's loving people.
Offerings are over and above tithes.  In our Church, they are all designated for different purposes: Supporting missionaries, helping those in need, etc.  The pure motivation for giving is to give to those who need it more than us, again, out of love and mercy.

Of course, not everyone gives for the same reasons.

There are, of course, those that think they can buy their way into heaven.
There are those that give large sums of money to "look good"  ("Oh, look at me, I'm a righteous person because I give so much money."  Jesus rebuked this in His teachings, by the way.)

There are those that give to the poor for similar purposes.  I don't believe that God honors this either.  What is pleasing to God is...

love
mercy
obedience
humility

and a whole host of other qualities that have to do with the condition of our hearts, and not our external actions.  Where people get confused is that if we do have those traits, we will naturally give because we love, have mercy, are humble, etc.  Those are the "fruits" that grow out of the seed of our love.