On what do Catholics base their doctrine of the eternal virginity of Mary?

From paragraph 499 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it."And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".

The direct precedent is Canon 6 from the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 CE. The only source of this I know of is Denzinger's Sources of Catholic Dogma, a compilation of a ton of loose documents. Unfortunately, this is not available online in English, so you'll have to bear with the Latin. In paragraph 427:

  Si quis abusive et non vere Dei genitricem dicit sanctam gloriosam semper Virginem Mariam, vel secundum relationem, quasi homine puro nato, sed non Deo Verbo incarnato et nato ex ipsa, referenda autem, sicut illi dicunt, hominis nativitate ad Deum Verbum, eo quod cum homine erat nascente, et calumniatur sanctam Chalcedonensem Synodum, tamquam secundum istum impium intellectum, quem Theodorus exsecrandus adinvenit, Dei genitricem Virginem dicentem, vel qui hominis genitricem vocat, aut Christotocon, id est, Christi genitricem, tamquam si Christus Deus non esset, et non proprie et vere Dei genitricem ipsam confitetur, eo quod ipse qui ante saecula ex Patre natus est Deus Verbum, in ultimis diebus ex ipsa incarnatus et natus est, et sic pie et sanctam Chalcedonensem Synodum eam esse confessam, talis an. s.

Here, the council decrees that anyone speaking against the Holy and Glorious ever-virgin Mary shall be anathema.

This was again affirmed in the Lateran Council of 649, from paragraph 503:

  Si quis secundum sanctos Patres non confitetur proprie et secundum veritatem Dei genitricem sanctam semperque Virginem et immaculatam Mariam, utpote ipsum Deum Verbum specialiter et veraciter, qui a Deo Patre ante omnia saecula natus est, in ultimis saeculorum absque semine concepisse ex Spiritu Sancto, et incorruptibiliter eam (eum?) genuisse, indissolubili permanente et post partum eiusdem virginitate, condemnatus sit

The Catholic Encyclopedia also mentions several Church Fathers who spoke of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

At the time of the early Church, the burden of proof was on those to show that Mary was not ever-virgin, as it was commonly held to be true. Just for the sheer theatrical aspect of it, I particularly like St. Jerome's response to Helvidius, one who shared many of the objections held today about the perpetual virginity of Mary. In his response, he dissected the argument word by word and found the conclusion that Mary was not perpetually virgin did not necessarily follow from Biblical evidence:

  Yet it does not follow, as the previous examples showed, that he had intercourse with Mary after her delivery, when his desires had been quenched by the fact that she had already conceived.

In terms of direct Biblical evidence of the perpetual virginity of Mary, St. Jerome and later St. Augustine used Luke 1:34 as evidence of a pledge by Mary to never "know" a man:

  And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

The Catholic Encyclopedia explains:

  As to Mary, St. Luke (1:34) tells us that she answered the angel announcing the birth of Jesus Christ: "how shall this be done, because I know not man". These words can hardly be understood, unless we assume that Mary had made a vow of virginity; for, when she spoke them, she was betrothed to St. Joseph.

Please see also: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary by Dr. Robert Schihl | EWTN.


Abraham's Temptation: only a matter of Faith, or also of Hope?

Faith-Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Hope-a feeling of expectation and desire or a certain thing to happen. A feeling of trust.
God deals with Abraham starting at Genesis 12 when He ask Abraham to go forth from your country and from your relatives to the land which I will show you. (Genesis 12:1). At vs4 Abraham does what God told him.
At Genesis 13:1, "So Abram went up from Egypt to Negev, he and his wife and all that belonged to him, and Lot with him." At Genesis 15:1, After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision saying, Do not fear, Abram, I am a shield to you; Your reward shall be very great. At Genesis 15:18 the Lord made aa covenant with Abram, saying, To your descendants I have given you this land etc.
The Lord God deals further with Abram and his wife Sarah at Genesis 16, Genesis 17, Genesis 18-22 and beyond. Of course Genesis 22 is the sacrifice of Abraham's only son Isaac.
What I'm saying is the fact that both "faith and hope" directed Abraham and his actions. At Hebrews 11 (which is known as the "faith" book) Abraham is the center piece starting at vs8. "By faith Abraham when he was called obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, NOT KNOWING WHERE HE WAS GOING."
At vs17, "By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac; and he who had received the promises (plural) was offering up his only begotten son; vs18, it was he to whom it was said, In Isaac your descendants shall be called."
Hebrews 11:19, "He/Abraham considered that God is able to raise men even from the dead; from which he also received him back as a type." Going back to Romans 4 in which the Apostle Paul talks about Abraham in detail.
Romans 4:18, "In hope against hope he believed, in order that he might become a father of many nations, according to that which had been spoken, "So shall your descendants be."
Romans 4:19, "And without becoming weak in faith he contemplated his own body; now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah's womb." Vs21, "and being fully assured that what He/God had promised, He was able also to perform."
In short both faith and hope go hand in hand where God held Abraham's hand all through His dealings with him by giving him confidence.


The passage demonstrates how disputes arise from ignorance. Some identfied Jesus as the Prophet (v41, spoken of by Moses). Some asserted that Christ must arise from Bethlehem (v42, spoken of by Micah). And there was a division as to whether Jesus was the Messiah.

The truth is that Jesus was born Bethlehem even though he lived in Galilee.

The wonderful thing about honest and open seeking into the truth, greater truths are revealed.

The Pharisees mishandled the truth by making and maintaining mistaken assumptions.

Is anything much different today?


What does it mean / how do you know / how would you explain "God is working" or "God is at work"?

Early Christians were often exhorted to "test every Spirit" to see if it was of God. (1 John 4:1).
When the Bible was first received, there was very little question of whether or not spirits were at work, but rather which ones.  For this reason, the question "Is it God" isn't particularly within the domain of Scripture - or even doctrine.  God is assumed to be ultimately responsible for it all, so of course, it is "of God."
As to the question of whether or not a person is saved, there is also a simple test.  As Matthew records Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, the key idea is "by their fruits you will know them."

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’


What does it mean when Jesus say "Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:43-45)?

TL;DR Tough love is not hate

Judaism teaches that you should treat your enemy fairly. The laws of retribution, like "eye for an eye", are limitations on how much retribution you can do to someone. It's designed to promote justice over vengance. But Christ had this way of pushing you to go further than the Law required. So while the Law taught justice. Christ taught mercy.

But when Jesus was "on a rant" about the Jewish leadership, it wasn't hate. If you follow the news at all you've seen stories like the one about the fiery anti-gay preacher who was discovered having gay sex or the one about the man who murdered an abortion doctor in a church because the Bible says "Thou shall not kill". You've seen Christians who demand the strictest adherence to the most conservative reading of the Law while not being able to hold themselves to the same standard. This is what Jesus was addressing with the Jewish leaders. It was actually more on go beyond the letter of the Law. Don't just help someone because that's what the law says, help them because you care about them.

Several years ago I wrote an article about how I have to love the very people I want to hate most: our modern day Pharisees who preach hate and division in the name of Jesus. But, I don't have to love them because Christ told me to. I have to love them because I know exactly what it is to be wrong. I've been a hypocrite. I've been a liar. I've hurt people so badly that it's physically painful to even think about it. I am an enemy of God and I know that despite all of that God still loves me. The Bible, God's own Law, says that I'm free to hate them because they're my enemies but how can I hate them without hating myself. So I find myself forced to go beyond the law and love them. I want them to be better. I even correct them when I think it will do the most good. But, none of that means that I don't love them.


Did the metaphor of ' cup of suffering' as used by Jesus derive from OT?

The Old Testament is full of references to the "pouring out" of wrath, usually God's wrath. This alone is not enough to draw the connection between wrath and drinking a cup. After all, there are many things that can be poured out like fire (Nahum 1:5) and water (Hosea 5:10). The majority of these references do not directly make a simile but refer to "pouring out wrath" without any comparison to the kinds of things that could be poured out but, there are some cases where wine is hinted.

Isaiah 63:6 - I trampled down the peoples in my anger; I made them drunk in my wrath, and I poured out their lifeblood on the earth.”

Here we have a drunkenness, wrath, and blood. Wine and blood are commonly interchanged elsewhere in the Bible. Genesis 49:11 has a reference to wine as "the blood of the grapes." Violence is sometimes referred to as being "drunk with blood" (Numbers 23:24, Deuteronomy 32:42, Isaiah 49:36, Ezekiel 39.19).

Jesus knows that he is preparing to suffer his own bloodshed to take upon himself the wrath of God and he is tapping into the biblical associations between wine, blood, and wrath.


Do Mormons believe in the immortality of the soul?

Mormons believe the soul/spirit is immortal/eternal. There are four phases of the soul:

Pre-earth life-soul before birth
Earth life-soul joined with physical body
Spirit world-after death soul goes to spirit paradise/prison
Resurrection-soul is reunited with perfect body forever

Onto the scriptures. Acts 3:23 has a footnote on the word destroyed that points to two scriptures in Doctrine and Covenants, both saw basically the same thing so in D&C 133:63

  63 And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people.

So destroyed in this context just means to be cut off from among God's people, or the saints.

Ezekiel 18:4 mentions the soul dying. Mormons don't believe death means destroying or the end, rather it means separation. Physical death is the separation of spirit from body, but it isn't this definition used in this scripture. The other death is spiritual death, where when man sins he is separated from God's presence, which is the usage in Ezekiel 18:4. If a man repents he forsakes sin and turns back to God, and thus can overcome spiritual death.

Psalms 146:3-4 is referencing physical death and once the spirit leaves the body the body returns to the earth. The body no longer has a spirit and has no thought, the spirit still lives in the spirit world. James 2:26 on the body being dead:

  26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Also in Psalms 146 His and he refers to the physical body since it mentions he returneth to the earth; so the next line refers to the body losing it's thoughts, because the spirit has left it, not the spirit dying (being destroyed/ending).

From Answers to Gospel Questions Volume 4 page 183 by Joseph Fielding Smith (the question that is being asked is on Ecclesiastes 9:4,5,10 and seems like a similar question to yours):

  ...the body is laid away in the grave peacefully and it knows nothing as to the affairs of a busy world....The death of the mortal body does not bring a death of the spirit.


What was meaning of `Talent' as used by Jesus in His parable?

There is no "Catholic interpretation", per se.  A talent was simply a unit of measure, and by extension, value.

Relevant to the verse you quoted:

  The heavy common talent, used in New Testament times, was 58.9 kilograms (130 lb).[5]

So a talent (of Gold) would be worth roughly (at today's prices rate--20 Nov 2017) US $2,456,300.

Also from the footnotes of the NIV:

  a talent was worth about 20 years of a day laborer’s wage.


John Piper is a Five Point Calvinist. From the limited atonement section of Bethlehem Baptist Church's doctrinal position "What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism" (compiled by Piper and "the Council of Elders"):

  On the other hand we do not limit the power and effectiveness of the atonement. We simply say that in the cross God had in view the actual redemption of his children. And we affirm that when Christ died for these, he did not just create the opportunity for them to save themselves, but really purchased for them all that was necessary to get them saved, including the grace of regeneration and the gift of faith.

I tried googling "Canons of Dort" "John Piper" so far I haven't found anything relevant.

Anyway, when did you heard it? recently?

Update 8/14/2013

Ok, I think I found the article by googling "John Piper" Amyraldian. The author thinks that John sounds like holding onto amyraldian view.

Below is the statement of John Piper that the author highlighted

  We do not deny that all men are the intended beneficiaries of the
  cross in some sense. 1 Timothy 4:10 says that Christ is "the Savior of
  all men, especially of those who believe." What we deny is that all
  men are intended as the beneficiaries of the death of Christ in the
  same way. All of God's mercy toward unbelievers -- from the rising sun
  (Matthew 5:45) to the worldwide preaching of the gospel (John 3:16) --
  is made possible because of the cross.

  "Whence does this mercy flow to sinners? How is God just to withhold
  judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell?
  The answer is that Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just
  abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy
  without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the
  savior of all men."

  "But he is especially the Savior of those who believe. He did not die
  for all men in the same sense. The intention of the death of Christ
  for the children of God was that it purchase far more than the rising
  sun and the opportunity to be saved. The death of Christ actually
  saves from ALL evil those for whom Christ died "especially.""

  "Therefore if Christ is the propitiation for all the sins of every
  individual in the world, they cannot be punished, and must be saved.
  But John does not believe in such universalism (John 5:29). Therefore
  it is very unlikely that 1 John 2:2 teaches that Jesus is the
  propitiation of every person in the world."

However, if one will go through the whole page the author referenced from, especially John's last statements

  We can conclude this section with the following summary argument.
  Which of these statements is true?

  Christ died for some of the sins of all men.
  Christ died for all the sins of some men.
  Christ died for all the sins of all men.

  No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because
  of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from
  sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.

  The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for
  all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer,
  Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins
  for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by
  the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief
  is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can
  be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they
  must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all
  the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect
  so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is
  free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous
  light.

Apparently, these statements are typical of a Five-point Calvinist showing that statements 1 and 3 does not hold water.

The way I see it, John Piper made it clear that Christ died for the elect, differently from the non-elect, by purchasing actual salvation, unlike the non-elect, who receives common grace.

Lastly, it's easy to be confused by John's statement because Limited Atonement is usually defined in context of the Elect and the saving benefits of the cross. After all Mark Driscol used the term Limited/Unlimited Atonement and his brand of Calvinism was called 4.5 pointer. It pays well to understand what someone is really saying before we pass judgement.


Why was Christ's sacrifice such a big cost?

I think Philippians chapter 2 shares some good light on this:

5 ...Christ Jesus,

6 Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal with God a treasure to be grasped,

7 But emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, becoming in the likeness of men;

8 And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, and that the death of a cross.

To go from Creator to creature, that's a big cost. But He not only became a creature, but He became like a slave among men. Even if He were to come down and be a king, that's still a big cost, but He was mistreated, hated, and abused by the very people He was doing so much to save. That's quite a cost. After all His living and work on the earth, His closest disciple, Peter, swore and cursed, saying he never even knew Jesus, right as Jesus was being tortured, and about to be crucified. That's quite a cost.

There's the physical pain, too. I've heard that when they whipped people, as they did Jesus, they had to count out the whippings to make sure the people didn't die. They also had a doctor stand by to make sure they can survive to continue in the whippings. He didn't drink for about 24 hours I think in that last day, and He lost a lot of water when He was bleeding out. His hands and feet were nailed with big, rough (not factory made) nails into a cross and He was hung from these wounds. The way they put people on the cross means you can't breathe properly, so you have to pull on your hands to lift up your torso for every breath.

But in all these things He never cried out. He only cried out in the last moment, to say "My God, why have You forsaken Me?". This indicates that with all the sin laid up on Him, God the Father turned away from His Son, and that was worse to Jesus than any of the humiliation, rejection, betrayal, physical and emotional pain that He suffered up to that moment.

I used to think that it wasn't a big deal, if Christ could just resurrect again, it doesn't matter if He dies; but I think it's much bigger a deal than I'll ever know ;)


Is there evidence that Isaiah 53 was viewed as a Messianic prophecy within Judaism, or is it an exclusively Christian interpretation?

The existing answer provides a learned and fascinating discussion for tracing the interpretative history of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 (often conveniently abbreviated to "Isaiah 53", the so-called "Fourth Servant Song") from roughly the 1st C. CE. Thus, the conclusion...

  We can ... be confident that first century converts to Christianity did not invent the idea that Isaiah 53 has Messianic tones.

...can be placed on a stronger footing if we also modify this claim:

  [w]e have no data at all on interpretations for the first 500+ years after the passage was written.

There are three, at least, sources of evidence for this period: (1) the Hebrew Bible itself; (2) the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible from the 3rd-2nd C. BCE); and (3) the Dead Sea Scrolls.

(1) Martin Hengel (towering scholar of late Second Temple Period and early Christianity) drew attention to later texts in the Hebrew Bible that, he argued, showed the influence of Isaiah 53 and pointed in a messianic direction.1 He argued for lines of connection and relationship between Isaiah 53 and (a) Zechariah 12:9-13:1 and 13:7-9, and 12:10 in particular; and (b) the book of Daniel 11:33-35 and 12:2-3. This is explored and stated with some care, especially the Zechariah connection, but for Daniel, Hengel points to the study of H.L. Ginsberg arguing that it is "the oldest interpretation of the suffering servant" (pp. 91-92).2

(2) The Septuagint actually doesn't offer much in this passage, but it does need to be mentioned. Its overall "messianism" has been much discussed,3 so it might be surprising (in light of later history) that any messianic overtones there might be in Isaiah 53 are subdued in the pre-Christian Greek translation.4

(3) The Dead Sea Scrolls give us more, especially in the "Great Isaiah Scroll", 1QIsaa. Among other considerations, Hengel draws attention to two variations in particular that point to a "messianic" understanding for this "Servant Song":1

52:14 includes an obscure hapax legomena מִשְׁחַת that appears in 1QIsaa as משׁחתי which pointed would be מְשַׁחְתִּי məšaḥtî, "I anointed". This, in conjunction with the added definite article on ʾadam, results in a text which Hengel translates: "I have anointed his appearance beyond that of any (other) man, and his form beyond that of the sons of humanity [the human]". This has other textual overtones bringing the passage into an explicit connection with "anointing".

53:10 in the MT includes what is widely regarded as a textual corruption, הֶחֱלִי "he made him sick". Here, the Isaiah Scroll has ויחללהו, "he pierced him" (and 1QIsab has a gap). Hengel notes and discusses the connections back to Isa 53:5 where "pierced" is also used, and the further connection to Zechariah 12:10 (see also above).

In summary, the OP's "self-learner" conclusion looks to be sound after all: there are indications that a pre-Christian understanding of Isaiah 53 included some sense of its association with an (or "the") "anointed one", i.e., mashiach. It is admittedly not pronounced, but neither is it absent. Further exploraton of this body of evidence would further reinforce this impression. (Anyone minded to follow-up the secondary literature cited will find more than enough to substantiate this claim.)

Finally, we must bear in mind Hengel's own caveat (p. 103):5

  [W]e must remember that in the second century B.C.E., we do not yet possess any fixed Jewish doctrine of the Messiah—there basically never was one—but must rather deal with various ideas of anointing and the Anointed One.

Notes

M. Hengel with D. Bailey, "The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the PreChristian Period", in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, ed. by Bernd Janowski & Peter Stuhlmacher (Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 75-146. This chapter should be read by anyone interested in the subject; other chapters in this volume also have relevance for this discussion.
H. L. Ginsberg, "The Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering Servant," Vetus Testamentum 3 (1953): 400-404.
See e.g. this review of R.F De Sousa, Eschatology and Messianism in LXX Isaiah 1–12 (2010) and the literature cited there. Also, substantially and recently, Abi T. Ngunga, Messianism in the Old Greek of Isaiah: An Intertextual Analysis (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012).
For details, see David A. Sapp, “The LXX, 1QIsa, and MT Versions of Isaiah 53 and the Christian doctrine of atonement,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, ed. by William H. Bellinger Jr. and  William R. Farmer (Trinity Press, 1998), pp. 170-192.
This with reference to the Great Isaiah Scroll in particular, but it is true of all the evidence for a pre-Christian understanding of the "messiah".


It is the Dean of the College of Cardinals, currently Cardinal Angelo Sodano. This role for the Dean is many centuries old. The present rules for the election of the Pope are mostly found in the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici gregis, issued by John Paul II in 1996. It contains the following:

  (19) The Dean of the College of Cardinals, for his part, as soon as he has been informed of the Pope's death by the Cardinal Camerlengo or the Prefect of the Papal Household, shall inform all the Cardinals and convoke them for the Congregations of the College. He shall also communicate news of the Pope's death to the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See and to the Heads of the respective Nations.

Although this refers to the death of the Pope, the same provision applies in the case of resignation:

  (77) I decree that the dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election of the Roman Pontiff and the carrying out of the election itself must be observed in full, even if the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff, in accordance with the provisions of Canon 333 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law and Canon 44 § 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

The citations are to the canons describing how a Pope resigns. UDG §38 confirms the role of the Dean in convoking the cardinals.

Angelo Sodano, however, is 85 years old, and will not be taking part in the conclave - only cardinals under 80 at the time the See becomes vacant are electors. He is also restricted from presiding over the General Congregation, which is the daily meeting of all the Cardinals held before the conclave begins. He can still attend, but doesn't have to.

UDG provides that if the Dean is unable to preside over the conclave himself, then his place is taken by the Sub-Dean (aka Vice-Dean). But this is Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, who is 90 years old! So instead, the role falls (UDG §9) to the senior cardinal who is actually able to take part. This will be Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, because he is a cardinal bishop (first tier of precedence), and has been one for longer than the only other cardinal bishop who is under 80, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone. (Cardinal Francis Arinze is 80, and Cardinal Jose Martins is 81. The patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Churches rank just below the other cardinal bishops.)

Nonetheless, the formal announcement of §19 above could still be made by Cardinal Sodano himself, since all other mentions of "Dean" in the document include a proviso about the  substitution if the Dean is impeded, and this section just says "Dean". However, §38 allows another cardinal to do it in his name. This situation arose for the two conclaves of 1978, when both the dean (Cardinal Carlo Confalonieri, 85) and the vice-dean (Cardinal Paolo Morella, 83) were above the age of 80. The next-ranking elector, Cardinal Jean-Marie Villot, was the one who presided over the conclave, and he also sent the messages of summons. Interestingly, he was both Secretary of State and Camerlengo at the time, which probably added some weight to the idea that he should be responsible for the summons as well. (This took place under Romano Pontifici Eligendo, 1975, the predecessor to UDG, but the relevant law is basically the same; see §§19 and 39.)

Update: A Catholic News Service report of 26 February 2013 quotes Father Federico Lombardi, Vatican spokesman, saying that the Dean, Angelo Sodano, will send out letters of summons on 1 March, including email or fax versions as well as the hard copies.


How are Lutheran weekday “prayer services” different from “matins” or “vespers”?

Matins and Vespers are prayer services prescribed for the morning and evening respectively, and the terms generally refer to services with particular orders of worship laid down in various hymnals used by the Lutheran denominations.  However, while "matins" is an order of worship established for use in the morning, there are some congregations, and some times, when a morning prayer service might not use the order prescribed for worship, and other times when the service might, indeed, use that formulary, but for some reason might choose the name "morning prayer" rather than "matins".

In a Lutheran Church, I would expect a morning prayer service, though, would normally, though not exclusively use the order for matins.


What arguments from scripture are given by Baptists for the belief that one third of the angels were banished from heaven with Satan?

This is a long answer. Please bear with me.

I’m not sure how old this idea is, but its a combination of mistakes in interpretation. We always come into difficulties when we take any document out of context. The same is especially true for the Bible. That is what happens here and when done in several different bible passages, it leads to some man-made idea which is not taught in the bible.

Here are the passages which are used to explain this process. Notice how some can be taken out of context when a person just refers to a single verse or two.

Isaiah 14:12
“How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!”

Luke 10:18 (the “He” is Jesus)
And He said to them, “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning.

II Peter 2:4-10
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men  (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority.

Jude 1:6-7
And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

Revelation 9:1
Then the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star from heaven which had fallen to the earth; and the key of the [a]bottomless pit was given to him.

Revelation 12:4
And his tail *swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child.

Let me break each passage down one by one.

First, Isaiah 14:12. Look at the context in Isaiah 14. The Lord God is speaking of rescuing His people from captivity. He will also punish their oppressors. Within this subject, God gives a “taunt” against the king of Babylon. Babylon was the ones who had taken God’s people captive. Daniel, Ezekiel, etc. were among those captives. Within the context of that “taunt” from God, it says the above passage. Taken within the context its about the king of Babylon. He had made himself out to be like God. Look at Daniel 7 and we can see this of Belshazzar in Daniel 5. He taunted God by drinking wine from the sacred vessels taken from God’s temple in Jerusalem and praised his gods. (see verse 22 - that is Daniel’s explanation.) This passage is not about the devil.

Luke 10:18 - Just before Jesus made this remark, seventy of His followers who had been sent out by Jesus returned happy because the demons had been subject to Jesus’ name. Jesus said “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning.” Its not clear when Jesus saw this. But it connects with what the disciples were doing. The demons are being defeated by the name of Jesus. So we can safely say Satan fell from heaven.

II Peter 2:4-10 - All these events seem to be in order. The first one is when the angels sinned and they were “cast” into “hell”, also “committed” to “pits of darkness”. This sounds very much like Jude 1:6-7 where we learn they did not “keep their own domain”. They tried to usurp their authority. Now they are in hell.

Revelation 9:1 - Now we go to Revelation, which is highly symbolic since it is a series of visions. A “star from heaven” had “fallen” to the earth. It seems this “star” was given the key to the “bottomless pit”. He opened the bottomless pit and smoke and locusts came out of the pit. They had power to hurt only those people who did not have the “seal of God on their foreheads.” (v. 4) They could not kill anyone. Their power lasted five months. They also had a king over them (v.11), the “angel of the abyss”. His name is given. In Hebrew it is “Abaddon” and in Greek it is “Apollyon”. (v.11)  It means “the destroying one” in both languages according to Strong’s accordance (see word # 623). This may have been part of God’s plan or even desire because this is the fifth trumpet. And notice this angel’s subjects are hurting only those who have not followed God. This is part of God’s judgment. Would Satan help God in His judgment?

Therefore, this “angel” had power or control over releasing these locusts, whatever they are or were. So far it says nothing about other angels or the devil. However, I’m sure many people think the “destroying one” fits the devil. But that doesn’t mean it is the devil.

Last, Revelation 12:4 - we read of a dragon. His tail “swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth”. This is the only passage that I am aware of in the bible that refers to a “third” of anything refering to something from heaven. But continue on. There is a woman in heaven. The dragon and the woman are both in heaven. This dragon stands before the woman who was about to give birth in order to devour her child. She gave birth to a male child who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. This sounds like Jesus. The description of a rod is used of him in Revelation and even in Genesis 41. But God rescued the child to His throne. The woman fled into the wilderness where she was nourished for a time. Then Michael and his angels waged war against the dragon and his angels (v. 7-8). The dragon was defeated and he was thrown down along with the angels (v. 9). So the dragon doesn’t quit. He goes after the woman. But she was given wings to rescue her so she could fly to the wilderness. In verse 9 the dragon is identified as the “serpent of old” (probably the Garden serpent) and as “Satan”. Now, notice also that his angels were thrown down with him to the earth. If the stars of heaven refers to angels, and the dragon threw them down with his tail, then why were they thrown down again later? That means they were back in heaven again. Did they come back? Why would the dragon cast them down in the first place with his tail? It seems God wants him and the angels who help him to be cast down. So why would Satan do purposefully what God wanted? And then change his mind and bring them back with him. And why would God let him? Therefore, it seems that it is saying Satan disrupted heaven. He did not belong there. That is what is meant by the sweeping away of the third of the stars. He was and is a trouble maker.

So these are the things I can be certain about from these passages:

Angels sinned against God because they did not remain in their proper domain or territory.
When they sinned, the angels were cast into hell, a pit of darkness.
Satan fell from heaven. Its already happened.
An angel was given charge or control over the bottomless pit. He opened it up and locusts came out. They could only hurt people who have rejected God. Therefore, this is a judgment from God.
The dragon in Rev. 12 is Satan. Satan tried to eat Jesus but God took Him to His throne.
The stars the dragon swept away with his tail were not angels.
Satan had angels to help him in a fight against Michael. He lost that fight and he and his angels were cast down to the earth. From there he persecuted the woman. But God rescued her.
Satan goes off to make war against the rest of the woman’s descendants.
God is in control.


Summary
Johannes Bogerman, president of the Synod of Dort, wrote the first draft, which was then amended by the Drafting Committee consisting of 9 members:

Johannes Bogerman: President
Hermannus Faukelius and Jacobus Rolandus: Assessors
Dutch theologians Johannes Polyander, Antonius Walaeus, and Jacobus Trigland
Bishop George Carleton: British representative
Genevan theologian Jean Diodati: French representative
Heidelberg theologian Abraham Scultetus: German representative

The committee held meetings over 3 weeks and produced 3 committee drafts which were reviewed and debated by several delegates from different countries.  The final conclusion draft was read publicly on April 20 and then debated and negotiated until the final form was reached on 23 April 1619 at 10 PM.  The whole process took about 4 weeks.
Source
This answer is based on a paper The Drafting Of The Canons Of Dordt: A Preliminary Survey Of Early Drafts And Related Documents published 2011 in the Brill's Series in Church History Volume 49 Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618-1619), written by Trinity Christian College theology professor (emeritus) Donald Sinnema.
Prof. Sinnema reconstructed the drafting timeline based on his preliminary examination of 5 main repositories of more than one hundred archival documents, some multiple copies.  The first 8 pages of the paper are available here.
Another paper by Prof. Sinnema published in the same book: The Canons of Dordt: From Judgment on Arminianism to Confessional Standard has the following quotes (emphasis mine):

From 6 to 21 March the Synod was occupied with reading the judicia
of the nineteen delegations on the Five Articles. Following the earlier
instructions of Bogerman, these judicia all consisted of positive statements expressing the orthodox Reformed view as well as a rejection of Remonstrant errors. ...
When all the judicia had been read, president Bogerman noted that
the States General "did expect that the Canons should be made" by Easter, ten days away.²⁸ He then proposed that "the synodical judgment
(judicium Synodicum) should now be formed from all of them [the
judicia] compared with each other:' For that purpose, he informed the Synod, he had drafted "some Canons" from these judicia, to which the delegations might suggest amendments.²⁹
The next day, 22 March, Bogerman presented his views on the form of
the proposed Canons. "The order and style of these canons ought to be
directed to the instruction of these churches:' They should be proposed
simply, but not meagerly, "so that the Canons may not be scholastic or
academic, but ecclesiastical:' On the question whether the heterodox or
orthodox section should be first, Bogerman thought that "the doctrine
of the truth is to be placed first because it is by nature prior:'³⁰ The English Bishop Carleton also gave advice on how the Canons should
be formed. He too recommended that the affirmative view be placed
first, then the negative, and that "the style of the Canons be popular,
not scholastic:'³¹ The same day Bogerman dictated to the Synod the
"Canons" he had drafted on Articles One and Two. ³² Since these consisted of positive "articles" and a rejection of errors, it is apparent that here the term "Canons" referred to the whole document. ³³
This procedure immediately aroused the complaint of some foreign
theologians that Bogerman intended to draw up the Canons by himself
and merely dictate them to the Synod for its consent.³⁴ To resolve the discontent the civil delegates on 25 March advised that some foreign and Dutch theologians work with the president and the assessors to draft the Canons. The Synod approved this advice and appointed a drafting committee of nine.³⁵
For about three weeks the Synod did not officially meet while the
drafting committee was at work. Working from Bogerman's draft the
committee prepared its own draft of the Canons, which it revised twice,
before coming up with the final version of the Canons. After receiving the Bogerman draft and each of the three committee drafts, the various delegations had an opportunity to suggest amendments.³⁶
...
On 16, 18, and 23 April the full Synod after some final changes
approved the final version of the Canons.⁴² Then on the 23rd three
copies were signed by all delegates. ...

Other resources

A paper by Prof. Sinnema describing a new project to produce ten-volume critical edition of all the documents of the Synod of Dort to celebrate the 400th anniversary: The Documents of the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) - A New Edition


What is LDS teaching about how Bible verses came to be in the Book of Mormon?

The short answer is that some church leaders and others have commented on this subject, with various points of view taken.
On the one hand, some point out that those who witnessed the translation process testified that no materials were used in the translation. For instance, in "The Last Testimony of Sister Emma," first published in the RLDS publication The Saints' Herald volume 26, number 19, Joseph Smith's wife gives the following in response to questions on the subject of the translation of the Book of Mormon:

Q: Had he not a book or manuscript from which he read?
A: He had neither manuscript nor book to read from.
Q: Could he not have had, and you not know it?
A: If he had had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.

Others, however, argue that a Bible was likely used in the process. A passage from B.H. Robert's New Witnesses for God, part 2, volume 3 (see this link for an electronic copy) most clearly takes this point of view. Pages 425–440 quote a letter with a very similar question addressed to Joseph F. Smith, sixth president of the LDS Church, and Smith's response, which begins with the following statement (p. 427):

"The difficulty which you point out [referring to the verbatim nature of the quotations] of course has been recognized by believers in the Book of Mormon, but I do not know that I can say that the Church as yet has settled upon any explanation which could be regarded as an authoritative view on the subject."

However, Smith then goes on to offer his own opinion for the similarities (p. 429–430):

"It should be understood also, in this connection, that while Joseph Smith obtained the facts and ideas from the Nephite characters through the inspiration of God, he was left to express those facts and ideas, in the main, in such language as he could command; and when he found that parts of the Nephite record closely parallel passages in the Bible, and being conscious that the language of our English Bible was superior to his own, he adopted it, except for those differences indicated in the Nephite original which here and there made the Book of Mormon version of passages superior in sense and clearness. Of course, I recognize the face that this is but a conjecture; but I believe it to be a reasonable one; and indeed the only one which satisfactorily disposes of the difficulty you point out."

In addition, there are also some leaders and scholars who have stated that Joseph Smith's use the language of the KJV was a choice, while remaining somewhat more agnostic about the exact process behind how that wording was put in the translation. For instance, LDS scholar Hugh Nibley outlined his thoughts on this in response to a letter to the editor of the Church News in 1961 (reprinted in The Prophetic Book of Mormon, ed. John W. Welch, volume 8):

As to the "passages lifted bodily from the King James Version," we first ask, "How else does one quote scripture if not bodily?" And why should anyone quoting the Bible to American readers of 1830 not follow the only version of the Bible known to them? Actually the Bible passages quoted in the Book of Mormon often differ from the King James Version, but where the latter is correct there is every reason why it should be followed... Since the Book of Mormon is a translation, "with all its faults," into English for English-speaking people whose fathers for generations had known no other scriptures but the standard English Bible, it would be both pointless and confusing to present the scriptures to them in any other form, so far as their teachings were correct.

In addition, in the 1966 edition of Mormon Doctrine (p. 302, entry titled "King James Version of the Bible", electronic copy here), Bruce R. McConkie appears to take this stance:

Joseph Smith read, respected, reverenced, and taught the King James Version "as far as it is translated correctly." (Eighth Article of Faith.) Whenever he found Biblical quotations in the Book of Mormon (they having been copied from the brass plates and preserved by the Nephite prophets), he rendered them into English in the exact language of the King James Version, except in instances in which the language of that version did not convey accurately the original thought.


What is the best way to distinguish when God (the son) is talking in His human nature or in His divine?

Your question contains or suggests several good questions, but I will focus on the last paragraph. The historic Chalcedonian position on "What is the best way to distinguish when god the son is talking in his human nature or his divine?" is to not make such a distinction.

For clarity, let me emphasise that in this answer I am assuming that God the Son specifically refers to the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ.

Historically, since the Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus) most of Christianity has accepted that that distinction is not appropriate. This was expressed by the council in Cyril of Alexandria's fourth anathema against Nestorius:

  If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions (φωνάς) which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God:  let him be anathema.

The actions of Christ are to be attributed to the person of Christ  in which the two natures are united. We can say things like "Christ had the authority to forgive sins because the divine nature is united in His person." It is wrong, however, "The divine nature (to the exclusion of the human nature) of Christ forgave sins"

As to the Father's will, or how the Son is less than the Father, or how the Father is the God of the Son, those are other worthwhile questions.


Where do Mormons believe heaven is right now?

"Heaven" has three principal meanings.

Place of the righteous, pre-judgement

Earth.

Jesus said to the thief on the cross, "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). Yet days later, when he appeared to Mary, he said "I am not yet ascended to my Father" (John 20:17). Mormons believe that the afterlife ("paradise") is distinct from the habitation of God.

Brigham Young taught that the spirit world is on Earth:

  When you lay down this tabernacle, where are you
  going? Into the spiritual world....Where is the spirit world?
  It is right here....Can you see it with your natural eyes? No. Can you see spirits in this room? No. Suppose the Lord should touch your eyes that you might see, could you then see the spirits? Yes, as plainly as you now see bodies.

  Discourses of Brigham Young, ed. Widtsoe

The separation between the physical and spiritual "dimensions" is frequently called the "veil."

Place of the righteous, post-judgement

Earth -- purified, and in the presence of God.

  Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

  Matthew 5:5

Mormons call it the the celestial (heavenly) kingdom. Its inhabitants will dwell in the presence of God.

  ...the poor and the meek of the earth shall inherit it.

  Therefore, it must needs be sanctified from all unrighteousness, that it may be prepared for the celestial glory;

  For after it hath filled the measure of its creation, it shall be crowned with glory, even with the presence of God the Father;

  Doctrine and Covenants 88:17-19

Throne of God

Near Kolob.

  And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it;

  And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me

  Abraham 3:2-3

P.S. If it seems strange that Mormons have astronomical references and unusual words like Kolob when referring to the location of heaven, it may be because you are used to having no specifics about its location. Think about it, (e.g. is heaven in the clouds?), and it might cause you to see the topic differently :)


Can a baby be baptized in a Catholic Church if the mother does not have papers proving she was baptized?

In order for a child to be baptized, there must be "a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion" (Code of Canon Law, Canon 868 section 1). That is, the priest must judge it reasonable to believe that you will raise your child Catholic. This is reasonable from the church's point of view since it baptizes infants so that, growing in grace in the Church, they will be saved.

Is it necessary for you, then, to prove that you are baptized? Canon law has no such requirement. In fact, it's perfectly possible for the child of a non-Catholic to be baptized. (The complete requirements for valid, licit baptism of an infant are listed in Canon 868 of the Code of Canon Law). What's important is for the priest to feel comfortable with the idea that you'll raise your child Catholic. This is usually not a problem, especially if you have been a member of your parish for some time.


Is there any Biblical basis for hating homosexuals?

In general

  Romans 12:16-21 (ESV)
   16  Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. 17  Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." 20 To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

If we have the choice, we should live in peace with all and be good to everyone. Even if they're evil. Even if they're our enemy.

Specifically regarding homosexuals

The Bible condemns homosexual acts, not having homosexual temptations. We can't judge anyone for what they didn't choose -- even Jesus was tempted, so temptations are not sin.

We don't know for sure if you can be born a homosexual, but it's certainly possible (even probable, science seems to tell us). That's all the more reason to try and be understanding with homosexual people. Do note that being born one way or another is no excuse for sinning, and we shouldn't act like the Bible approves of homosexual relationships and activities.


What is the biblical basis for claims that certain manifestations are not of the Holy Spirit but counterfeits (e.g. Kundalini awakening)?

There is no explicit historical or Biblical basis for this argumentation. The earliest known mention of Kundalini yoga dates to the Vedic collection of writings known as the Upanishads (c. 1000 BCE). The practice of Kundalini thus predates the oldest extant Tanakh manuscripts (the Silver Scrolls c. 650–587 BCE) by several centuries. Clearly, the authors of the Tanakh were unaware of this practice. The same can be said for experiences like samadhi in Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism and yogic schools (oldest reference late 1st millennium BCE in the Maitrayaniya Upanishad). Nor the Tanakh, the OT or NT mention any knowledge or understanding of these practices. Virtually every religion - surviving or extinct - includes some form of this kind of experience in their oral or written tradition, including Sumerian, Persian, Chinese, Indian, Egyptian, Greek, and Roman religions.
As for the "Toronto Blessing", this has been investigated by Andrew Newton, who had this to say about it:

the phenomena so closely resembled mass hysteria that most observers –
scientists and laymen alike – deduced that it was indeed a text book
case of mass hysteria. Those who took part in it were all emotionally
very suggestible and there is no doubt that expectancy and wish
fulfillment played a major part in the experience.

He then examines the testimonial of two of the participants.  The first is a man called Mick Brown. He went to Toronto and attended a meeting led by John Arnott, pastor of the Toronto Airport Vineyard. Here is Mick Brown’s testimony:

“A body came falling towards me. I rested it on the ground and moved
on. I found myself beside John Arnott, who was moving through the
crowd, blessing people, who fell like ninepins. I didn’t even see his
hand coming as it arched through the air and touched me gently –
hardly at all – on the forehead. “And bless this one, Lord….” I could
feel a palpable shock running through me, then I was falling
backwards, as if my legs had been kicked away from underneath me. I
hit the floor – I swear this is the truth – laughing like a drain.”

Newton's analysis:

The interesting thing about that testimony is that Mick Brown is not a
Christian. He is an unconverted Daily Telegraph journalist who went to
Toronto to write a report on the Toronto Blessing for the Daily
Telegraph magazine, from which the above quotation is taken. Yet when
Pastor Arnott touched him, Mick Brown experiences exactly the same
phenomena as all the professing believers. He becomes “slain in the
Spirit” and laughs hysterically. Later he told a Christian newspaper
that his experience had made no difference to his unbelief in
Christianity. He was and still is a non-believer. So we are left with
the same physical and emotional experience, the same Toronto Blessing,
the same hysterical reaction but without the religiosity.
This forces us to ask two very important and searching questions:
First, how can this be the Holy Spirit at work? and second, does the
Holy Spirit bestow the same emotional and physical experience on
believer and non-believer alike – ‘slaying in the Spirit,’
uncontrollable laughter, a state of euphoria?
If these things had no spiritual or religious meaning or significance
in the life of atheist Mick Brown, how can precisely the same things
have any authentic spiritual meaning or significance in the lives of
professing Christians? Clearly we are dealing with an experience that
is not truly spiritual in nature, but can be happily shared by
believers and non-believers alike. Obviously it must be up to the
individual to interpret the associated emotions and find meaning… or
not.
Another obvious question is, what is the power that John Arnott has to
induce this experience in a non-Christian who has absolutely no belief
that the Toronto Blessing is a work of God, since he does not even
believe in God? Is it possible that this is nothing more that
hypnotism working on a suggestible mind? Mick Brown had not
participated in any of the warm-up techniques of the worship, and had
no expectation that anything would happen to him. Yet when John Arnott
touched him, quite by accident, down he goes, gibbering away and
laughing hysterically. This seems to point us in the direction of John
Arnott and others like him actually possessing or at least channeling
some kind of supernatural power. Or not…
Stage hypnosis employs the same mental sleight of hand, as do the
industrial scale antics of American TV evangelists, such as the market
leader, Benny Hinn. Once a participant has seen other volunteers
collapsing and falling into what appears to be a trance-like state,
that participant also becomes suggestible. This happens quite
unconsciously and is as reliable as clockwork. One does not have to
take part in the warm up tests and exercises to be affected by it –
merely watching it work with others is enough to increase
suggestibility.

The second testimony is that of Glenda Waddell, a member of staff at Holy Trinity Brompton, the Anglican church in London which acts as the British headquarters of the Toronto Blessing. Here is Ms. Waddell’s testimony of how she first received the Toronto Blessing:

“To my absolute horror I just knew beyond any shadow of doubt my hands
were doing strange things and I was going to roar. I said, “Oh Lord,
I’d do anything but please, please, don’t make me roar. Only the men
roar and the women don’t roar.” But it came and I did roar quite
loudly and I made a lot of awful noise and I was crawling around the
floor doing terrible things and half of me was thinking, ‘This cannot
be me.’ But another part of me knew that it was.”

Newton's analysis:

The disturbing thing about Ms Waddell’s testimony is that it presents
us with a picture of the Holy Spirit supposedly at work. And yet her
experience makes it painfully obvious it was not the Holy Spirit at
work.
By her own account, Ms Waddell was invaded and possessed by a power
which reduced her to bestial behavior, crawling around and roaring
like a wild animal – all against her conscious will. She was simply
taken over, physically and spiritually, by a controlling force. That
is not how the Holy Spirit operates in a believer’s life. He does not
sanctify individuals by possessing them like a demon and forcing them
to do weird, sub-human things. He is supposed to work through the Word
of God, bringing truth to bear upon our minds, enlightening our
understanding. Anyone with any spiritual discernment must see that
this darker force was not the Holy Spirit.
An important thing to understand about mass hysteria is that it can
creep up even on those who are on their guard against it. From the
accounts of the two people in the extract above, it seems to me this
is what happened.


Was the first Christian community a model for Religious Orders?

The context of Pope Francis's "This is not communism, but pure Christianity" in his 11 April 2021 Homily was a description of the disciples's response, a natural response enabled by Jesus who gave them threefold gifts of mercy (peace, the Spirit, his wounds):

And that is what the disciples did: receiving mercy, they in turn became merciful. We see this in the first reading. The Acts of the Apostles relate that “no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common” (4:32). This is not communism, but pure Christianity. It is all the more surprising when we think that those were the same disciples who had earlier argued about prizes and rewards, and about who was the greatest among them (cf. Mt 10:37; Lk 22:24). Now they share everything; they are “of one heart and soul”” (Acts 4:32). How did they change like that? They now saw in others the same mercy that had changed their own lives. They discovered that they shared the mission, the forgiveness and the Body of Jesus, and so it seemed natural to share their earthly possessions. The text continues: “There was not a needy person among them” (v. 34). Their fears had been dispelled by touching the Lord’s wounds, and now they are unafraid to heal the wounds of those in need. Because there they see Jesus. Because Jesus is there, in the wounds of those in need.

Thus Pope Francis was NOT teaching that the whole society was to live like that.
Secondly, while everyone in the Catholic religious order community have all things in common modeling after Acts 4:32-37, the vow of poverty itself is based on Matt 19:16-22 for responding to the Evangelical Counsels of perfection, which is NOT binding on all Catholics:

[Jesus] also taught certain principles which He expressly stated were not to be considered as binding upon all, or as necessary conditions without which heaven could not be attained, but rather as counsels for those who desired to do more than the minimum and to aim at Christian perfection, so far as that can be obtained here upon earth.

Thirdly, communism implies force, socialism implies ideology, but that is not the correct reading of Acts 4:32, which at the heart is voluntary response (as Pope Francis indicated in his homily as well).  The Catholic Answers website article No, the First Christians Were Not Socialists: We are called to be generous, not to abandon private property said:

Nowhere in the New Testament do we find a prohibition against owning private property. We do find the practice of believers placing goods at the apostles’ feet for communal distribution (Acts 4:34-35), but even this generosity is not mandated for all Christians.
Given the persecution of the early Church, it made sense for Christians to share communal property and meet in private homes for worship (1 Cor. 16:19), but those practices are not proof that all Christians are obliged to live this way. If socialism was morally required of Christians we would expect the New Testament to say this or at least mandate a tithe, but as New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg points out, while tithing was commanded of God’s people in the Old Testament, “no New Testament text ever mandates a tithe but rather commands generous and sacrificial giving instead.”
Further, Acts 2:45 does not unambiguously say first century Christians completely renounced private property. The verse literally says of the faithful and their possessions, “they were selling and were dividing them to all” (Gr. hyparxeis epipraskon kai diemerizon auta) rather than “they had sold and distributed them to all.”  Luke’s use of imperfect verbs in this verse seems to describe a continuing process of selling extra property and goods in order to support the poor. But in order to do that Christians would have had to retain some private property even after becoming believers.


Can someone atone for the sins of another, in the life after death, if they asked this grace from Our Lord before their own death in this life?

The answer is No.

To elaborate, can that mother pray like this: " Lord, let me be given more time in purgatory , but spare my son of your divine punishment and let him be in heaven on the day of his death "

The short answer is No again.

Explanation

The soul after death has no "body" and the soul undergoing purification in purgatory has no "body" to offer as a sacrifice for atonement.
A good read as foundational teaching is St.John Paul II Theology of the Body,to know the reason why God had given us a body animated by a soul.

  According to author Christopher West, the central thesis of John Paul's Theology of the Body is that "the body, and it alone, is capable of making visible what is invisible: the spiritual and the divine. It was created to transfer into the visible reality of the world, the mystery hidden since time immemorial in God, and thus to be a sign of it."[1]
  A rational soul was given a body to merit graces while still alive and after death the soul has no longer the means to acquire graces.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_of_the_Body

Jesus the Logos was incarnated precisely to atone for our sins.
Jesus Christ by His sufferings, passion, crucifixion and death had won for us infinite graces in atonement for the sins of all humanity. Jesus paid our ransom with His most precious blood up to last drop. Jesus needed a "body" as a means for atonement.

  Atonement (also atoning, to atone) is the concept of a person taking action to correct previous wrongdoing on their part, either through direct action to undo the consequences of that act, equivalent action to do good for others, or some other expression of feelings of remorse. From the Middle English attone or atoon (“agreed”, literally “at one”), now meaning to be "at one", in harmony, with someone.[1] Atonement "is closely associated to forgiveness, reconciliation, sorrow, remorse, repentance, reparation, and guilt".[2] It can be seen as a necessary step on a path to redemption.[3]

  Atonement in Christianity, in western Christian theology, describes beliefs that human beings can be reconciled to God through Christ's sacrificial suffering and death.[6] Atonement refers to the forgiving or pardoning of sin in general and original sin in particular through the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus,[7][8]
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement

Another word related to your question is "reparation", since another person will be offering a sacrifice for the benefit of another person. And reparation can only be accomplish by a soul using his body as a means of sacrifice.

A good read will be St.Louis De Montfort writing on reparation;

  Reparation is an ambiguous term. Even in profane use it may be employed in the sense of
  repair of a damaged object or an act of justice whereby payment of some sort is made
  for damage done. In religious use it has a variety of meanings. It means principally
  the work of redemption accomplished by Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sense of
  "repairing the damage done" by Adam’s revolt and the sin of his progeny; Christ
  restores us to God’s friendship. The term is also used in a generic way for restitution
  for injuries, usually when moral theology cannot measure precisely what such payment
  would entail. In popular devotional literature and also in ascetical theology,
  reparation is the making of amends for insults given to God through sin, either one’s
  own or another’s. Through Saint Margaret Mary’s devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus—a
  devotion stemming through Saint John Eudes back through Saints Gertrude and Mechtilde
  and Saint Francis’ devotion to the Five Wounds and Passion of Christ—"reparation" took
  on a more distinctive meaning. Saint Margaret Mary saw Christ’s heart and his love
  ignored and ridiculed; the response of man is to be reparation through adoration,
  prayer, and sacrifice.
  https://www.ewtn.com/library/montfort/Handbook/Reparat.htm

To console your good motive on the question, the soul in purgatory can pray for us and plead for God to help us in our needs. There are a lot of stories where a soul in purgatory has an interaction with the living like the story of Maria Simma who was visited by a number of souls in purgatory. Also, Susan Bertone books in purgatory is a good reference too.

If you are familiar with the prayer for the poor souls in purgatory like the "Read me or Rue it" and also the famous Saint Gertrude. In God mysterious ways the poor souls in purgatory have been given a grace to know who are the people who are offering prayers & sacrifices for them and in turn these poor souls out of gratitude also in God mysterious ways had been able to help us in their pleading.

And the Catholic Church teaches that the souls in purgatory after purification enter in heaven like the saints. As St.Paul teaches that all of us will receive a crown in heaven and will be like Christ, our purified souls will be glorified.These poor souls now glorified in Heaven becomes for us generous intercessor.
We belong to a Catholic Church who are composed of Church Triumphant, Church Sufferings and Church Militant and all this church are inter-connected in the beautiful Wisdom of God.

In closing, the poor souls can pray for us in a form of pleading to God but they can no longer make atonement for our sins. The poor souls pleading in behalf of us is different if a poor souls would desire to atone for our sins.


What is the difference between being filled by the Holy Spirit and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit?

We find in Acts:

  Acts 2:2-4 (ESV)
  "And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind,
  and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided
  tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And
  they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other
  tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance."

In these verses the Holy Spirit (strategically) empowered each of his apostles to speak in other tongues.

From this static experience, we can see 'filling' as a potentially recurring event in a believer's life.  Praying for God to 'fill us with Your Holy Spirit,' can be an everyday prayer.

The indwelling, seems to me, appears later in this same chapter as Peter speaks about the 'gift of the Spirit':

  Acts 2:38
  "And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you
  in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins,
  and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Though the word 'indwelling' is not in this passage, the word 'gift' implies that each person will be receiving the Spirit for the first time - the indwelling of Him.  Indwelling and the opinion of when it occurs varies from denomination to denomination. According to this passage, when a person repents in faith, they are given the Holy Spirit as a gift, the indwelling.

Here is a launching webpage for some differing doctrines and beliefs on Holy Spirit filling and 'baptism': http://christianity.about.com/od/glossary/g/baptismholyspir.htm


What is an overview of the similarities and differences between the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin and the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church deals with this subject in §385–412.  A couple sections in particular reveal several significant contrasts between Catholic and Reformed theology:

§405: Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
§407: The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man's situation and activity in the world. By our first parents' sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free.

Key points:

Original sin "is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is [...] inclined to sin" (405)
Through Adam's sin, "the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free." (407)
"Baptism [...] erases original sin and turns a man back towards God." (405)

Now, representing Reformed theology, we turn to the Westminster Larger Catechism:

A25: The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually; which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.
A32: The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a mediator, and life and salvation by him; and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces; and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.
A165: Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord's.

Corresponding to the points above:

As a result of Adam's sin, man is "utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil." (25)
God "promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces; and to enable them unto all holy obedience" (32)
Baptism is a "sign and seal of ingrafting into [Christ], of remission of sins by his blood" (165)

Thus we see three significant differences, briefly summarized:

In Catholicism, man is "wounded," under a "certain domination" of Satan, and "inclined to sin."  But in Reformed theology, man is "wholly inclined to all evil" and "utterly indisposed [...] unto all that is spiritually good."
In Catholicism, "man remains free" from complete domination by sin and Satan, but in Reformed theology, only God has the power to work faith and obedience in the elect.
In Catholicism, baptism  "erases original sin," but in Reformed theology, it is only a "sign and seal" of salvation, not in itself restorative.

As for similarities, we can see several from the context of these sections.  Both systems see original sin propagating to all mankind as a result of the sin of our first parents, and this sin has dire effects both on individuals and on the world at large.  And in both systems, Christ is the antidote, the New Adam who destroys sin and death.


What is the Biblical argument that homosexual attraction is sinful by itself?

Typically, proponents of this view would say something like the attraction is an indication of sin that is already present. They do not believe the attraction is inherent within that person, but rather is the effect of other sins.

To support this they would often quote Romans 1.

  18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.  ...

  21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. ...

  24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ...

  26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

  28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. ... 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

When challenged that same sex attraction is an issue of psychology, not theology, they would say that these verses clearly state the root of this psychological problem. It starts as a problem within their heart. They hate the laws of God and some even hate God Himself. They desired wickedness more than God's righteousness, so God gave them over to their wickedness. Not only would they like to engage in homosexual acts, but they now have a mind that is intrinsically attracted to that sin. Conversely, opposite sex attraction is blessed and holy and is properly sought within marriage. No such thing exists for homosexuality.

Most taking this view would likely not call it a sin, per se, but it is the fruit of sin that has been prevalent since the beginning. As an imperfect analogy, many would agree that theft is a sin, but some would also say that using that stolen item is continued theft.

A decent source on the topic that makes the same argument

I'm still looking for other corroborating sources, but they are hard to come by. It is not a popular opinion and many who do hold it are usually pretty hateful about it.

St. Thomas Aquinas has an illuminating view on Romans 1:24

  Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart [because they "worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (v. 25)], unto uncleanness: to dishonor their own bodies among themselves

Cap. 1 l. 7 discusses the causality of homosexuality:

  139. But since impurity of this kind is a sin, it seems that God would not give men over to it: God himself tempts no one to evil (Jas 1:13).

  The answer is that God does not give men over to impurity directly, as though inclining a man's affection toward evil, because God ordains all things to himself: the Lord has made everything for himself (Prov 16:4), whereas something is sinful through its turning from him. But he gives men over to sin indirectly, inasmuch as he justly withdraws the grace through which men are kept from sinning, just as a person would be said to cause another to fall, if he removed the ladder supporting him. In this way, one's first sin is a cause of the next, which is at the same time a punishment for the first one.

  To understand this it should be noted that one sin can be the cause of another directly or indirectly: directly, inasmuch as from one sin he is inclined to another in any of three ways. In one way, when it acts as a final cause; for example, when someone from greed or envy is incited to commit murder. Second, when it acts as a material cause, as gluttony leads to lust by administering the material. Third, when it acts as a moving cause, as when many repetitions of the same sin produce a habit inclining a person to repeat the sin.

  Indirectly, when the first sin merits the exclusion of grace, so that once it is removed, a man falls into another sin. In this way the first sin is the cause of the second indirectly or incidentally, inasmuch as it removes the preventative.

  (translation from: Larcher, Fabian R., trans. Commentary on the Letter of Saint Paul to the Romans, ed. John Mortensen and Enrique Alarcón, with parallel Latin and the Greek text of the epistle. Lander, Wyo.: The Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine, 2012. pp. 47-8)

In other words: He, the Author of nature, does not put same-sex attraction in human nature.

Aquinas is saying that "one's first sin" "is a cause of the next". Relative to this topic, the homosexuals' personal sins (idolatry, spite for God, etc.) made them even greater sinners (not just doers of homosexual acts, but those who long for that evil).


What traditions believe that a woman's relationship with God must go through some man and how do they support it from the Bible?

I think a better way to word your question is "What traditions hold the most conservative view of 1 Corinthians 11. If any tradition or denomination stands by what you are saying, they would most certainly derive the Biblical basis from this passage:

  But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and
  the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.Every
  man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his
  head.But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head
  uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she
  were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn:
  but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be
  covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he
  is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the
  man... For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head
  because of the angels. 1 Corinthians 11:3-7,10 (emphasis added)

I don't think any present, mainline group would confirm that a woman's relationship with God must go through a man. Even the most conservative denominations today would emphatically state that women participate equally in the priesthood of believers. What differs is the role that women play in the Church (at this point, I wonder what your sources are that brought up this question. Please see below for a commentary from Matthew Henry on this passage. Although your question does not necessarily warrent this, I think it's helpful to see a very traditional, mainline view from the 1600s.)

That said, I have met individuals, even pastors who stand by this "must go through a man" line of doctrine. It's spoken of as "headship," that a women must have a male "head" that represents her. This can be a pastor, father, or husband that agrees to take responsibility for her spiritual growth. What ends up being the case however, is just a de facto acknowledgement of headship, almost like "nearest of kin" laws: If a woman has no husband, then her head is her father, if he's not a Christian, the her pastor, and so one. It really is not an active headship unless the women consents to it or it's forced. Again, it's not a commonview.

What this purported view of women sounds like, really, is the convention of coverture, a principle in English Common Law that subsumes a married woman completely under her husband. Under this law, a married woman could not own land or make legal agreements (even commite a crime) without her husband taking responsibility. As has been the case for centuries, religious and civil principles have been confused and and convoluted, so while it may seem like this is a current view, it's actually a relic from Medieval times.

  The thing he reprehends is the woman’s praying or prophesying
  uncovered, or the man’s doing either covered, v. 4, 5. To understand
  this, it must be observed that it was a signification either of shame
  or subjection for persons to be veiled, or covered, in the eastern
  countries, contrary to the custom of ours, where the being bare-headed
  betokens subjection, and being covered superiority and dominion. And
  this will help us the better to understand,

  ... though a woman might not from her own abilities pretend to teach,
  or so much as question and debate any thing in the church yet when
  under inspiration the case was altered, she had liberty to speak. Or,
  though she might not preach even by inspiration (because teaching is
  the business of a superior), yet she might pray or utter hymns by
  inspiration, even in the public assembly. She did not show any
  affectation of superiority over the man by such acts of public
  worship. It is plain the apostle does not in this place prohibit the
  thing, but reprehend the manner of doing it....

  To understand this, it must be observed that it was a signification
  either of shame or subjection for persons to be veiled, or covered, in
  the eastern countries, contrary to the custom of ours, where the being
  bare-headed betokens subjection, and being covered superiority and
  dominion. And this will help us the better to understand,  The reasons
  on which he [Paul] grounds his reprehension. 1. The man that prays or
  prophesies with his head covered dishonoureth his head, namely,
  Christ, the head of every man (v. 3), by appearing in a habit
  unsuitable to the rank in which God has placed him. Note, We should,
  even in our dress and habits, avoid every thing that may dishonour
  Christ. The woman, on the other hand, who prays or prophesies with her
  head uncovered dishonoureth her head, namely, the man, v. 3. She
  appears in the dress of her superior, and throws off the token of her
  subjection. She might, with equal decency, cut her hair short, or cut
  it close, which was the custom of the man in that age. This would be
  in a manner to declare that she was desirous of changing sexes, a
  manifest affectation of that superiority which God had conferred on
  the other sex.
  Henry, Matthew. "Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11." . Blue Letter Bible. 1 Mar 1996. 2011. 29 Aug 2011.


What is the biblical basis for the personhood of the Holy Spirit?

Here are four common defenses of this doctrine:

The masculine pronoun in Greek is applied to the Holy Spirit even when not required by Greek grammar
The Holy Spirit is shown to be in a coordinating relationship with other persons, such as the Father and Son, as well as humans, suggesting that he also is a Person
The Holy Spirit has personal attributes and performs personal activities
Biblical distinctions between the Holy Spirit and the "power of God"

Masculine pronoun applied to the Holy Spirit
There are several places in the Gospel of John where the masculine pronoun he (Greek ekeinos) is apparently applied to the Holy Spirit, despite the Greek word for spirit being neuter (pneuma).  Many modern scholars have taught that such examples are evidence for the personhood of the Holy Spirit.1  For example, John 14:26:

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. (ESV, emphasis added)

Other examples of this are John 15:26 and especially 16:13–14.  However, some trinitarian scholars reject this argument as specious, saying that the rules of Greek grammar are not controverted in these verses: the masculine pronoun, they argue, can legitimately refer to the masculine noun Helper, not Spirit, even though (particularly in John 16) they are not in close proximity.2
Relationships with other persons
A number of passages indicate that the Holy Spirit is in a coordinate relationship with the Father and Son.  Thus, if they are Persons, then so is the Holy Spirit.  For example, Matthew 28:19:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (ESV)

Other examples of this include 1 Cor 12:4–6, 2 Cor 13:14, Eph 4:4–6, and 1 Peter 1:2.
The Spirit is also presented in parallel with human persons (the Apostles) in Acts 15:28:

For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements (ESV)

The Gospel of John also indicates that the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father and Son, through its language of the Father (John 14:16) and Son (John 15:26) sending the Spirit:

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper (John 14:16, ESV)

The word "another" in this verse, plus the application of the same Greek word for Helper (parakletos) to Jesus in 1 John 2:1, further establishes the personhood of the Holy Spirit by indicating that the Holy Spirit's role mirrors that of Jesus in this significant respect.
Personal attributes and activities
The Holy Spirit is seen having attributes and performing activities commonly attributed to persons.  For example, he is called the Helper or Counselor and performs the activity of bearing witness in John 15:26:

But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. (ESV)

The "Helper" language is also used in John 14:16 and 16:7, and scholars argue that this word cannot be considered to be merely "the name of any abstract influence."3
Other personal activities performed by the Holy Spirit include:

Teaching (Luke 12:12)
Interceding (Romans 8:26–27)
Having a mind of his own: (Romans 8:27)
Searching the depths of God (1 Cor 2:10)
Knowing the thoughts of God (1 Cor 2:11)
Distributing gifts (1 Cor 12:11)
Forbidding activities (Acts 16:6–7)
Speaking (Acts 8:29, 13:2)
Evaluating actions (Acts 15:28)
Being grieved (Isa 63:10, Eph 4:30)

Among these, Romans 8:27 and 1 Corinthians 12:11 make it particularly clear that the Holy Spirit has a mind and will: attributes of personhood.
Not simply the power of God
Finally, it is widely argued that the Holy Spirit being merely the "power of God" doesn't make sense in light of verses like Luke 4:14:

And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee (ESV)

If the Holy Spirit is the power of God, then this would read, "And Jesus returned in the power of the power of God to Galilee," and the first "power" would be redundant. Other examples of this include Acts 10:38, Rom 15:13, and 1 Cor 2:4.
Summary
The first of these four arguments is certainly the weakest, though some scholars who interact with the counterargument still maintain it with respect to at least John 16:13–14.  Nonetheless, defenses of the personhood of the Spirit most safely rest on the biblical evidence of the Holy Spirit's relationship with other persons, his personal attributes and activities, and indications that he is not merely the "power of God."

This presentation is largely an expansion of Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology, 1.1.8.  Other helpful resources include Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, chapter 14 and Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology, 1.1.8.1.

A huge number of scholars have made this argument, including Berkhof, Hodge, and Grudem in the sections mentioned above.  An extensive list is also contained in the paper referenced below, beginning on page 67.
Naselli and Gons, "Prooftexting the Personality of the Holy Spirit," DBSJ 16 (2011).  The analysis of the common argument begins on page 79.  A list of adherents to the counterargument begins on page 83.  An example of a theologian interacting with the counterargument and rejecting it is found on page 87.
The quote is from Berkhof, 1.1.8.


How did "credibile est, quia ineptum est" become "credo quia absurdum"?

It looks like a paraphrase made by the Zen Buddhist D. T. Suzuki's book, "Introduction to Zen Buddhism". Although, D. T. did use a different phrase beforehand, and it's possible that the paraphrase came before this writing (which was in 1914). The line quoted by Suzuki comes one line after the original line in question in Tertullian's work, so they are quite closely related. As Suzuki suggests, this phrasing may make more logical sense. It also is shorter, and thus lends itself to brevity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_quia_absurdum
About the phrasing
I am not a Latin Scholar, but I had three courses of Latin in High School in addition to extra-curricular Latin interests and exploration. I can say that, for the original quote, the repetitive usage of "est" (He/She/It is) is likely annoying and/or feels rather choppy to those who speak and read Latin fluently. Often times, the verbs of the form "to be" in Latin are implied, either by other verbs or simply by the mutual understanding that they are there (which can make it more difficult for those of us who don't read Latin on a regular basis to understand). I am unsure, but this could be (in written Latin) due to the fact that ancient man needed to use his paper-like resources carefully, since they did not have paper sold for less than a cent per page back then. It was a much scarcer resource.


According to proponents of penal substitutionary atonement, why do we still die?

Proponents of penal substitution, like Louis Berkhof (ST, 6.2.1), indeed argue that Christ has "removed the penalty of sin" and that therefore "the penal element is removed from death."  So why do Christians still die?  Two arguments are given:

God continues to use death to sanctify his followers and increase their unity with Christ
Creation continues to suffer the effects of sin until Christ's final victory

Berkhof emphasizes the first of these two points.  He argues that death is not required for perfect sanctification, noting that Enoch and Elijah didn't die.  But God still typically uses death for the "spiritual advancement," the sanctification, of his people:

  [The effects of death] serve to humble the proud, to mortify carnality, to check worldliness and to foster spiritual-mindedness. In the mystical union with their Lord believers are made to share the experiences of Christ. Just as He entered upon His glory by the pathway of sufferings and death, they too can enter upon their eternal reward only through sanctification.

Wayne Grudem (ST, 811) argues similarly, and explains the difference between punishment and discipline (cf. Romans 8:28):

  When we do experience pain and suffering in this life, we should never think it is because God is punishing us (for our harm).  Sometimes suffering is simply a result of living in a sinful, fallen world, and sometimes it is because God is disciplining us (for our good). (ST, 811)

Millard Erickson and R. C. Sproul, on the other hand, emphasize the continuing effects of the Fall as the cause of death in Christians.  Erickson argues that the "temporal consequences" of sin continue, despite the eternal consequences of it being erased for believers.  Now,

  we must experience physical death simply because it has become one of the conditions of human existence.  It is now a part of life, as much so as are birth, growth, and suffering, which also ultimately takes its origin from sin. (CT, 1179)

"This is not a denial of the fact of justification," Erickson contends, "but merely evidence that God does not reverse the course of history."  R. C. Sproul uses the language of Romans 8, the groaning of Creation, to argue that some effects of sin, like physical death, will only be conquered in the last day:

  The full benefits of Christ’s work will not be consummated until He returns to bring the new heaven and earth (source)

Indeed, all four of the theologians quoted here look forward to the conquering of physical death when Christ returns, and they all agree that the eternal punishment that sin deserves has been nullified through the cross.  But they emphasize different reasons for the continued physical death of Christians: as a means of sanctification and as a continued effect of the Fall.


Should biblical laws apply to non-Christians?

It's unclear to me whether you're asking for an answer that relates to political or governmental policy, or how we ought to behave as individual Christians.  But to address the latter, 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 I believe is relevant:

  12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

In other words, regardless of whether Biblical laws would be helpful for non-Christians, as Christians it's not our place to pass judgment; we ought to leave that for God.


When is Isaiah 11:8 supposed to be fulfilled?

Like all prophecy, there will be dispute until it happens (and even then...).

However, millenialists would say that this will be fulfilled in the 1000 year reign of Christ. Sven's diagram shows when that could be.

Your second quote is based on Matthew 22:30 which is about marriage in heaven. Millenialists would say that Isaiah 11:8 refers to Earth.

Here is a commentary I found backing up this idea.


How is Sabbath a metaphor of Jesus Christ?

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil(Matt 5:17, KJV)."

The fulfillment Jesus talks about is His perfection in lieu of our sin. We cannot live by the Law to the letter because we are sinners.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;(Romans 3:23, KJV)."

When Christ died on the cross, he offered His perfect life as a substitution for ours. When we die, we are seen as if we are Christ.

So do we need to honor the Sabbath? Yes! We honor the Sabbath not because we must in order to achieve salvation, but because we want to live by the example Christ set for us.