How do Protestants understand the blessedness of Mary in Luke 1:48?

For most Protestants this is a matter of semantics. Protestants know full well that Catholics call Mary, the "Blessed Mother." They also know that if you ask a Catholic "Is Mary blessed?" They would surely answer "Yes, indeed she is." But the Catholic should understand that the Protestant, in general, would also answer the same. Mary is blessed. Mary received a blessing beyond compare to any other: She bore to us our Lord and Savior. The Son of God calls her Mother!

Protestants, however, do not venerate Mary as the Catholics do. In fact, Protestants mostly have a great disdain for veneration of any saint, thinking it akin to idolatry. As an effect, most are wary to assign such titles to any saint, living or dead. They typically stop at Pastor and other lesser priest-like titles, and naturally those are for persons actually holding the office. So what we have is that Catholics literally call her "Blessed" and Protestants call her blessed when describing the nature of her relationship with Christ.

Cynics, who may or may not be Protestant or even Christian, may also note that this might be a case of a self-fulfilled prophecy. Mary said people would call her blessed. People agreed, namely the Church, and started calling her blessed, literally.


What is the biblical basis for both tithing and offering in the New Covenant, instead of just offering?

You asked specifically about the New Covenant, where tithing is mentioned only once.
Matthew 23:23 NKJV
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin,
and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith.
These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.

In other words, they should have tithed and practiced the "weightier matters". It's up to you to decide whether that means it still applies today or not. There isn't a 100% consensus but most Christians tend to believe that tithing still applies.
As for the difference between tithes and offerings, I'll draw the comparison. Offerings require conscious generosity as you cited above - in contrast, tithing is a prescribed amount. Paying a tithe means literally to pay a tenth. Tithe Etymology
Obviously there's no room for being generous or making such decisions if you're simply paying a predetermined 1/10th amount. The distinction seems clear. The only real argument is the question of Matthew 23:23 itself.


What does the Bible say in regards to technological development?

The Bible says nothing directly about technological advancement. It neither condemns nor condones. The closest you could come to a Biblical statement is the story of the Tower of Babel, in which mankind advances and God intervenes to set us back a bit, for the sole purpose of restraining us. (verses 6-8 below)

  Genesis 11:1-9

  King James Version (KJV)

  11 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

  2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they
  found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

  3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn
  them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for
  morter.

  4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top
  may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered
  abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

  5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the
  children of men builded.

  6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one
  language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be
  restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

  7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they
  may not understand one another's speech.

  8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all
  the earth: and they left off to build the city.

  9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there
  confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord
  scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

However, this isn't so much a denouncement on technology as a denouncement on pride and arrogance.

As for individual technological advancement, Scripture is silent. On general, it's how we choose to use technology that can be addressed Scripturally. The same computer that can be used to steal or view pornography can be used to share medical knowledge and save lives. The technology is neither good not evil in and of itself.

As for "playing God", that isn't a good fit for the site because the definition of "playing God" is different for different people and groups. I will go no further than to say that clearly, the Bible is not opposed to medicine and following medical guidelines to save and protect lives. For example, many of the Old Testament laws were designed to protect the people from disease.


Do Christians Believe Persecution is a Part of Their Identity?

The Catholic Church believes that those who truly follow Christ will encounter all manners of hardship and persecution, but that persecution is not simply for persecution's sake; it is instead an effect of Original Sin and its effects upon the world: because true disciples fight for justice and right, those who hate justice will hate its bearers. See John 3:19–21:

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

In fact, the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes says, in its paragraph 38:

To those, therefore, who believe in divine love, He gives assurance that the way of love lies open to men and that the effort to establish a universal brotherhood is not a hopeless one. He cautions them at the same time that this charity is not something to be reserved for important matters, but must be pursued chiefly in the ordinary circumstances of life. Undergoing death itself for all of us sinners,(12) He taught us by example that we too must shoulder that cross which the world and the flesh inflict upon those who search after peace and justice.

EDIT: Korvin Starmast mentions in a comment the Beatitudes (Mt 5:10–11;Lk:22–23):

10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
23 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.

In these passages, as well, Christ promises suffering for his disciples, but suffering for the Son of man's sake, or for righteousness's sake. Here, as well, the key is righteousness (which is Christ). The suffering comes, but it is a means, not an end.  Bruce Alderman, too, quoted 2nd Century theologian Tertullian in an answer:

[I]t is quite true that it is our desire to suffer, but it is in the way that the soldier longs for war. No one indeed suffers willingly, since suffering necessarily implies fear and danger. Yet the man who objected to the conflict, both fights with all his strength, and when victorious, he rejoices in the battle, because he reaps from it glory and spoil. It is our battle to be summoned to your tribunals that there, under fear of execution, we may battle for the truth. But the day is won when the object of the struggle is gained. This victory of ours gives us the glory of pleasing God, and the spoil of life eternal. But we are overcome. Yes, when we have obtained our wishes. Therefore we conquer in dying; we go forth victorious at the very time we are subdued. … The oftener we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed.


I've found several options.  First, a few issues from the various editions are available online at issuu.com; for example:

Jan–Mar 2010
July 2010
November 2010

Individual issues of the periodical can sometimes be found for purchase on online auction sites, such as ebay.com.

And finally, some libraries carry the periodical.  WorldCat.org can be helpful in this regard, though not all libraries with the periodical are listed in the same entry.  This entry lists the National Library of Scotland and the University of Oxford, while this one lists the University of Cambridge.


Abraham tries to sacrifice his son. Is exploiting a human a moral behaviour?

Let's lay some foundation from the start. (All scripture NIV)

God and Abraham had quite the relationship. God promised Abraham a son who would become a great nation (Genesis 17:15) even when he was 100 years old and his wife was 90. Abraham believed God and God provided him a son who was named Isaac (Genesis 21:2).

Isaac was the son God has promised Abraham, but as a test of Abraham's faith God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac on an altar as an offering to God (child sacrifice was a common ritual among pagans in that time period). From the very beginning of the passage the author of Genesis tells us that this is a test of Abraham's faith (Genesis 22:1). This was an unusual thing to do; however, it allowed God to show his faithfulness and also Abraham to show his faith in God. It's unclear to me from the passage whether Abraham believed that God would provide the sacrifice or if he knew that God could raise the dead (Gen 22:8, Hebrews 11:19).

The final verses in the passage say (Genesis 22:15-18):

  15 The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, “I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.”

Faith is the key here, not blind obedience.

Much like Abraham was willing to give his own Son. God, the better Abraham, gave his own son to die for our sins. We see in the context of the New Testament that Abraham's sacrifice of his son was foreshadowing the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for our sins. The parallels are nicely illustrated in the following table:

Isaac (Genesis 22)                         Jesus

Only son of promise (v. 2)                 Only begotten of Father (John 3:16)

To be sacrificed in Moriah (v. 2)          Sacrificed in Jerusalem (2 Chron. 3:1)

Considered dead by father for              Dead for three days (1 Cor. 15:3-4)
three days (v. 4)

Carried wood for his own sacrifice (v. 6)  Bore his own cross (John 19:17-18)

Submitted willingly to father (vv. 6, 8)   Submitted willingly to Father
                                           (Matt. 26:39)

Raised from altar, his life spared by      Raised from the dead by
the power of God                           the power of God (Rom. 6:4)

Now, from the very beginning God's people has brought sacrifices as payment for their sins (Genesis 4:4 (Abel), 8:20 (Noah)). Later God mandated that Israel make sacrifices for atonement (Exodus 29:33,36).

Unfortunately these were imperfect offerings and were not sufficient to cover the sins of the people. They needed a better sacrifice (Hebrews 9:9-10). Christ was a perfect sacrifice for our sins.
Hebrews 9:11-14:

  11 But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

This is not about modern day morals about God keeping his promises to Abraham and his people. God promised Abraham that "I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky" and "through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed." The initial outpouring of this blessing was through the formation of the nation of Israel. However the perfection of this blessing was through the death of Christ and God granting us as Christians the status of Abraham's descendants.
Galatians 3:29:

  29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

This is why Christ died, so that we might be children of God. He was a perfect sacrifice for our sins as foretold in the life of Abraham and Isaac. In the same way that God is a better Abraham, Jesus is a better Isaac. In the same way that Israel were Abraham's (and God's) children through the line of Isaac, we are God's (and Abraham's) children through Jesus.

Finally you address a moral concern about human sacrifice. This is an interesting question. For one thing I think it's to let us know that God takes this seriously.
Romans 8:31-34:

  31 What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34 Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.

The second reason I have is this one, Isaiah 55:

 8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
     neither are your ways my ways,”
        declares the LORD.
 9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
    so are my ways higher than your ways
    and my thoughts than your thoughts.
 10 As the rain and the snow
    come down from heaven,
  and do not return to it
    without watering the earth
  and making it bud and flourish,
    so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
 11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
    It will not return to me empty,
 but will accomplish what I desire
    and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
 12 You will go out in joy
    and be led forth in peace;
 the mountains and hills
    will burst into song before you,
 and all the trees of the field
    will clap their hands.
 13 Instead of the thornbush will grow the juniper,
    and instead of briers the myrtle will grow.
 This will be for the LORD’s renown,
    for an everlasting sign,
    that will endure forever.”

Essentially, God is not bound by our human laws and morals; his ways are not our ways.


Does the parish priest have the authority to forbid communion in the mouth due to COVID pandemic?
The short answer is no.
But there is a caveat to my response, which I am sure will not go down smooth with some of those who are very traditional.
A priest, of his own accord, can not refuse to give any faithful communion on the tongue and require that they receive Our Lord on the hand. Communion on the tongue is the norm within the Catholic Church and communion on the hand is permitted only by indult or special permission.

[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful. - Redemptionis Sacramentum

Thus it is obvious that communion on the tongue is our ecclesiastical right and no priest has the authority to change that fact on his own merits.
The faithful have the right to receive Communion in the hand or on the tongue. (See the article on Guidelines on Sacraments and Pastoral Care.)
Ultimately the pope could require communion on the hand due to a pandemic as a temporary measure to stop the spread of the coronavirus. It is highly doubtful that any pope would go that route.
Many dioceses have special protocols in place in regards to communion in regards to the present Covid-19.
Here are the new guidelines for the Archdiocese of Vancouver, where I live:

Reception of Holy Communion within Mass
In coming forward to receive Communion, physical distancing in single file must be maintained in the procession, though members of the same household need not do so.
As far as possible, all aisles should be only for one-way traffic.
It is recommended that the dialogue between the minister and the communicant take place with two metres separating them. The communicant bows to the minister, who says, “The Body of Christ,” to which the response “Amen” is given. The communicant then steps forward to receive Communion in the usual way.
The minister should take special care not to touch the faithful in any way (hand, tongue, etc.). If the minister senses that his fingers have touched the communicant or that the communicant’s hands have touched him, he should pause, place the ciborium on the corporal, purify his fingers in the ablution cup and then use hand sanitizer. The ablution cup should be cleansed after each Mass. The minister should repeat this process as often as he judges necessary during the distribution of Communion. It is not necessary, however, for the minister to use the ablution cup and hand sanitizer between each communicant, unless he makes actual physical contact.

I will admit that that there have been priests in our archdiocese who have refused the faithful communion on the tongue because of the virus. To this I have pointed out the new guidelines for the archdiocese and that he does not have the ecclesiastical authority to alter the norms that the archbishop has put forth.
This would be fine to leave the issue here and move on, but the whole story does not end here.
I am not going to get involved with the whole situation of the church-state, but a few lines need to be addressed here.
In some countries communion on the hand has been imposed by various governments due to concerns about the present pandemic, such as Germany. In this case the bishop might not explicitly tell the priest that state laws must be kept. Many are in favour of this, but not all.

In a letter to The Tablet this week the chairman of the Latin Mass Society, Joseph Shaw, observed that it was not permitted to distribute the host on the hand at the Extraordinary Form, and that in parishes where this was made mandatory, only the priest would consume. He also said that there was no objective medical foundation for suspending reception on the tongue.
Professor Jim McManus, Director of Public Health, who has advised the Bishops’ Conference on their response, told The Tablet: “The guidance is consistent with the fact that coronavirus is spread through saliva. That is backed up by studies which show that the virus has been consistently detected in the saliva of 91.7 per cent of patients.”
Mgr Basil Loftus, in another letter for The Tablet, said that it was urgent that the bishops forbid the giving of Communion on the tongue. - Coronavirus dispute over communion on the tongue

Matters of this nature are always reserve to the Holy See. Bishops must defer any questions to Rome on these matters. However, our present Holy Father seems to simply state indirectly that in countries which are ordered to give communion on the hand by government health rules pertaining to the present health situation are to obey those same governmental requirements.

Pope Francis waded into the church-state debate about virus-imposed lockdowns of religious services, calling Tuesday for “prudence and obedience” to government protocols to prevent infections from surging again.
Francis’ appeal came just two days after Italian bishops bitterly complained that the Italian government offered no provisions for Masses to resume in its plan to reopen Italian business, social and sporting life starting May 4.
While it wasn’t clear if Francis intended to send a different message than the bishops, his appeal for obedience and prudence was in line with his previous calls to protect the most vulnerable, and for economic interests to take a back seat to shows of solidarity.
At the same time, Francis has certainly chafed at the lockdown, saying early on that he felt like he was in a “cage” and lamenting more recently that the church isn’t really “Church” without a community of faithful present and the administration of sacraments.
“As we are beginning to have protocols to get out of quarantine, let us pray that the Lord gives his people, all of us, the grace of prudence and obedience to the protocols so that the pandemic doesn’t return,” Francis said Tuesday.
Francis' weekly Sunday blessings from his window overlooking an empty St. Peter’s Square, not to mention his solo Holy Week and Easter services, have served as a stark visual reminder of how the pandemic has radically altered the practice of communal religious observance around the world.
Some Catholic conservatives and traditionalists have bristled at the closures and framed them as a violation of their right to religious liberty. Some evangelical pastors in the U.S., Brazil and elsewhere have resisted lockdowns and held services, and big religious observances in South Korea, France and Iran have been been blamed for helping to spread the infection early on. - Pope urges virus lockdown obedience amid church-state debate

The pope in simpling asking the faithful to obey. He has not stated that they must obey quarantine requirements. But logic dictates that that the majority of the faithful will heed the words of Pope Francis.
To obey the government rules of lockdown, does not mean that we can not challenge these same rules through dialogue with various levels of government. Legal steps within the courts have already been done by some Catholic Bishops already in various countries.
The following articles may be of interest:

Can We Be Required to Receive Holy Communion in the Hand, Because of the Virus?
US Bishops Approve Communion on the Tongue


Is there, or was there, a Christian denomination that believes, or believed, that Jesus Christ was "just a normal human"?

Historically, there have been a number of sects that denied the divinity of Jesus, claiming that he was a man, and nothing more.*

In the first few centuries of Christianity, most of these groups held the Christiological heresy (from the point of view of mainstream Christianity) called Adoptionism, also known as dynamic monarchianism. Its basic tenet is that Jesus was merely a man, and that he became the Son of God by adoption at some historical moment: generally the Baptism in the Jordan, at the Resurrection, or the Ascension.

The most famous adherents of this heresy were Theodotus of Byzantium and Paul of Samosata. This was also the theory, apparently, of the Ebionites, who were a group of Jews living in the first and second century, who considered Jesus the Messiah, but not the natural Son of God (as orthodox Christians do).

These early sects have long since died out; however, in later centuries, there have been many individuals who have considered Jesus to be a great moral teacher, or a wise philosopher, but not God. This, for example, is generally the attitude of Deism (a philosophical position toward religion that became common in the Enlightenment period, roughly 1715-1789, ending with the French Revolution) toward Jesus.

Perhaps the denomination that comes nearest to an explicit denial of Jesus’ divinity is Unitarianism. Historically, Unitarianism professes an explicit denial of the dogma of the Holy Trinity. (In this sense, the Unitarians re-proposed a doctrine similar to Monarchianism. Historically, Monarchianism—the denial of the Trinity—has two possible Christological implications: either Adoptionism, as described above, or Modalism or Patripassianism, which does not deny Jesus’s divinity, but denies that Jesus’s Person is distinct from the Father.) As a general tendency, Unitarians have tended to downplay the supernatural aspects of Jesus’ life and ministry, so they generally do not acknowledge his Divinity, in the orthodox sense. (The denomination does not impose a definite creed, and so there is a wide variety of beliefs and opinions.)

* Attentive readers will observe that I left out the most important historical denial of the divinity of Christ: Arianism. The reason is that Arianism is principally a Trinitarian heresy; that is, Arius and his followers denied that the Word—the Second Person of the Trinity—is God like the Father. They did not, however, deny the supernatural character of the Incarnation, nor that Jesus was more than merely a man. (In fact, their Christology was closer to that of Apollinaris of Laodicea, which tended to deny Jesus’ full humanity.)


What is the biblical evidence against a pre-incarnate Jesus?

Evidence for denying a pre-incarnate son

There are a number of verses, but for now, I'll focus on one the majority of Christians look to, and that's John 1:1. The way a trinitarian might understand this verse is that the word is God's son. A unitarian understands the word as the word that is personified by John, similarly to the way wisdom is personified in Proverbs 8:22-31. Here are few verses regarding God's word personified.

God spoke to create the Universe. (Genesis 1; Psalm 33:6, 9)
God's word is sent out to accomplish that which God wills. (Isa. 55:10, 11)

Jesus' pre-existence and biblical unitarian positions

Jesus the man and messiah is made a reality when the word became flesh. (John 1:14) When it comes to biblical unitarianism, there are different views. One common belief they all hold is that Jesus isn't the god known as Yahweh. This belief in a single, unipersonal god is exclusive to the Father.


What is the meaning of 'scandalous' associated with the crucifixion of Jesus?

Perhaps the closest biblical connection is to 1 Corinthians 1:23:

  we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles (ESV)

Ravi Zacharias makes this connection in an article entitled "The Scandal of the Cross":

  To the Greek, the cross was foolishness. To the Jew, it was a stumbling block. What is it about the cross of Christ that so roundly defies everything that power relishes? Crucifixion was humiliating. It was so humiliating that the Romans who specialized in the art of torture assured their own citizenry that a Roman could never be crucified. But not only was it humiliating, it was excruciating. In fact, the very word “excruciating” comes from two Latin words: ex cruciatus, or out of the cross. Crucifixion was the defining word for pain.

Mark Baker and Joel Green, in Recovering the Scandal of the Cross, also see a connection between this passage and the "scandal" of the crucifixion:

  Paul himself provides evidence that we have too easily made sense of the scandal of the death of God's Messiah.  In 1 Corinthians 1:18–25, Paul outlines a perspective on the cross many of us have learned to overlook.  Here he testifies to the lunacy of the cross for the first-century Roman, matched by its ignominious character among the Jewish people.  [...] In Paul's argument with the Corinthians the cross does not have the appearance of "good news" but of absurdity. (33)

And finally, D. A. Carson titles his 2010 book on the crucifixion and resurrection Scandalous, emphasizing the ironies and absurdities associated with the crucifixion (cf. Matthew 27, Romans 3, and Revelation 12).  So to many Christian writers, the typical understanding of the word scandalous as "shocking" and "upsetting" (see Merriam-Webster) is perfectly, even eminently, applicable to the cross.


What is the premise from which "the greater works" promise was made by Jesus?

Simply put, the "greater works" of which Jesus spoke encompass the good deeds of the saints of God worldwide. Although Jesus' works were remarkably awesome (and the apostle John insists that his gospel included only a small portion of them--see John 20:30), the "greater works" are accomplished in the power of the Spirit by the members of the church universal, which of course is spread throughout the entire world.

With very few exceptions, Jesus limited his working to the tiny country of Israel, and as far as we know he never ventured abroad with his message of the kingdom of God/heaven and repentance. He left that work, and the various signs and wonders which often accompany it, to his disciples throughout the world as they obeyed his "Great Commission":

  Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age (Matthew 28:19-20 NASB).

In other words, Christians since the first century have been the hands, feet, and tongue of Jesus in the world. As they obey Christ in making disciples, those disciples will in turn make disciples themselves. In so doing, the works of Christ proliferate among more and more Jesus-followers.

Lest Christians think that only the showy, spectacular, and awe-inspiring works (e.g., healings, resurrections, and other sign gifts) are the "greater" ones of which Jesus spoke, they need remind themselves of two things. First, the greatest of all works was our Lord's cross-death and resurrection. And second, our Lord made crystal clear that the primary work of his disciples on earth was making disciples, through preaching, baptizing, and teaching obedience to his commands, the greatest of which is to love one another (see John 13:35).

Some food for thought . . .. During Jesus' public ministry, including the 40 days following his resurrection, Jesus (and followers of "The Way") numbered in the thousands. In heaven, thanks to the "greater works" of Christ's body worldwide, there may well be scores of millions--or more--of Christ followers in heaven!


Is Meister Eckhart's teaching condemned by the Roman Catholic Church?

John Hardon, S.J.'s Catholic Dictionary says this in the entry for "Eckhart":

  General name for the spiritual teaching of Meister Eckhart (1260-1327), the German Dominican mystic and of his followers. In 1329, Pope John XXII condemned twenty-eight of Eckhart's sentences as heretical or dangerous, e.g.: "We are totally transformed into God and changed into Him . . . Though a person commits a thousand mortal sins, if he is rightly disposed, he should not wish not to have committed them … A good man is the only begotten Son of God." Investigation of his doctrine has since indicated Eckhart's personal orthodoxy, while admitting indiscretion in language and the fact that his writings have been used by persons unfavorable to the Church, as Kant to defend agnostic idealism, Hegel to defend pantheism, and Rosenberg to defend Nazism.

See also the entry on him in the old Catholic Encyclopedia.

Eckhart's propositions that Pope John XXII condemned are:(source: Denzinger's Sources of Catholic Dogma #501-529)

  Errors of Eckhart (The Son of God, etc.) *

  [Examined and condemned in the edict In agro dominico, Mar. 27,
  1329]

Condemned as heretical:

  (1) And when asked why God did not create the world first, he answered that God was not able to create the world first, * because He
  cannot make things before He is; therefore, as soon as God was, He
  immediately created the world.
  (2) Likewise it can be granted that the world existed from eternity.
  (3) Likewise at the same time and once, when God was, when He begot the Son coeternal with Himself, through all things coequal God,
  He also created the world.
  (4) Likewise in every work, even evil, evil I say, as of punishment and of sin, the glory of God is manifested and reflects
  equally.
  (5) Likewise he who blames anyone, in the blame itself by the sin of blaming praises God, and the more he blames and the more gravely he
  sins, the more he praises God.
  (6) Likewise anyone by blaspheming God Himself, praises God.
  (7) Also he seeking anything here or there seeks evil and badly be cause he seeks the denial of good and the denial of God, and he
  prays God to be denied to him.
  (8) In those men who do not seek after wealth, or honors, or utility, or interior devotion, or sanctity or reward, or the kingdom
  of heaven, but renounce all these things even that which is theirs,
  God is honored.
  (9) Recently I have considered whether I would wish to receive or to wish for anything from God; I wish to deliberate exceedingly
  well about this, because when I was receiving from God, then I was
  under Him or below Him, as a servant or slave, and He [was] as a
  master in giving, and thus we ought not to be in eternal life.
  (10) We are transformed entirely in God, and we are changed into Him; in a similar manner as in the sacrament the bread is changed into
  the body of Christ; so I am changed into Him because He Himself makes
  me to be one with Him, not like (to Him); through the living God it is
  true that there is no distinction there.
  (11) Whatever God the Father gave to His only begotten Son in human nature, all this He has given to me; here I except nothing,
  neither union, nor sanctity, but He has given all to me as to Himself.
  (12) Whatever Sacred Scripture says about Christ, all this also is verified with respect to every good and divine man.
  (13) Whatever is proper to divine nature, all this is proper to the just and divine man; because of this that man operates whatever
  God operates, and together with God he created heaven and earth, and
  he is the generator of the eternal Word, and God without such a man
  does not know how to do anything.
  (14) A good man ought so to conform his will to the divine will that he himself wishes whatever God wishes; because God wishes me to
  have sinned in some way, I would not wish that I had not committed
  sins, and this is true repentance.
  (15) If man had committed a thousand mortal sins, if such a man were rightly disposed, he ought not to wish that he had not committed
  them.

Condemned as "evil-sounding, rash, and suspected of heresy":

  (16) God properly does not prescribe an exterior act.
  (17) An exterior act is not properly good or divine, neither does God properly operate it or produce it.
  (18) We bring forth the fruit not of exterior actions which do not make us good, but of interior actions which the Father abiding in
  us does and operates.
  (19) God loves souls, not works outside.
  (20) A good man is the only begotten Son of God.
  (21) A noble man is that only begotten Son of God whom the Father has begotten from eternity.
  (22) The Father begot me His son and the same Son. Whatever God does, this is one; because of this He Himself begot me His Son without
  any distinction.
  (23) God is one in all ways and according to every reason, so that in Himself He cannot find any multitude in intellect or outside
  intellect; for he who sees two, or sees a distinction, does not see
  God, for God is one beyond the above number, neither is He counted one
  [read: number I with anyone. It follows, therefore, that no
  distinction can exist or be understood in God Himself.
  (24) Every distinction is foreign to God, either in nature or in person; it is proved that nature itself is one and this oneness, and
  any person is one and the oneness which is nature.
  (25) When it is said: "Simon, do you love me more than these?" [John 21:15 f.], the sense is: That is, more than those and indeed
  well but not perfectly. For in the first and the second and more and
  less there is both a degree and a rank; in oneness, however, there is
  no degree nor rank. Therefore, he who loves God more than his
  neighbor, (loves) indeed well but not yet perfectly.
  (26) All creatures are one pure nothing; I do not say that they are something ordinary or anything, but that they are one pure
  nothing.

  In addition there is an objection against the above said Eckhart,
  because he preached two other articles under these words:

Condemned as heretical:

  (1) Something is in the soul which is uncreated and incapable of creation; if the entire soul were such, it would be uncreated and
  incapable of creation, and this is the intellect.
  (2) That God is not good nor better nor best; so I speak badly whenever I call God good, as if I should call white black.

Pope John XXII's final statement:

  . . . We condemn and expressly disapprove the first fifteen articles and also the two last ones as "heretical," but the eleven
  others already mentioned as "evil-sounding, rash, and suspected of
  heresy," and no less any books or works of this Eckhart containing the
  above mentioned articles or any one of them.


The use of the word 'face' is different in these two contexts.
In the first use God is said to speak to Moses 'face to face' that is not from some distant position as in a dream, or vision but speaking audibly to him while under some visible form.  In other words, God spoke to Moses like a person does who is having a conversation.  God spoke out of a burning bush, out of a pillar of cloud, ect. and he spoke as in conversation between friends.  That is Moses could ask questions, God would answer, the conversation would continue, ect.  Speaking face to face was not the normal mode which God communicated with men, or later prophets.
Regarding the specific 'form' that God presented to the elders representing the people of Israel, it was actually a 'formless' representation of glorious fire wrapped in a cloud that made the place at which it joined the glorious upper heavens to the spot on earth which they stood, a shining clear blue. The blue a reflection of the sky of heaven. The elders saw the same thing that the people in general saw, only closer. The word 'foot' does not mean that there was some secret form, like for example the more Christlike appearance of Ezekiel 1:26 where the 'appearance of a man' was seen. The foot is meant to be understood as not a human foot but as a base. God's glory in heaven landed on earth making a covenant with his people, that was the base. Certainly if they saw a human form they would have make and idol, something which was forbidden as they had not seen any real form:

And you came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, while the mountain burned with fire to the heart of heaven, wrapped in darkness, cloud, and gloom. Then the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice.(Duet 4:11-12)
“Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female. (Duet 4:15-16)

The second use of the phase pertains to the manifestation of God's glory. When you look into the face of someone you can see into their eye's, along with the expression on their face, their essential personality or being.  If you only saw the back of their head, you might not even know who you were looking at.  The idea in Moses not being able to see God's face is that he could not witness the essential glory of God.  No man while veiled in sinful flesh can see God's essential unmasked glory and live:

As our bodily eye is dazzled, and its power of vision destroyed, by looking directly at the brightness of the sun, so would our whole nature be destroyed by an unveiled sight of the brilliancy of the glory of God. (Commentary of the Old Testament, Keil & Delitzsch, 1.476)

Therefore although Moses wanted to penetrate deep into the glory of God he had to accept a limitation and only see the back of God.  God is using human terms to express a limited reflection of his glory.  The glory that must have appeared to him was a deep revelation of the meaning of the very words which were spoken as his 'glory passed by':

And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.” (Exodus 34:6-7, NIV)

It seems that part of this deeper revelation of Jehovah, the I AM that I AM, or the eternal powerful one, is by putting love and grace before wrath. However putting love first was not meant to imply that his infinite justice and wrath for sin would ever be compromised, rather his glory is simply more wrapped up in his grace and love than in his other aspects of his back-parts. Moses must have seen God's love in an extraordinary matter. Infact it made his face shine, but as the Law did not really centre in God's grace but was in a large part a revelation of his holiness, justice and wrath for sin, this glory faded and was veiled until the full manifestation of grace was revealed in the face of God's own Son. (2 Cor 3:7)
Did Moses see God face to face, i.e. see his essential glory? No, not while on this earth. However after he died, like every believer he would have immedietly become awakened into the full glory of God under the bright rays of heaven.


Below I've tried to summarize Calvin's views and then characterize Pelagius' as they relate to salvation by faith alone. All quotes from Calvin below are from his Institutes of the Christian religion. I will therefore just reference chapter and part in my quotes from Calvin. I left Luther out, because I don't have any of his books on hand.

Faith Alone according to Calvin:

John Calvin taught what is familiar to most contemporary Protestants

Book 3 Chapter 2
Part 1

  "God by his Law prescribes what we ought to do, failure in any one respect subjects us to the dreadful judgment of eternal death, ... it is not only difficult, but altogether beyond our strength and ability to fulfill the demands of the Law ... " (no merit in ourselves can be found) "there is only one method of deliverance which can deliver us ... when Christ the Redeemer appears ... if we with true faith embrace this mercy, and with firm hope rest in it.

Part 2

  "Faith consists not in ignorance, but in knowledge - knowledge not of God merely, but of the divine will. We do not obtain salvation either because we are prepared to embrace every dictate of the church as true, or leave to the church the province of inquiring and determining; but when we recognize God as a propitious Father through the reconciliation made by Christ ... By this knowledge ... we obtain an entrance into the kingdom of heaven."

Part 3

  "Faith consists in the knowledge of God and Christ"

So faith is the knowledge of Christ's work for us by which we receive his righteousness.

Pelagius

Now attempting to characterize whether Pelagius taught that man may be saved by faith alone is more difficult. He certainly did not teach that man must be saved by faith alone as Calvin did.

The Seven Ecumenical Councils from Shaff's Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, the Excursus on Pelagianism  (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xiv.xxvi.html)

  "Further he taught that man could live without committing any sin at all. And for this there was no need of grace; indeed grace was not possible, according to his teaching.  The only “grace,” which he would admit the existence of, was what we may call external grace, e.g. the example of Christ, the teaching of his ministers, and the like."

Augustine gives some more detail about how Pelagius believed man could be saved without grace here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xiv.xxvi.html (chapter 22 of his Anti-Pelagian writings)

We take for granted that Pelagius must have thought that if a man has chosen to be without sin, then he will enjoy eternal life. So it can be safely stated that man did not need to be saved by faith-alone. The question then is how Pelagius viewed those who had sinned and therefore needed grace; could those poor souls be saved by faith alone in the way Calvin understood it? I think the answer is no.

Unfortunately the best on topic content that I found comes from St. Augustine in his polemic against Pelagius.

St. Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings Chapter 33 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xiv.xxxvii.html), quoting Pelagius here:

  "we declare that God gives to the person, who has proved himself worthy to receive them, all graces, even as He conferred them on the Apostle Paul."

I don't think it takes much imagination to see how this statement by Pelagius directly opposes salvation by faith alone as taught by Calvin or any other Protestant (it is probably even unagreeable to Catholics); so long as we extend the grace he refers to here to include saving grace and not just the grace received by believers after baptism (personally I don't differentiate between the two). Chapter 33-36 of this work is where St. Augustine makes the following important points:

Grace is given to those who don't deserve it
If grace were given to the deserving it wouldn't be grace
Faith is given by God and works follow after this faith is implanted in the believer

All of these points are made as refutations of Pelagius' teachings and all points are foundational to the reformed doctrine in question; so if St. Augustine is to be believed, then Pelagius definitely couldn't have believed that man is saved by faith alone. However, this condemnation seems to all be hung on this one statement from Pelagius (I didn't read all those chapters in detail).

Following are some secondary considerations:

Pelagius - Letter and Confession of Faith to Innocent I (http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/pelagius_letter_and_confession_to_innocent.htm)

  "If after baptism a man do fall, we believe he may be recovered by repentance [or penance]."

This little snippet stands opposed to Calvin's teachings. He did say that repentance was required throughout life, but firmly rejected the Catholic practice of penance and the sacrament of confession altogether. Pelagius, however, appears to view it as a necessary action for those who have sinned to restore their salvation. It is worth noting that this was not a controversial doctrine at the time, St. Augustine probably agreed with him on this point.

St. Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings Chapter 28 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xiv.xxxii.html)

  "the Church is by the laver cleansed from every spot and wrinkle ... And who amongst us denies that in baptism the sins of all men are remitted, and that all believers come up spotless and pure from the laver of regeneration?"

Pelagius most certainly taught that those defiled by sin must be baptized to receive the forgiveness of sins. This contradicts how many Protestants conceive of salvation by faith-alone: believing saves you and baptism is just a symbol of that belief. However, I cannot say how Calvin would respond to this, he seems to emphasize different aspects of baptism, but not deny that it is how we initially receive grace: "forgiveness ... at our first regeneration we receive by baptism alone" (4:15:3). However, he mostly talks about how baptism gives the believer "knowledge and certainty" (4:15:1) of the gifts of salvation. Since knowledge = faith to Calvin, perhaps we can say that Calvin thought that baptism gives better understanding and assurance which is in itself perfecting the faith that already exists and therefore needful for salvation; however it is still this faith that saves. I think Calvin's views on baptism differ from Pelagius', but have some overlap. When Calvin attacks Pelagius he does so for his conception of infant baptism, not on his teachings about why converts need baptism. I don't think we can say that this teaching alone would exclude him from believing in faith-alone salvation from Calvin's viewpoint, but according to some it would.

In summary, imposing a contemporary reformed doctrine on Pelagius is difficult, because it was not what he was on trial for. None of his accusers condemned him for saying that man must work for his salvation or apply his effort to it. He was condemned for allowing that man may be saved apart from grace. Notice that the anathemas against Pelagius from the council of Carthage (http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/carthage_canons_on_sin_and_grace.htm) say that "without the grace of God we can do no good thing." They do not say that man cannot perform actions pleasing to God which are beneficial to salvation; neither do they say that man is saved by faith alone, they simply state that man cannot do any of these things with God's grace (note St. John Cassian's exhortation to a synergistic view of salvation in response to Augustine's polemical writings; as talked about in the article posted in my first comment).

The best proof we have is Augustine's words against Pelagius, but one may think that he is extrapolating the words of the heretic a bit.

As an aside, I would use caution with the phrase "faith apart from works" when referring to the soteriology of Calvin. He certainly taught that believers were to inherit salvation through good works.

Book 3 Chapter 18
Part1

"But though it is by mercy alone that God admits his people to life, yet as he leads them into possession of it by the course of good works"

Part 3

"believers must continue running during the whole course of their lives in order that they may attain it"


Do parts of Hebrews 3 and 4 imply that saved Christians can become unsaved?

No.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
28I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and
no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who
has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to
snatch them out of the Father's hand. - John 10:27-29 ESV

and

I will not leave you or forsake you. - Josh. 1:5 ESV

and

For the LORD will not forsake his people; - Ps. 94:14 ESV

The logical explanation of the verses in Hebrews is that those who fall away were never truly participators in the covenant to begin with. Indeed, reading the surrounding context in Hebrews is quite helpful:

So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.
Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us
fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it.
2For good news came to us just as to them, but the message
they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith
with those who listened. 3For we who have believed enter
that rest... - Hebrews 3:19-4:3 ESV

As the author explains, those who did not enter never believed in the first place.  This may seem strange considering what appeared to be a strong faith, so it's helpful to go to James on the subject.

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does
not have works? Can that faith save him? ...You believe that God is
one; you do well. Even the demons believe - and shudder!  - James 2:14, 19 ESV

Typically faith is split into three categories: knowledge, assent, commitment. Most modern day Americans have knowledge (that is, most know of the gospel of Christ, or at least have heard of Jesus). Many believe that He died for their sins. But as James says, "even the demons believe!" Not so many, perhaps, actually trust God for their salvation. It is one thing to think that Jesus died for you, pray a prayer, and move on. It is another to live one's whole life utterly devoted to God, in light of Christ's death and wholly dependent upon that death for Salvation.
So, it seems the people in the church addressed in Hebrews were knowers, believers even. But "faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." (James 4:17). And dead faith is really no use to anyone. With a dead (nonexistent, i'd argue) faith, those people never really trusted in God in the first place - they were never Jesus's sheep in the first place, so they were not snatched out of his hand.
[from the perspective of a reformed presbyterian.]


What explanations have been offered for the "messianic secret" passages?

Logically, there are two possibilities: either Jesus himself said such things or they were added to the tradition at a later date.  Neither view offers a clear-cut explanation, so a wide variety of ideas for the "secretive" passages have been offered by Christian commentators and Bible scholars over the years.
Jesus did not tell anyone to remain quiet
Wrede's theory
In 1901,  William Wrede was the first modern scholar to tackle the question.  He decided the words, couldn't have come from Jesus because it was unreasonable to expect people to keep quiet and thus a historical Jesus couldn't have made the command.  Observing that the secrecy theme occurs primarily in Mark, he hypothesized that the passages were written to explain why Jesus had not been recognized as the Messiah during his life. (The lead to explain this was based on the supposition that the earliest belief in Jesus' Messiahship began after his death.)1
Although Wrede's paper was a landmark in Biblical scholarship (the translated name of the paper gives us the "Messianic secret" name by which the passage are still described in scholarship), the ideas were attacked pretty much from their proposal.1  The idea gained currency in the 1920s, but has steadily fallen out of favor among Biblical scholars since then.  By the 1970s, the theory was essentially dead, as it raised many more problems than it solved.  In the words of G. E. Ladd, it "is a clever theory, but utterly lacking in evidence."2
Other historical explanations
Since Wrede, a number of other redactional explanations have been offered.  In the view of Ulrich Lutz, Mark is using the motif to redefine what the Messiah is, by tying it to the cross & resurrection instead of the life of Jesus.  Eugene Boring proposed that the motif grew out of an attempt to combine views that emphasized Jesus' power with views that emphasized his suffering and death.1
Literary explanations
Others have suggested it is some sort of literary device, perhaps to let readers understand that God's revelation is a secret reserved for the elect, or to explain why many Jews rejected Jesus and the Gospel message was then spread to Gentiles instead.1
Jesus did sometimes tell people to remain quiet
Avoid hindrances
Among those who see the words as coming from Jesus, a popular explanation is that public disclosure would hinder Jesus' mission.  Large crowds, for example, would inhibit his ability to move about from town to town.  Too much attention would attract the attention of authority figures - Jewish and/or Roman - and cause a confrontation before the time was right.1
Mold the 12
A related idea is the Jesus wanted to mold the 12 primarily through his teaching, allowing them to gradually come to accept him as Messiah.  His primary mission was not to teach the public, but rather to teach the future leaders of the new Church.
The Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary takes this view, saying that Matt 12:18-21, which quotes Isaiah 42:14, is perhaps "the best explanation of Jesus' secrecy:

Behold, my servant whom I have chosen,
my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased.
I will put my Spirit upon him,
and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles.
He will not quarrel or cry aloud,
nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets;
a bruised reed he will not break,
and a smoldering wick he will not quench,
until he brings justice to victory;
and in his name the Gentiles will hope.”  (ESV)

In other words, Jesus' secrecy is part of his "gentle teaching" that will mold the minds of his disciples as Jesus moved "toward the cross and avoided the kind of public presence that would be more suitable to building an earthly kingdom."3
Avoid misconceptions
Other scholars such as Albert Schweitzer and James Dunn see the secrecy as an attempt to avoid Jewish preconceptions of what the Messiah was going to be.  One of the most common expectations was that the Messiah would be a political and/or military leader.  Jesus did not want to be that kind of Messiah and so didn't want people following him with that expectation only to be disappointed later.  Dunn further states that Jesus was avoiding the temptation of taking that power and disavowing the false view of Messiahship.1  Zondervan's Exegetical Commentary also supports this view.4
Delay death
Another possibility is that Jesus asked people to remain quiet in an effort to delay his own death.  Messianic claims could cause the authorities to classify Jesus as revolutionary and execute him.  In this view, Jesus had to wait until it was the "right time" to die and thus sought to reduce publicity (not just through the secrecy requests but also in various other ways).  This view has the benefit of explaining why, in the climatic chapters of Mark's Gospel, Jesus directly declares his Messiahship for the first time - death is imminent.5
An element of both?
Despite the seemingly contradictory nature, some scholars have argued that both views ave an element of truth.  Robert Stein, for instance, argued that Jesus did try to maintain a level of secrecy to avoid confrontation with the Romans.  However, Mark then used these commands to show that the secret could not really be kept - the Messiah and Son of God titles of Jesus cannot be hidden, they are inescapable.1
Analysis
The historical apologetic reasons, such as Werde's theory, seem implausible.  Other historical-critical methods, while better than Werde's idea, generally suffer from the same problem - they disregard too much of the data.  Quite often Mark follows the command to keep silent directly by a statement that the person did not do so.  For example, 1:43-44 is followed by:

But he went out and began to talk freely about it, and to spread the news (ESV)

If Mark is responding to a critique that people didn't recognize Jesus as the Messiah during his lifetime, then it doesn't make much sense that he would also say people disobeyed the command.
Larry Richards further notes that in Mark 5:19, Jesus does tell a man he healed to "Go home to your friends and tell them how much the Lord has done for you" (ESV).  The difference between the this instance and other can perhaps give us some insight on Jesus/Mark's reason for secrecy: in Mark 5:1-20, Jesus is in "the country of the Gerasenes," a pagan land.  This difference could support a "redefining the Messiah" type theory (the people here not sharing the Jewish expectations) or could support views related to delaying Jesus death (there would be minimal threat of a Messianic insurrection in the foreign land, as compared to in Israel.)6
In has been suggestion that Mark himself provides a partial explanation in 8:27-33.  In this passage Jesus first asks the 12 what people are saying about him, to which they offer various ideas - John the Baptist, a prophet, etc.  He then asks who they say He is and Peter replies "You are the Christ."  Jesus tells them tell no one about this, and then starts teaching that he must suffer and die.  Peter rebukes Jesus, to which Jesus replies:

Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man. (Mark 8:33, ESV)

This could play into several theories - the expectation of man (earthly leader) is not a "thing of God"; the disciples learned his destiny so they could later comprehend what had happened (i.e. part of a teaching scheme); when the time was right, Jesus would reveal his Messiahship and die, but that time hadn't yet arrived.  The Tyndale Commentary as this passage remarks:3

His destiny to die was revealed to them that they might understand the significance.  The unveiling of the secret of Jesus' identity as the Messiah paved the way for the unveiling of the mystery of his destiny to die on the cross.  The death of Jesus, which Peter so adamantly rejected, the church was called on the embrace.

Conclusion
Historical-critical explanations inadequately explain the data and can be dismissed. The literary device vs. actual words of Jesus distinction is generally harder to decide.  In principle, most of the explanations could originate with Jesus to actually accomplish said aim; or they could originate with Mark to make the same point.  To me, it seems that the "creation" of secrecy passages would be more likely to cause problems for the church than help it.  A guy who is always telling people not to reveal his Messianic identity allows critics to say "even Jesus didn't claim to be the Messiah."  Thus by the criterion of embarrassment  I am inclined to think the words more likely originate with Jesus than the Gospel writers.  Furthermore, if Mark was employing a literary device, he certainly didn't make it obvious (hence the large amount of debate on the subject).
Why, exactly, Jesus asked people to keep quiet (knowing full well they wouldn't) is hard to say.  "To delay His death", "to teach to disciples", or "to redefine the Messiah" all make sense, but none provide a completely satisfactory explanation.  Perhaps the best explanation is then that it was done for a combination of all three.

1Honor Among Christians: The Cultural Key to the Messianic Secret by David F. Watson
2A Theology of the New Testament by George Eldon Ladd, via Wikipedia.
3Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary by Robert B. Hughes & J. Carl Laney
4Matthew (Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series) by Grant R. Osborne & Clinton E. Arnol
5A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew by Craig S. Keener
6Baffling Bible Questions Answered by Larry Richards


Do any conservative Baptist churches recognize infant baptisms despite not performing them?

I think you would be hard-pressed to find any Baptists who "recognize" paedobaptism if by recognize you mean that they believe it is a valid and biblical practice. However, there are many denominations who distinguish between "essential" and "non-essential" doctrines. The essential doctrines are those that are essential to the faith so that to deny them is to deny Christ and they would not allow a person into church membership who did so. Non-essential doctrines, on the other hand, are doctrines on which Christians may disagree in good faith and still remain in fellowship and membership in the same church. There can be great variation in what a given denomination or individual church would define as essential, although virtually all conservative, orthodox or evangelical churches would consider doctrines such as the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, the Atonement, and the physical resurrection of Jesus essential.

When it comes to Baptism, things get more complicated. There are some who consider Baptism essential while others do not. This tends to come down to two factors. First, what role do they believe that Baptism plays in Salvation? Some Denominations see Believer's Baptism as necessary to salvation (Church of Christ for) or teach Baptismal Regeneration (some Lutherans), while others see Baptism as an obedient action or parental sacrament. The greater the role one believes Baptism plays in salvation, the more likely they are to consider it essential

The other factor is denominational. There are some denominations that consider Baptism essential. A church that is a part of a denomination that does this is much more likely to consider it essential as well. There are other denominations, however, that not only do not view it as essential, they do not have an official position on Baptism (Evangelical Free and CCCC, where I'm a member, are some examples). In these denominations each church (or pastor) is free to determine their own view of baptism. In order to maintain denominational fellowship, those who adopt a Baptist view must still be open to fellowship with other pastors and churches who do not and are, therefore, much more likely to accept those who disagree into membership. But even some denominations that are specifically Baptist view it as important, but not essential. For example, many Reformed Baptist churches hold this view and have many members from Presbyterian or Dutch Reformed backgrounds who are welcomed to join the church without being re-baptized. But even in the SBC (in which I grew up) you will find some churches that allow a person into membership who holds a paetobaptist view. Since the SBC believes in the autonomy of the local church (http://www.sbc.net/faqs.asp), there is no requirement that Baptism be a part of membership standards and any SBC church that views Baptism as a non-essential doctrine is free to admit members who were only baptized as infants.


Regarding the biblical phrase 'everlasting life', would Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox be able to explain how everlasting life destroys death?

Yes, that is a theologically sound phrase, and here's why.  From a Christian perspective, it is worth noting that the only time the expression “everlasting life” appears in the Old Testament is in Daniel 12:2.  The relevant verses are Daniel 12:1-2 and 13, a prophetic vision regarding The Time of the End:

  “At that time Michael, the archangel who stands guard over your nation [Israel], will arise. Then there will be a time of anguish greater than any since nations first came into existence. But at that time every one of your people whose name is written in the book will be rescued.  Many of those whose bodies lie dead and buried will rise up, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting disgrace...  As for you [Daniel], go your way until the end. You will rest, and then at the end of the days, you will rise again to receive the inheritance set aside for you.”

The prophet Isaiah spoke of a future time when the shadow of death that hangs over the earth will be removed, when God will swallow up death forever (Isaiah 25:6-8).  The resurrection promise was known to God’s people before Jesus’ own death and resurrection.  After Jesus’ friend Lazarus died, his sister Martha acknowledged that he would rise at the last day.  Jesus then made this bold declaration:

  “I am the resurrection and the life.  Anyone who believes in me will live, even after dying.” (John 11:24-25).  Outside the tomb, Jesus shouted: “Lazarus, come out!” (John 11:43).

It is one thing to claim to be the resurrection and the life, but Jesus proved it by raising Lazarus, who had been dead for four days.  Death has no dominion over Jesus who is life itself, nor does death have dominion over those who are in him (1 Corinthians 15:54-55). Because he has conquered death believers are assured that death shall be destroyed, and in its place will be eternal life.

1 Corinthians 15:26-27: “For Christ must reign until he humbles all his enemies beneath his feet.  And the last enemy to be destroyed is death."

1 Corinthians 15:54-55: Then, when our dying bodies have been transformed into bodies that will never die, this Scripture will be fulfilled: “Death is swallowed up in victory.  O death, where is your victory?  O death, where is your sting?”  (This quotation is from Isaiah 25:8.)

John 10:15-18 shows how death did not come to Jesus.  He came to it, to destroy it.  Death had no claim on him as he was sinless, so Jesus gave up his spirit at the right time, after he had fulfilled all the scriptures (John 19:24). The only thing left to do to complete the work given to him was to die. John 19:30 shows how Jesus chose his moment of death thereby defeating death:

  “When Jesus had tasted it, he said, “It is finished.” Then he bowed his head and released his spirit.”

Revelation sheds more light on the two groups in Daniel’s prophetic vision who are raised to life.  Those whose names are written in the Book of Life are blessed.  “Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. For them the second death holds no power...”  (Revelation 20:6)

At the final judgment, books are opened (see Psalm 56:8 and Daniel 7:10) and after the dead are judged, death and the grave are thrown into the lake of fire which is the second death (Revelation 20:14).  This is the moment when all of God’s enemies are defeated and destroyed, including the final enemy – death.  Jesus, who is the resurrection and the life, has defeated death and will finally destroy death.  He said “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6).

Because Jesus Christ IS The Life and he triumphed over Death with his resurrection, he enables life everlasting.  Everlasting life, the gift of God to all who come to saving faith in Christ Jesus, destroys death.


Can Christians be judges?

Yes. We are told to judge others within the church. (1 Cor 5:12)

As @CecilBeckham said, we are told not to judge people's hearts/righteounness. (Mt 7:1-2, Lk 6:37) We are also told not to be hypocritical in our judgment (Ro 2:1)

Paul endorses the idea of governmental authority in Romans 13, and says

  Romans 13:4 (NASB)
  But if you do what is evil, be afraid ; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

We are certainly expected to exercise judgment/discernment. (John 7:24, Lk 12:57)

There's no prohibition (even in sense or intent) in what the Biblical authors say that would prevent anyone from being employed as a secular judge (or even as a Christian arbiter). Judges (in America) do not judge men's hearts, nor do they claim to assign their eternal station. They decide issues of the written law. I can imagine that a Christian judge might have difficulty if the law itself were immoral or required something sinful, but that's an exception, not a rule.

Can they sentence someone to death?

The example in the Old Testament is that the community was a witness against people who had committed a crime worthy of death. Certainly humans were fit to pass this kind of judgment on another.

We are not commanded to do such a thing in the New Testament, but it stands to reason that it is at least justifiable. Paul's statement about the God-ordained authority of the government suggests that punishment is within its rights (even if the rulers are evil or if the laws are immoral—as was the case with the Roman law of the day). He wasn't writing a legal treatise, but was saying that the government isn't wrong to punish us, because they get their authority from God (and I would assert: even if they abuse it).

For the protection of innocent people, it seems like it might be possible for there to be a situation in which execution is the best thing to do. We're (indirectly) told not to murder (Mt 5:21, but murder and killing are not the same, nor was killing ever the subject of the sixth commandment (Ex 20:13), because the Jews were required to pass judgment on their brothers when they had committed a serious offense for which the punishment was death.

Also, in America, judges don't (decide the) sentence of death. That is always a jury trial. One exception might be a military trial—I don't know much about the legal system of the U.S. military.

Is sentencing a sin?

If you're thinking of some specific reason why this might be wrong, you will have to say what it is.

There's not any form of injunction against deciding someone's punishment for a legal infraction. Anyone with authority over another certainly seems to possess the power and right to decide punishment (within their sphere of authority). Parents "sentence" their children, employers "sentence" their employees, teachers "sentence" their students, etc. Sentencing (as a judge or jury member) isn't any more wrong than being a judge or jury member, because it's part of the task assigned to you.


If we're not specifically instructed to do something, can we?

If the Bible is God's Word, and it is to be read and understood in its entirety, then a dogmatic doctrine of vocal-only worship would seem to place large swaths of the Psalms (eg 150) in peril.

It is true that in the New Testament we are given no specific direction as to how we are to worship (only "in spirit and in truth").

A lack of both pre-scription and pro-scription would seem to leave this issue up to a matter of conscience and Christian liberty. (1 Corinthians 6:12 & 10:23)


Example for children of common sense in the Bible

How about the stories of Daniel and his friends where they didn't give in to peer pressure? How about 1 Samuel where Jonathan sides with the David instead of his jealous father? And the story of Joseph where he made the right choice?


How does uniting to Christ's suffering work?

In his commentary on St. Paul's letter to the Colossians, St. Thomas Aquinas says the following regarding v. 1:24 ("…fill[ing] up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church"):

  – … At first glance these words can be misunderstood to mean that the passion of Christ was not sufficient for our redemption, and that the sufferings of the saints were added to complete it. But this is heretical, because the blood of Christ is sufficient to redeem many worlds: “He is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 Jn 2:2). Rather, we should understand that Christ and the Church are one mystical person, whose head is Christ, and whose body is all the just, for every just person is a member of this head: “individually members” (1 Cor. 12:27). Now God in his predestination has arranged how much merit will exist throughout the entire Church, both in the head and in the members, just as he has predestined the number of the elect. And among these merits, the sufferings of the holy martyrs occupy a prominent place. For while the merits of Christ, the head, are infinite, each saint displays some merits in a limited degree. This is why he says, I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions, that is, what is lacking in the afflictions of the whole Church, of which Christ is the head. I complete, that is, I add my own amount; and I do this in my flesh, that is, it is I myself who am suffering. Or, we could say that Paul was completing the sufferings that were lacking in his own flesh; for what was lacking was that, just as Christ had suffered in his own body, so he should also suffer in Paul, his member, and in similar ways in others. And Paul does this for the sake of his body, which is the Church that was to be redeemed by Christ: “That he might present the Church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle” (Eph 5:27). In the same way all the saints suffer for the Church, which receives strength from their example. The Gloss says that “afflictions are still lacking, because the treasure house of the Church’s merits is not full, and it will not be full until the end of the world.”

So, to answer your questions:

  Does it also subtract from his suffering? … Does uniting to Christ's suffering … subtract his suffering during crucifixion where he would otherwise have gone through them?

No, there is no subtraction of His suffering. He could've redeemed us with one drop of his most precious Blood or even without suffering at all, but He chose* to suffer to the extent He did to pay our debt to sin superabundantly, to show His immense love for us.

*cf. Is. 53:7: "He was offered because it was his own will"


As there was nobody except Adam and Eve after he killed Abel.

Some source of this claim? Because Genesis says:

  And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters (Gen 5, 4).

According to apocryphal Book of Jubilees, Cain's wife's name was Awan.


What is the difference between Evangelical and Protestant?

"Evangelical" is certainly difficult to pin down! The Encyclopedia of Christianity says

  [In America] it covers a wide range of not completely harmonious uses, from the Pentecostal churches to the peace churches, Missouri Synod Lutherans, Southern Baptist Convention, Holiness movement (eg Church of the Nazarene), charismatic groups (including Roman Catholics), and evangelicals in the mainline denominations. 1

and there seems to be a flourishing cottage industry of evangelicals writing books and articles worrying about how to define themselves.

History

John Stott emphasized that evangelicalism does not see itself as an innovation or deviation from orthodox Christianity. Doctrinally speaking, evangelicals are able to find many precursors - for example, Stott identifies Augustine as a "proto-evangelical", on the basis of his view of grace. 2

The term "evangelical", which derives from the Greek evangelion (gospel, good news), does not seem to have been used to describe a distinct group within the church until roughly the Reformation era. Martin Luther picked it up, and today the German word Evangelisch is not really distinguishable from Protestantisch - unlike in the English-speaking world.

Stott and others have identified several related movements that have identified themselves as evangelical. The following listing is from John Hitchen, who argues that evangelicalism has tended to define itself in opposition to tendencies in the church, or society, at large.

  The Reformers - against medieval Catholicism.
  The First Evangelical awakening - against the 'deadness' of the contemporary church.
  The Second Evangelical awakening - against the Deism, laxity and Unitarianism in the early 18th century church.
  The Clapham Sect and early 19th Century evangelicals - against lack of 'seriousness' and nominalism in the established church(es).
  The 'Fundamentalists' of the early 20th century - against proponents of the Social Gospel and Higher Criticism.
  The mid 20th century evangelicalism - against Liberal theology and Neo-orthodoxy.3

Other modern listings might include subgroups emphasizing social justice, the gifts of the Spirit, or ecumenism, although the boundaries here may not be very sharp 2.

Defining attitudes

In all of these cases, the groups involved did share some common doctrines or positions - in particular, they were trying to preserve or restore 'essential' or 'original' Christian practice and belief. They also share a desire for conversion of the world - in this regard, Stott contrasts it on either side with the fundamentalist position (stand aloof from the world) and the liberal position (adapt to the world) 2.

David Bebbington identified four ideas that form a 'common core', or 'quadrilateral of priorities':

  conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed;
  activism, the expression of the gospel in effort;
  biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible; and what may be called
  crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.4

This is a more 'sociological' classification of evangelicals, in terms of their prevailing attitudes rather than any particular point of doctrine. Evangelicals may be strict about doctrine, but the actual content of doctrine isn't tremendously distinctive from 'ordinary' Protestant beliefs, with the exceptions of (1) a stronger view of Biblical authority than many others have, and (2) a related commitment to 'pure' or 'mere' Christianity 5. The Bebbington scheme has gained some currency, though Stott for one was uncomfortable with all the -isms, and the low profile of God. He preferred this formulation of evangelical priorities:

  The revealing initiative of God the Father, the redeeming work of God the Son, and the transforming ministry of God the Holy Spirit. 2

Politics

In terms of American politics, I don't think it's straightforward to predict where evangelicals will end up. Moreover, the media tend to use the classification fairly carelessly, as a synonym for 'conservative Christian' or 'Republican churchgoer'. In fact, I think there is a great diversity of political beliefs among evangelicals (though the two-party system suppresses that diversity at the polls). Part of this is generational or age-based, but I also have a sense that some political points spring fairly naturally from the evangelical worldview.

For example, the evangelical environmental movement makes perfect sense within the context of the history above. It's a matter of engaging with the world in a positive way, in order to take care of it (and it can be seen as oppositional, like in the Hitchen list above). Equally, many evangelicals care about social and economic injustice in a manner that doesn't match the stereotype that evangelicals ipso facto have right-wing views.
This is not to say that evangelicals are automatically left-wing or liberal either! Probably, most evangelicals would be considered socially conservative, and may even regard such issues as overriding priorities when choosing candidates. For what it's worth, I don't think that an evangelical's 'ideal' US political party would greatly resemble either the Republicans or the Democrats, but they do seem to be the only games in town.

1. Encyclopedia of Christianity (Wm. Eerdmans, 2001) under "Evangelical Movement"
2. Evangelical truth: a personal plea for unity, integrity and faithfulness, John Stott (InterVarsity Press, 2005)
3. What it means to be an evangelical today, John M. Hitchen, Evangelical Quarterly 76(1):47-64, 2004.
4. Evangelicalism in modern Britain: a history from the 1730s to the 1980s, D. W. Bebbington (Unwin Hyman, 1989).
5. The Evangelical Anglican Identity Problem, J. L. Packer (Latimer House, 1978).


Why do Catholics ask for things from an omniscient and omnibenevolent God?

One nice thing about the Catholic Church is that, because they have 2000 years of history to draw from, they have written a great deal about most every question of faith and have codified it as well. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) #2629-2633 discusses a prayer of petition (which is the technical term for a prayer where you ask God for something), and the reasons that it is done. In all the passages below, the bolding for emphasis is mine, any italics were in the original.
To express our reliance on God
By asking things of God, we acknowledge that we are not able to do everything ourselves and are reliant on him. When we ask God for things outside our control, we begin a process of turning away from our sin (I imagine that pride would be a notable sin in this case) and turning instead to him. In other words, God knows our needs, but we are acknowledging that we cannot provide for those needs ourselves and that instead we must rely on him to fulfill those needs.

2629: The vocabulary of supplication in the New Testament is rich in shades of meaning: ask, beseech, plead, invoke, entreat, cry out, even "struggle in prayer."102 Its most usual form, because the most spontaneous, is petition: by prayer of petition we express awareness of our relationship with God. We are creatures who are not our own beginning, not the masters of adversity, not our own last end. We are sinners who as Christians know that we have turned away from our Father. Our petition is already a turning back to him.
102 Cf. Rom 15:30; Col 4:12.

To give us hope in our lamentation, and to receive help in our other prayers
By asking God for things, we are provided hope from our struggles. Additionally, the Holy Spirit helps us to pray both in petition and other types of prayers.

2630: The New Testament contains scarcely any prayers of lamentation, so frequent in the Old Testament. In the risen Christ the Church's petition is buoyed by hope, even if we still wait in a state of expectation and must be converted anew every day. Christian petition, what St. Paul calls {"groaning," arises from another depth, that of creation "in labor pains" and that of ourselves "as we wait for the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved."103 In the end, however, "with sighs too deep for words" the Holy Spirit "helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with sighs too deep for words."104
103 Rom 8:22-24.
104 Rom 8:26.

In the case of asking for forgiveness, to be able to make other types of prayers
Other types of prayer, as well as the Eucharistic liturgy, require asking for forgiveness before they can be performed.

2631: The first movement of the prayer of petition is asking forgiveness, like the tax collector in the parable: "God, be merciful to me a sinner!"105 It is a prerequisite for righteous and pure prayer. A trusting humility brings us back into the light of communion between the Father and his Son Jesus Christ and with one another, so that "we receive from him whatever we ask."106 Asking forgiveness is the prerequisite for both the Eucharistic liturgy and personal prayer.
105 Lk 18:13.
106 1 Jn 3:22; cf. 1:7-2:2.

To express our desire and search for the Kingdom of God
We are desiring and searching ourselves for the Kingdom of God, and our petitions should be for things that will help in that.

2632: Christian petition is centered on the desire and search for the Kingdom to come, in keeping with the teaching of Christ.107 There is a hierarchy in these petitions: we pray first for the Kingdom, then for what is necessary to welcome it and cooperate with its coming. This collaboration with the mission of Christ and the Holy Spirit, which is now that of the Church, is the object of the prayer of the apostolic community.108 It is the prayer of Paul, the apostle par excellence, which reveals to us how the divine solicitude for all the churches ought to inspire Christian prayer.109 By prayer every baptized person works for the coming of the Kingdom.
107 Cf. Mt 6:10,33; Lk 11:2,13.
108 Cf. Acts 6:6; 13:3.
109 Cf. Rom 10:1; Eph 1:16-23; Phil 1:9-11; Col 1:3-6; 4:3-4,12.

I'd like to highlight Matthew 6:33 (from footnote 107), which says "But seek first the kingdom [of God] and his righteousness, and all these things will be given you besides."
This passage also makes it clear that the things that we should ask for are those that are necessary to bring the Kingdom of God.
To make us prepared for what God is intending to give
In the section of filial piety in prayer, CCC #2737 talks about why we don't immediately receive what we ask for and quotes St. Augustine (b. 334–d. 440) in a passage that is relevant for this as well:

God wills that our desire should be exercised in prayer, that we may be able to receive what He is prepared to give.

Summary
It's clear from the Catechism that the reasons for prayer are less about helping God out (because God certainly has the capability and desire to give us what we he knows we need), but more about aligning ourselves to God's desires. Prayer makes us able to understand that we need God to fulfill our needs and prepares us to receive them, while also providing us hope through Christ. In the case of asking for forgiveness, it also a prerequisite for other types of prayer.


What was the reasons for documentary hypothesis?

The hypothesis was formed from several lines of evidence suggesting that more than one author had a hand in writing the Torah.

Stage 1

The first stage was the recognition of certain passages that looked like additions from a later copyist:

Deuteronomy 34, the account of Moses' death, including the phrase in verse 6, "no one knows his burial place to this day."
Genesis 12:6, "At that time the Canaanites were in the land." And they still were when Moses died.
Numbers 21:14, referring to "the Book of the Wars of the Lord", which would have been written after the Torah
Numbers 12:3, stating, "Moses was very humble, more so than anyone else on the face of the earth," which would not have been true if he had written it himself.

Stage 2

The second stage was the discovery of "doublets", stories that appeared in two forms, with differing details that included one version using Elohim to refer to God, and the other version using YHWH. Examples include:

Creation: Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 ("six days", Elohim); Genesis 2:4-25 ("Garden of Eden", YHWH)
God's covenant with Abraham: Genesis 15:1-21 (YWHW); Genesis 17:1-27 (Elohim, though it refers to YWHW in verse 1)
Abraham calls his wife his sister: Genesis 12:10-20 (YHWH); Genesis 20:1-18 (Elohim, though it uses YHWH in verse 18)

And then there are doublets that don't fit the YWHW/Elohim pattern, but appear reflect two distinct traditions:

God renames Jacob to Israel: Genesis 32:22-32 (after wrestling God at Peniel); Genesis 35:9-15 (at Bethel)
Moses' father in law: Exodus 2:17-22 (Zipporah's father is Reuel); Exodus 18:1-6 (Zipporah's father is Jethro)
Covenant of the Ten Commandments: Exodus 34 (on Mount Sinai); Deuteronomy 5 (on Mount Horeb) — Deuteronomy 5 is written as a reminder of the covenant from Exodus 34

Stage 3

The third stage was the development of the documentary hypothesis itself. Scholars identified what they believed to be four sources, which they labeled J, E, P, and D.

J: these always used YHWH to refer to God (most of the scholars were German, and German J = English Y)
E: these almost always used Elohim (or a related form, e.g. El Shaddai or El Elyon) to refer to God
P: these passages referred to matters relating to Priests
D: the book of Deuteronomy was considered to have its own distinct source


Why is there a need for a perfect sacrifice? Why does Jesus have to be perfect?

According to the levitical priesthood a sacrifice had to be without defect

  Lev 22:20 Do not bring anything with a defect, because it will not be
  accepted on your behalf.

In this case any sacrifice offered to God has to be without defect. We humans are born into sin and no one lives a life without sin. Romans 3:23 tells us we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Sin is bad because it separates us from God.

  Isaiah 59:2  But your iniquities have separated you from your God;
  your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear.

So ideally God would not accept any sacrifice by any man since sin  has already made them impure. The one person who lived without sin was Jesus so He was the only one capable of being offered as an acceptable sacrifice


Canon law states:

Canon 868
§1 For an infant to be baptised lawfully it is required:
1° that the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully holds their place, give their consent;
2° that there be a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this.
§2 An infant of catholic parents, indeed even of non-catholic parents, may in danger of death be baptised even if the parents are opposed to it.

Given that your grandchildren were not in imminent danger of death, it appears that your actions may have been in breach of canon law.


What is Jehovah's Witnesses view on a baptized member owning machine guns?

Owning a fully automatic weapon (machine gun) would not fit with Jehovah’s Witnesses viewpoint on keeping a firearm for personal protection. If a Witness keeps firearms for hunting to supplement his diet with wild game that is acceptable even for elders. Keeping weapons for self defense opens one up to becoming bloodguilty through accidental or unnecessary discharge of that weapon. Of course accidents can happen when a weapon is owned for hunting, but when the gun is kept for use against humans the congregation takes a dim view of it.

Fully automatic weapons dispense ammunition at a rapid rate when the trigger is held in firing position. The energy from the exploding charge of one round is used to chamber and fire the next round. Legal ownership of such a weapon is very expensive and requires an intensive background check and other screenings by government.

It is highly unlikely that a Jehovah’s Witness would ever jump through the hoops to acquire a machine gun legally. And if he should possess one illegally that would be a big issue since obeying the laws of the land is very important part of being a member in good standing.

Since it is absurd to think one would use a machine gun for killing game,most likely the ownership of such a weapon would fall under the category for protection and use against other humans.
Such ownership is a personal decision.
However a JW who chooses to arm himself in such a manner would be restricted from many privileges in  the congregation as can be seen here

  Christians respect others’ consciences. (Rom. 14:21) If it became known that a member of the congregation kept a gun for protection against humans, some fellow believers might be shocked, even stumbled. Love moves us to put others’ interests ahead of our own, even when that means putting aside what we may feel is a legal right. —1 Cor. 10:32, 33; 13:4, 5.
  Christians strive to be exemplary. (2 Cor. 4:2; 1 Pet. 5:2, 3) After receiving Scriptural counsel, a Christian who continues to keep a gun for protection against other humans could not be considered exemplary. He would therefore not qualify for responsibilities or special privileges in the congregation. The same applies to a Christian who continues to carry a firearm as part of his secular work. How much better to seek other employment!

  *


According to full preterism, who is 'the dragon' and what are the differences between 'the dragon' and 'the beast'?

Revelation 12:9 answers the first part of your question. "the great dragon .... that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan who leads the whole world astray." Most understand that the devil (Satan) also called the deceiver, is in opposition to God.

The beast is a power. See the beasts in Daniel 7 and 8. This beast obtains it's authority from the dragon. They are not one and the same. Both the beast and the dragon in Revelation 13:4 receive worship. This beast in Revelation 13 comes out of the sea with 7 heads and 10 horns (powers) and 10 crowns (symbolic of authority) on the horns. This beast looks like a leopard with bear's feet and has a lion's mouth. It receives it's power from the dragon for 42 months then one of it's heads receives a deadly wound but this is later healed. There is a second beast in Revelation 13:11 that comes up out of the earth where the first beast had come up out of the sea. It has horns like a lamb but speaks like a dragon. It exercises the same authority as the first beast (authority received from the dragon) and causes all on the earth to worship the first beast that had the deadly wound to it's head which is now healed, and causes all on the earth to receive a mark (of worship). The mark of this second beast is a number, vs. 18, 666.

There are other beasts that are mentioned in Daniel. If you read Daniel 7 you find 4 different beasts. The 4th beast is a terrible beast with teeth of iron and interestingly, 10 horns. I believe that the beasts in Daniel and the beasts in Revelation help to explain each other. In Daniel 2 Nebuchadnezzar has a dream of an image. It follows by an interpretation of the dream which foretells the progression of the main ruling powers on the earth starting with Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon. There are 5 of them, head - gold, chest & arms - silver, belly - bronze, legs - iron, and feet with 10 toes - of iron and clay. In Daniel 7 you find another dream, this time of beasts and there are four of them, a lion with eagle's wings, a leopard with 4 wings of a bird and four heads. The third beast as a bear on it's side with 3 ribs in it's mouth. The fourth beast is described Daniel 7:7-10. “After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. 8 I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there, in this horn, were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words. Later in Daniel 8 there is another vision of a ram and a goat with the interpretation. This helps to understand the other visions and which kingdoms are to come. The ram with two horns is Medio Persia and the goat is Greece. There is a lot more but this answer is becoming very involved. Blessings on your studies.


Traditionally, the divine name (YHWH aka "Jehovah") is associated with God the Father - the God of the Old Testament.  Jesus is associated with God the Son, the incarnation of the Godhead.

Traditionally, the LDS answer is very straight-forward: God the Father is one distinct person, Jesus is another.  From a non-Trinitarian perspective this is very easy to understand. The problem is, it would seem to violate the notion that "Behold, the Lord your God is One" to Trinitarians. Understand, the Trinity is itself a paradox, but it is the best formulation we have.

In the classic formulation of the Trinity, God the Father ("YHWH") and God the Son (Jesus) are one essence but different persons. As the Athansian Creed puts it:

  ... we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost.

The idea is that God is One Essence so throughly in agreement that it is impossible to distinguish their "Godness" from one another. That said, to deny that they have distinct personhood violates scripture that indicates the Godhead is composed of distinctly willed individuals.  The Person of God the Father was the Person who gave his divine Jehovah name "I am that I am." The Person of Jesus, who was the incarnation of God the Son is a different person, but indistinguishable in essence from him.

Clear as mud right?

Traditionally, the answer is that the title adheres to God the Father, but in essence, you wouldn't really be able to distinguish them.