Why couldn't we reconcile ourselves to God?

The question, as stated, presents an misunderstood view of the economy of salvation. And although it is ultimately a mystery, we can say a fair amount about sin and salvation that makes Christ's sacrifice more reasonable sounding, and the possibility of "self-salvation" far less reasonable sounding. In essence, God created humans to be like God, humans thought they were getting short-changed and disobeyed God (His Word, the law of life), so God had to become fully human to make humans like God again.

First, God makes man in His image. We can see this directly in scripture. As creation culminates, God creates man and woman.

  God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them;
  male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:3)

Second, God places man and woman in the Garden of Eden, the Garden of delight. He gives them dominion over everything except the prerogative of good and evil. Based on context, this could mean divinity itself. The Catholic read on this, as I understand it, is that humanity is initially created in a state wherein they will live joyfully and forever, provided that trust in God's exclusive right to determine good versus evil and who is entitled to what.

  15 The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of
  Eden, to cultivate and care for it. 16 The LORD God gave the man this
  order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden 17
  except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you
  shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die. (Genesis 2:15-17)

Third, mankind starts to believe that God is holding out. They believe that, although they were told they were made in God's image, that they actually far from God-like. They believe that they must take matters into their own hands, and they taste the forbidden fruit.

  1 Now the snake was the most cunning of all the wild animals that the
  LORD God had made. He asked the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You shall
  not eat from any of the trees in the garden’?” 2 The woman answered
  the snake: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; 3 it
  is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that
  God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, or else you will
  die.’” 4 But the snake said to the woman: “You certainly will not die!
  5 God knows well that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and
  you will be like gods, who know good and evil.” 6 The woman saw that
  the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and the tree was
  desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate
  it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he
  ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew
  that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made
  loincloths for themselves. (Genesis 3:1-7)

At this point, all humans are destined to die. People are finite and stupid, for one. And our pride destines us to die. We simply don't know what it means to be Godlike, nor do we have the power to acquire Godliness. We don't even fully understand what good and evil are, let alone the power to enact good. Least of all do we understand the full consequences of our actions, nor have the power to understand. Hence, having taken good and evil into our own hands, we cannot fulfill God's purpose for us to be like Him. We simply don't have the ability to raise ourselves to Godliness.

Fourth, God rescues mankind. And since the original plan was for humans to be like God, God can accomplish this by entering the full human experience. From birth:

  10 The angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim
  to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 11 For
  today in the city of David a savior has been born for you who is
  Messiah and Lord. 12 And this will be a sign for you: you will find an
  infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.” (Luke 2:10-12)

Through daily life, learning, teaching, eating, partying, friendship, betrayal, judgement, and denial to suffering, agony, mockery, and death.

  Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commend my
  spirit”; and when he had said this he breathed his last. (Luke
  23:46)

And the Catholic understanding of this is twofold.

Firstly, we understand that Christ makes humans like God again by bringing the fullness of God into the full human experience. This is often called divinization or deification. Because Jesus was fully God, everything that He was as a human, all that happened to Him, and all that He did is God-like, including death, which we are bound to!

  The Son of God became man so that we might become God.
  - St. Athanasius

Not coincidentally, Jesus is risen from the dead, suggesting in a very "loud" manner that we too can be risen. But not of our own doing! Only by accepting God's offer for salvation by "commending our spirit" to God! That is, we can only allow ourselves to be risen by God by allowing God's offer, the power of the cross, to make us like Him again. We cannot do it on our own, for we are not God. It is precisely in an attempt to "do it on our own" that we are apart from God.

But secondly, and contrary to your request for this question, we understand that the mechanics of salvation are a mystery! It's well and good to talk about deification. It's well and good to say that Christ became sin, as we often do. It's well and good to talk about paschal sacrifices, the law, the Word Made Flesh, etc. But, that doesn't mean we understand it. And if we start to presume salvation and God are not mysterious, we find ourselves back in front of the forbidden fruit, ready to take that ill-advised bite.


Could Christ who carried our sins on the cross forgive those same sins?

These passages are dealing with different components of forgiveness. The first text is the basis of all forgiveness of sins, while the second deals with the application of that forgiveness to a specific individual. Remember, forgiveness had been an integral part of Judaism from the beginning.


How does the doctrine of Papal Infallibility account for Peter's error?

As this question explains, the Pope is not considered infallible every time he speaks, but only when he speaks ex cathedra. Essentially this means only when he makes a deliberately definitive pronouncement on a matter of doctrine. The quote you give is therefore not relevant. Even if Peter were considered a Pope at this point, the incident described would not invalidate papal infallibility.

The doctrine of papal infallibility is not founded on biblical texts specifically. It is founded on the (biblically supported) doctrine that the church is the custodian of truth, and that St. Peter was appointed by Christ as head of it. This article gives much more detail.


How did Luther view relics, like the 'preserved head of John the Baptist'?

Luther clearly thought all relics were ridiculous nonsense and evidences of a very degraded sense of spiriituality.

   “It is claimed that the head of St. John the Baptist is in Rome, although all histories show that the Saracens opened John’s grave and burned everything to powder. Yet the pope is not ashamed of his lies. So with reference to other relics like the nails and the wood of the cross—they are the greatest lies.” (Martin Luther's Works, Vol 54.131)

Furthermore, at the time of Luther, the superstition surrounding relics seems to have really been highly imaginative that only an unspiritual mind could ever conjure:

  “Certain men have impudently boasted that they possess a feather from the holy angel St. Michael. The bishop of Mainz claims to have a flame from the bush of Moses. So in Compostella the banner is exhibited that Christ had in hell, and likewise the crown of thorns, the nails, etc., and also some of Mary’s milk.” (Martin Luther's Works, Vol 54.247)


What is the Biblical basis for saying one won't be healed if they lack sufficient faith?

Great question. I found a few scriptures that partially satisfy your parameters, but the only one that really suggests that miracles/healing were adversely affected by a lack of faith is below:

And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching. (Mark 6:2–6 KJV)


Do all Orthodox saints have their own akathist?

Hopefully this blurb from this Wikipedia article answers your question:

  The writing of akathists (occasionally spelled acathist) continues
  today as part of the general composition of an akolouthia,
  particularly in the Slavic tradition, although not all are widely
  known nor translated beyond the original language. Reader Isaac E.
  Lambertsen has done a large amount of translation work, including many
  different akathists. Most of the newer akathists are pastiche, that
  is, a generic form imitating the original 6th-century akathist to the
  Theotokos into which a particular saint's name is inserted. In the
  Greek, Arabic, and Russian Old Rite traditions, the only akathist
  permitted in formal liturgical use is the original akathist.

In other words I gather that there may not be an Akathist for St. Dorotheus, or there may be one in Arabic that hasn't been translated.


Which denominations follow prosperity theology?

This a good question but at the same time it is difficult to make a list of all the denominations. Many Christians and Denominations believe in Prosperity theology but not necessarily included in their core doctrines.
Some notable ones being Word of Faith and other Pentecostal Denominations.

Let's give one example.

David Yonggi Cho, a Korean pastor of the world's largest congregation church, Yoido Full Gospel Church affiliated with the Assemblies of God , is known for his teachings about prosperity.  He emphasizes giving Tithe, Offerings and Seed Faith. "The more you give to God, the more you get" is one of his teachings. His words as mentioned in Wikipedia:

  "We must rethink our misguided thoughts considering material wealth as
  being equated with sin. We must drive out our subconsciously rooted
  thoughts of poverty, condemnation and despair. God acts in concordance
  with our conscience; If our thoughts are filled with poverty and
  despair, God bless us with material blessing."

He is famous for his strange teaching about the "Fourth Dimension". He teaches that we need to learn how turn On our spiritual tap of blessings which is from the fourth dimension and that we need to practice how to exercise our faith in this matter in order to get spiritual and material blessings.


How did Adam and Eve win at Hide and Seek?

Good question because that scripture screams that question every time it is read.

I don't believe that Adam and Eve successfully hid from God. How could they if God is omniscient?

Hebrews 4:13

  And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all
  things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give
  account.

Psalm 139:4

  Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O Lord, you know it
  altogether.

So if God knows all, then the question becomes why did God ask the question, because it wasn't because he didn't know. So if the question wasn't for God's benefit, then it must have been for Adam's

If we process the whole scene, Adam and Eve had been in perfect relationship and fellowship with God until they disobeyed and sinned against God. Then all of the sudden Adam and Eve are trying to avoid God. When God asks the question, even in Adam's hearing of the question, he has to realize that something isn't right.

God has never had to ask this question before, because Adam had never hidden from God before. So for God to ask, let's Adam know even before he answers, that God knows something is wrong.

Even in the same scripture God continues to ask questions. God could've just came in and said "Adam and Eve you sinned and the serpent tempted you, here are your curses, see you later", but instead He questions them.

Then for Adam to answer he can begin to understand and process "where" he is in relationship to God versus where he was. Adam's position has changed, and he is not in the same place physically or spiritually.

God does this throughout scripture where He asks a question he already knows the answer to, but it is to the benefit of the hearer that he asked the question.

There are many scriptures where God asks questions, but indeed already knows the answer. Here are a few:

Genesis 4:6 NKJV

  So the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why
  has your countenance fallen?

Genesis 4:9-10 NKJV

  9 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said,
  “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?” 10 And He said, “What have
  you done? The voice of your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the
  ground.

1 Kings 19:9-10 NKJV

  9 And there he went into a cave, and spent the
  night in that place; and behold, the word of the Lord came to him, and
  He said to him, “What are you doing here, Elijah?” 10 So he said, “I
  have been very zealous for the Lord God of hosts; for the children of
  Israel have forsaken Your covenant, torn down Your altars, and killed
  Your prophets with the sword. I alone am left; and they seek to take
  my life.”

After Elijah's final answer God corrects him and gives him an assignment to go anoint Elisha

Hopefully this helps.


Just what does Infant Baptism accomplish as regards Original Sin?

The Catechism of the Council of Trent (Roman Catechism) lists 5 effects of the sacrament of baptism:

Remission of sin
Remission of all punishment due to sin
Grace of regeneration
Infused virtues and incorporation with Christ
Character of Christian

"what keeps immediate re-infection of the soul from happening" after baptism?

Concupiscence remains after baptism, but it is not sin (cf. the § "Concupiscence Which Remains After Baptism Is No Sin" where the Catechism describes the first effect of baptism).
Council of Trent, session 5:

If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted […] let him be anathema.[…]this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, can not injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. (2 Tim. ii. 5). This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin (Rom. vi. 12; vii. 8), the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin. And if any one is of a contrary sentiment, let him be anathema.


Not everyone in Christianity believes that the third temple will be built as a physical temple. Many believe the ginormous dimensions given for the temple in Ezekiel indicate that it is actually just a spiritual temple being referred to.

Some passages indicting that the view of the NT writers was that the third temple was spiritual are Acts 7:48 and surrounding, 1 Cor 3:16 and surrounding, and 1 Peter 2:5 and context. Mark 14:58 and similar passages that can be interpreted as being about the resurrection of Jesus' body can also be interpreted as being about the church as Christ's body, a "temple made without hands." See also Revelation 21:22.


The Jews were so offended after Stephen said that he saw Jesus "standing" at the right hand of God in Acts 7:55 that they stoned him. Why?

The Son of Man was standing because the throne was already occupied.

In the apocalyptic belief of the time, the Son of Man was God’s divine agent who would one day bring judgment on God’s enemies and inaugurate God’s reign on earth.  The clearest picture of the role of the Son of Man in canonical scripture is in Daniel 7:13-14:

  “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a
  son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the
  [enthroned] Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given
  authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every
  language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that
  will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be
  destroyed.”

In his speech in Acts 7 describing the failure of the Jewish religious system to understand God’s purpose, Stephen quoted Isaiah 66 wherein God declares, “Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool.  What kind of house will you build for me?” (v.49).  God is not contained in temples, Stephen said, but He rules over heaven and earth, recalling the iconic picture of the seated monarch on the throne of heaven with his feet, his authority, on the earth.

Stephen then added, “Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”  Stephen was declaring that Daniel’s apocalyptic vision was being fulfilled, that the Ancient of Days, seated on his throne, was even now handing authority over to the Son of Man standing at his right hand.  The everlasting dominion of the Son of Man had begun!  According to the writer of Acts, the Jewish crowd did not embrace this message, and Stephen became the early Christian movement’s first martyr.

In the following centuries Christians came to interpret the Jewish apocalyptic vision differently.  As their theology of the divinity of Christ developed, Christians came to think of Daniel’s ‘Son of Man’ and the ‘Ancient of Days’ as the same person: the Son of Man was God’s own son, even God himself, and they sat enthroned over the Kingdom of Heaven and Earth as one person.  In Christian doctrine this came to be called the 'Session of Christ', the ‘sitting’ of Christ.  In this light Stephen’s vision was reinterpreted, and various explanations have been offered for why Christ was standing rather than seating.

But originally, Stephen saw the Son of Man standing beside the throne, and sitting upon it, according to Daniel 7:9-10, was the Ancient of Days.


Which Catholic encyclicals discuss the Catholic teaching on the results of Jesus' sacrifice?

This is a very broad question, but to answer your question briefly, the Baltimore Catechism says:

Q. 398. Why did Christ suffer and die?
A. Christ suffered and died for our sins.

Q. 453. Which are the chief effects of the Redemption?
A. The chief effects of the Redemption are two: The satisfaction of God’s justice by Christ’s sufferings and death, and the gaining of grace for men.

For your third question, God still considered the created world to be good: "For every creature of God is good." (1 Tim. 4:4a).

An excellent encyclical that covers Christ's sacrifice, its necessity for our redemption and salvation, and its relationship to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is Pope Pius XII's 1947 Mediator Dei.


Where did Augustine say that the same fire that tortures the damned purifies the elect?

This quote does come from Augustine, but its application to the doctrine of purgatory seems to be the work of Thomas Aquinas.  Aquinas (who mistakenly attributes it to Gregory the Great) quotes similar language in his second article on purgatory from the appendices of the Summa, saying:

  On the contrary, Gregory says, "Even as in the same fire gold glistens and straw smokes, so in the same fire the sinner burns and the elect is cleansed." Therefore the fire of Purgatory is the same as the fire of hell: and hence they are in the same place.

However, the actual text, which comes from Augustine's City of God, 1.8, does not specifically reference purgatory, but affliction in general:

  For as the same fire causes gold to glow brightly, and chaff to smoke; [...] so the same violence of affliction proves, purges, clarifies the good, but damns, ruins, exterminates the wicked.

So it's questionable if Augustine meant to apply this idea to purgatory.  For what it is worth, Aquinas decides that the most likely scenario is that:

  the place of Purgatory is situated below and in proximity to hell, so that it is the same fire which torments the damned in hell and cleanses the just in Purgatory.


Churches that Teach Tradition as Inspired have Different Traditions. How do They Explain This?

It seems the implicit logic of your question is the following:

Premise 1: group A claim to be infallible
Premise 2: group B claim to be infallible
Premise 3: doctrine of group A and B contradict each other
Conclusion: neither group A nor group B is infallible

As you can see, this is a non sequitur. The proper conclusion is:

Conclusion: group A or group B cannot be infallible at the same time.

This conclusion still allows either group to be infallible.

So, for the sake of the argumentation, let us assume group A is indeed infallible, but group B is not. How is it possible that group B declares itself to be infallible, without being so?

The answer is evident if we rephrase the question. Is it possible for group B to declare false doctrine? Of course! The alternative - no group can declare false doctrine - is nonsense! In a world were God gives human being liberty, the possibility of error (and heresy) must be allowed. What kind of faith is this if not?

In fact, the non sequitur you are implicitly assuming destroys every single religious faith in the world. The fact that there are so many different Christian (and Muslim and Jewish, and etc) denominations cannot per se imply that they are all wrong.

Ask yourself:

  Different Protestant churches derive different (salvific) interpretations from the same Scripture. How do they explain this?


Is Jesus God, as well as the son of God in LDS?

Yes, and not only is it a severe misunderstanding of pretty much all of our doctrine to think we believe otherwise, but there are also so many scriptures that could be cited in this regard, that one answer probably can't cover all of this question.

I try to use the most clear scriptures I can find. Obviously there are many New Testament scriptures that could be used, as well as from the Book of Mormon, but nevertheless I choose these:

Doctrine and Covenants 14:9

  9 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, who created
  the heavens and the earth, a light which cannot be hid in darkness;

Doctrine and Covenants 19:1-4

  1 I am Alpha and Omega, Christ the Lord; yea, even I am he, the
  beginning and the end, the Redeemer of the world.

  2 I, having accomplished and finished the will of him whose I am,
  even the Father, concerning me—having done this that I might subdue
  all things unto myself—

  3 Retaining all power, even to the destroying of Satan and his works
  at the end of the world, and the last great day of judgment, which I
  shall pass upon the inhabitants thereof, judging every man according
  to his works and the deeds which he hath done.

  4 And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless.

Answer above, clean-up of confusion (or confusion itself) below.

It should also be stated that we don't believe in a trinity. Rather, The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God (and they are distinct beings). Together they are what we call the Godhead, each having their role, but all being united in purpose. The Son worships the Father, as manifested in scripture more than enough, and so should we. The Son is subject to the Father, and we are subject to them. Eventually, we shall be heirs to the Father, rising as Jesus has, being joint heirs with Christ.

Romans 8:16-17

  16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the
  children of God:

  17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with
  Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also
  glorified together.

There is no diminuitive to the title "God", there is no "lesser God". Jesus is God.


Will mankind on earth reattain the original state of Adam and Eve?

No, all of mankind will not return to the original state of Adam and Eve.

The Origenists' heresy of apokatastasis or doctrinal universalism claimed "that hell is essentially a kind of purgatory in which sins are expiated, so that eventually everyone will be saved."

The following proposition was condemned as heretical in 543 A.D. (Denzinger 411):

  the punishment of devils and wicked men is temporary and will eventually cease, that is to say, that devils or the ungodly will be completely restored to their original state

Evolutionists like the heretic Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., think mankind naturally evolves toward greater perfection, but this is a denial of original sin. Adam and Eve started out in a state of perfection and devolved after they sinned, the opposite of what evolutionists claim. God's supernatural grace is necessary for restoring the original order, but not everyone corresponds with His grace.


What happens with a soul after one's death according to Eastern Orthodox doctrine?

OK I'm finally getting around to answering this question. Unfortunately I'm limited on time so this is a summary of the Orthodox position. First of all, Orthodoxy's entire anthropology differs from Western Christianity (no original guilt/concupiscence). As such, their soteriology doesn't begin in the same place as Western Christianity and thus concludes differently. Many Western Protestants emphasize "getting saved" so that you don't go to hell when you die. The emphasis often has more to do with avoiding hell than going to heaven. But even heaven is not the goal nor focal point of Orthodoxy.

The point is to become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4), being united with Christ and thus escaping corruption and death. As 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 says,

  For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
  But each in his own order: Christ, the firstfruits; then when Christ
  comes, those who belong to him. Then comes the end, when he hands over
  the kingdom to God the Father, when he has brought to an end all rule
  and all authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all
  his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be eliminated is
  death. For he has put everything in subjection under his feet. But
  when it says “everything” has been put in subjection, it is clear that
  this does not include the one who put everything in subjection to him.
  And when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be
  subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God
  may be all in all.

And so our emphasis is on Christ's defeat of sin, death, and Satan - and that this victory means that one day "God will be all in all." In other words, there will be no way to escape from God's presence. "Heaven" is not some place up in the sky that hides us from the underworld. "Hell" is not a place and it is not the absence of God. This also means that dying and going to heaven isn't the end of the story nor is it the focus. Eastern Orthodox Christianity is about "life after life after death" (to borrow a phrase coined by N.T. Wright), i.e. life after the final judgment, after the bodily resurrection (the notion of a disembodied eternal existence in a purely spiritual heaven or becoming angels are Gnostic concepts). This is important because Orthodox do not think of hell as a "place," it's more of a metaphor or concept. Everyone will be in God's loving presence when they die, but for some that will be paradise and for others it will be torment. Much of the Western concepts of heaven and hell are derived more from pagan cultures than from the scriptures, which only used these existing cultural terms to hint at transcendent mysteries.

As to what happens after physical death (other than being in God's presence), no one really knows (this is freely admitted by most Orthodox scholars). The best we have is speculation and the "hints" we get in the Bible. As such, there are a variety of "theories" in Orthodoxy (but this speculation is often not helpful). But where everyone agrees is that we go to be in God's unfiltered presence.

A note about praying for the dead. Presently, when we die, we all go to be in God's presence until we await the final judgment and bodily resurrection. We believe that it may be possible for individuals to change their disposition towards God's love after death. This is not dogma, but we hold out hope for this. Since death is a defeated foe (it's just not annihilated yet), we also ask deceased saints to pray for us since they are now in God's presence and also mystically present with us in worship. After the final judgment, it will likely be too late to change one's disposition, but we hold out hope that all might come to know God's love as a wonderful thing for all eternity (see more on this here). I don't have time to elaborate on this much more here, and it wouldn't be entirely on topic anyways.

If you'd like to read more in depth about this, check out this article.


Why are Matthew, Mark, and Luke called the synoptic gospels?

Syn- means same (as in synchronize, same time), and optic of course refers to sight.  The three first Gospels are syn-optic because they see alike; they basically tell the same story as each other, covering many of the same events.  John, on the other hand, focuses on a lot of different material than the other authors, and has a very high percentage of unique content.


What is the basis for the argument that Jesus DID NOT have the ability to sin or give in to temptation?

Of the people who believe Jesus was capable of sinning, there are some who have the mistaken notion that in order to qualify as "real" and "genuine" a temptation must have at least a chance--regardless of how miniscule the chance might be--of causing the person who is being tempted, to sin. In other words, according to that notion, if there is no possibility whatsoever for a person to fail the temptation, then the temptation does not qualify as a temptation.
That notion is wrong not only as it applies to us mere mortals, each of whom has given in to temptation at least once in our lives, but also as it applies to the eternal Son of God who never once gave in to temptation.
The writer to the Hebrews makes this very clear:

For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin (4:15 RSV, my italics).

For Jesus simply to sympathize with us in our weakness, all he would need to do is experience the same temptations we experience. There is no need for him to be able to (or have the capacity to) give in to the temptation for him to feel what the temptation is like, nor for that matter do we have to give in to the temptation in order to say we've been tempted. Just as Jesus chose not to give in, so we too can choose not to give in. Where we and Jesus differ in this regard is that we inevitably gave in to temptation and sinned, all of us just once, and I imagine most of us many, many more times than once.
Where Jesus was different from us in this regard is that he alone among all the human beings ever born was born of the seed of a woman and not the seed of a man. Jesus' conception in the womb of the virgin Mary was a singular, never-to-be-repeated event. All other human beings who have ever lived (or ever will live) were conceived when the seed of a man united with the egg of a woman. Jesus, however, as Genesis 3:15 put it in prophetic form, would one day be "the seed of the woman" and would deal a death blow to the original instigator of rebellion against God, none other than Satan himself.
As the first and representative man for the human race, Adam, when he sinned by disobeying God he not only signed his own death warrant, which God had promised would be the punishment for disobedience, he also bequeathed death to each subsequent generation. The Bible puts it this way:

. . . in Adam all die . . . (1 Corinthians 15:22a RSV).

Paul also laid out in lawyer-like fashion in Romans the following phrases (which  I've taken the liberty to excerpt from Chapter 5):

through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— . . .

by the transgression of the one the many died

judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation

by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one

through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men

through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners

sin reigned in death

Jesus, on the other hand, was not a child of Adam. Paul refers to Jesus as the second Adam who alone did what the first Adam could not do; namely, live a life of perfect obedience to God. Jesus' perfect obedience made possible his substitutionary death as "the Lamb of God who bears away the sins of the world" (John 1:29 and 36).
In short, as you observed in your question, "the redemption of mankind was never really in doubt," and the reason is that Jesus, who knew no sin became sin for us on the cross, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21).


What arguments would you give to teenagers who are unconcerned about eternal life?

Unfortunately, some things that are professed in Christianity simply cannot be proven by any known scientific methods that I am aware of.  It is, for the most part, a mystery to those of us who are still living.  If the students are in a Catechism class, I would suggest simply teaching what is part of the catechism and referencing what the catechism says while also providing scriptural references.

An appreciation of the belief of eternal life that Christianity adheres to will likely come naturally in time, especially since even the young are prone to experiencing the passing of their relatives.  However, there are some activities that can be taken to nurture that appreciation.  For example, the corporal and spiritual works of mercy include such things as visiting the sick.  Prayers for the faithful departed at a cemetery may also be something that can open people's eyes to the realities of the world and help people come face-to-face with their own mortality and grow in knowledge of themselves.  Hopefully a better understanding of it comes through study and research.  All a teacher can do is instruct about what it is that is believed, not necessarily change individual beliefs.


Why did Jesus submit to the authority of God while Jesus was a man?

Whenever the word ‘position’ is used with regard to how the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit relate to each other, people are inclined to think of “High, higher, highest”. This can be misleading for all three equally have the one nature of Deity. But the three relate to each other in particular ways, as they have functions and roles within the one Being of God. They are utterly united and as one in working out the perfect will of Deity. There can never be three divine wills. There can only be one divine will.
The Reformed Protestant view is that they are co-equal in triunity. However,

Arianism (also, Subordinationism) holds that only the Father is God in
the fullest sense; the Son and the Spirit are ontologically inferior.
According to Arianism, the Son is the first created being.  Ontology
is a branch of philosophy that seeks to answer questions dealing with
reality and existence. (Pilgrim Theology by Michael Horton pp463 & 469
– Zondervan 2011)

The Reformed Protestant view is that the Son is eternal so that there never was a time when he was not; then came a time when he incarnated as the man, Jesus, which did not alter his position as the second Person of the Trinity, nor did it change how he related on earth to the Father in heaven. For example, “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered” (Hebrews 5:8). Living a human life on a material planet, he could experience first-hand things not experienced in the spirit realm (heaven). His purpose in leaving heaven to be confined for a season to a physical existence was to carry out the Father’s will – a pre-determined will formed in the councils of God before any material creation started – a will that the uncreated Word of God had agreed to before the Word “made everything that was made” prior to becoming flesh (John 1:1-14).
That is why 1 Peter 1:13-20 tells Christians they were not redeemed with corruptible things, but with the pure, sacrificial blood of Christ, “Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.” That is why Christ is spoken of in Revelation 13:8 as “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Once this was determined in the Godhead, it was as good as done. When the time came to enact the obedience, the suffering, and the sacrifice of this spotless Lamb, Jesus, his obedience to God the Father in all of this was clearly seen – of necessity. It was unthinkable that Jesus, the Son, would diverge from what had been planned prior to creation, yet it remained necessary that the Word made flesh show total submission to the Father. Only a disobedient Son would not submit to his Father. But having been co-equal with the Father prior to his incarnation, he could not be contrary to Deity as God manifest in the flesh, for his nature remained the same, now with human nature added to it.
Yes, “great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”  (1 Timothy 3:16) This is said of Jesus, the eternal Son of God, and it is beyond us. These awesome words of scripture tell us what we need to know and to believe, but we cannot grasp it this side of glory. We can only wonder in awe at the willing submission of the Son to the Father, continuing while he walked down here below though then with massively great pressures brought to bear on him by the evil one. What we do know is that had Jesus not submitted to the authority of the Father then, Satan would have triumphed and Jesus would never have defeated him either in the wilderness or at the cross, which would have meant that Jesus could not have been the Son of God. But because he is the eternal Son of God, he perfectly carried out the will of God.


Why the differences between the Maundy Thursday Mandatum and the Eucharist?

Why does only the priest do the washing?
The priest celebrates Mass In persona Christi (in the person of Christ). As Pope Pius XII explains,

The priest is the same, Jesus Christ, whose sacred Person His minister represents.

Given this liturgical principle and reality, it is appropriate that Christ's action (washing of feet) is performed by the priest instead of the laity.
Why are not feet washed at every Mass?
The consecration of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord is essential to the Eucharistic sacrifice; washing of feet is not.
Psalm 110 tells us that Christ will be "a priest forever in the manner of Melchizedek." The essence of Melchizedek's priesthood was offering "bread and wine".
The Mass is a true sacrifice, not merely a commemoration of the Last Supper. What is offered at Mass is Christ's Body and Blood; what is consummated at Mass is Christ's Body and Blood. Washing of feet is neither offered nor consumed.


When I took Soteriology, we read alot of primary sources.  I asked my old professor, Tarmo Toom, an expert in patristic soteriology, for that list.  I've added links to the two documents you will be most interested in reading.

  Athanasius, On Incarnation, 25-64;
  Augustine, On Nature and Grace, 22-51, 58-67.
  Anselm, Why God Became Man? (Book Two);
  Aquinas, Summa Theologica 12ae, Q 109, Art. 1-10.

I remember Athanasius' On Incarnation to be particularly interesting - the idea was that salvation was God's way of telling Jesus how much he loved him, by giving him us and eternal life in us as a love offering...

Specifically, for Luther and Calvin:

  Luther, Two Kinds of Righteousness,
  Calvin, Institutes, Ch. 11
  Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 671-681; The Remonstrance (The Arminian Articles); The Canons of the Synod of Dort.

Finally, for more modern perspectives, he selected:

  Soteriology: A Contemporary Protestant/Evangelical Perspective
  W. G. Rusch, Justification and the Future of the Ecumenical Movement, 23-34, 35-46, 133-149; (in class, The Gift of Salvation).
  Soteriology: A Contemporary Roman Catholic Perspective
  Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 24-43; The Content of Faith, 199-202, 344-349; The Hope of Salvation; (in class, Catechism of the Catholic Church).

  Soteriology: A Liberation Perspective
  - Boff, Salvation and Liberation, 1-66.

  Soteriology: An African-American Perspective
  - Cone, God of the Oppressed, 138-162, 195-246.

  Soteriology: A Non-Violent Perspective
  - Weaver, Nonviolent Atonement, 12-19, 70-98, 210-224.

  Soteriology: A Feminist Perspective
  - Japinga, Feminism and Christianity, 107-126.

Full bibliography here:

Anselm, Why God Became Man? in St. Anselm: Basic Writings. Chicago: Open Court,
1996, 253-302.
Aquinas, Summa theologica 12ae Q 109, Art. 1-10 in Aquinas on Nature and Grace, ed.
A. M. Fairweather. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1954, 137-156.
Augustine, On Nature and Grace, in FC 86, trans. John A. Mourant and William J.
Collinge, 1992, 22-90.
Boff, L. and C. Salvation and Liberation: In Search of a Balance between Faith and
Politics. Translated by R. R. Barr. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1984, 1-66.
Canons of the Synod of Dort, in Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian
Tradition, ed. J. Pelikan and V. Hotchkiss. New Heaven: Yale University Press, 2003, 571-600.
Calvin, J. Institutes, Ch. XI, in Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1961, 89-107.
Cone, J. H. God of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury, 1975, 138-162, 195-246.
Fiddes, P. S. “The Understanding of Salvation in the Baptist Tradition,” in For Us and
For Our Salvation, ed. W. J. Hollenweger. Utrecht: Instituut voor Missiologie, 1994, 15-37.
The Hope of Salvation, International Theological Commission. Origins (April 26, 2007):
726-748.
Japinga, L. Feminism and Christianity: An Essential Guide. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999,
107-126.
Justification and the Future of the Ecumenical Movement: The Joint Declaration on the
Doctrine of Justification, ed. W. G. Rusch. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2003 (Chadwick, H. “An Anglican Reaction: Across the reformation Divide,” 23-34;
Franklin, R. W. “A Model fro New Joint Declaration: An Episcopalian Reaction to the Joint Declaration on Justification,” 35-46; Macchia, F. D. “Justification and the Spirit of Life: A Pentecostal Response to the Joint Declaration,” 133-149).
Luther, M. Two Kinds of Righteousness in Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Works, ed.
T. F. Lull. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989, 155-164.
Rahner, K. Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity.
Trans. W. V. Dych. New York: Crossroad, 1978, 24-43.
__. The Content of Faith. Ed. K. Lehmann and A. Raffelt, trans. ed. H. D. Egan.
New York: Crossroads, 1993, 199-202, 344-349.
The Remonstrance (The Ariminian Articles), in Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the
Christian Tradition, ed. J. Pelikan and V. Hotchkiss. New Heaven: Yale University Press, 2003, 549-550.
Tanner, N. P. (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. II. Washington D.C.:
Georgetown University Press, 1990, 671-681.
Weaver, J. D. The Nonviolent Atonement. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001, 12-19, 70-98,
210-224.
Anselm, Why God Became Man? in St. Anselm: Basic Writings. Chicago: Open Court,
1974.
Boff, L. and C. Salvation and Liberation: In Search of a Balance between Faith and
Politics. Translated by R. R. Barr. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1984.
Cone, J. H. God of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury, 1975.
Dunn, J. D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Green, J. B. and Baker, M. D. Recovering the Scandal of Cross: Atonement in New
Testament & Contemporary Contexts. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000.
Weaver, J. D. The Nonviolent Atonement. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.


Has there been any major discussion in Catholicism about whether Christ smiled or laughed?

Risibility (the ability to laugh) is a common example given by Scholastic theologians when discussing what is unique to humans (rational animals). St. Thomas Aquinas uses the term "risible" or "risibility" 172 times in his works.
Discussing whether it is sinful to lack mirth or playfulness (ludus), St. Thomas Aquinas answers that it is sinful (Summa Theologica II-II q. 168 a. 4 c.):

In human affairs whatever is against reason is a sin. Now it is against reason for a man to be burdensome to others, by offering no pleasure to others, and by hindering their enjoyment. Wherefore Seneca [*Martin of Braga, Formula Vitae Honestae: cap. De Continentia] says (De Quat. Virt., cap. De Continentia): "Let your conduct be guided by wisdom so that no one will think you rude, or despise you as a cad." Now a man who is without mirth, not only is lacking in playful speech, but is also burdensome to others, since he is deaf to the moderate mirth of others. Consequently they are vicious, and are said to be boorish or rude, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. iv, 8).
Since, however, mirth is useful for the sake of the rest and pleasures it affords; and since, in human life, pleasure and rest are not in quest for their own sake, but for the sake of operation, as stated in Ethic. x, 6, it follows that "lack of mirth is less sinful than excess thereof." Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix, 10): "We should make few friends for the sake of pleasure, since but little sweetness suffices to season life, just as little salt suffices for our meat."

Since Christ is without sin, He does not lack mirth/playfulness/risibility.
Cf., e.g., John 17:13:

And now I come to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy [χαράν] filled in themselves.

A related question that St. Thomas addresses is whether Christ enjoyed His passion: "Whether Christ's entire soul enjoyed blessed fruition during the Passion?"


Is there a Catholic list of Old Testament sacraments?

The short answer is that the Jewish religion didn't have sacraments, it had sacrifices and laws and blessings and festivals.

The longer answer is specific to Augustine, who was considering each OT law as a type of Christ, and in that way a sacrament. The Jews counted 613 laws, and of course sacrifices and blessings and festivals count on top of that, so there were literally hundreds.

The Catholic Church instituted its seven sacraments independently of the Jewish religion. There is no theology of one-for-one replacement. That said, we can take each of the seven and find some antecedent in Judaism:

Baptism: Jews did practice baptism as a rite of repentance in NT times, but their chief rite of passage into the community of faith was circumcision.

Confirmation: Jews now have Bar Mitzvah, but we have no evidence for this in NT times. Judaism always had many laws that applied only to adults, not children, though. By necessity there would have always been some way of recognizing when a child became subject to the law (and therefore a fully functioning member of the community), such as a 13th birthday.

Penance: Jews had sacrifices for sin, and a day of atonement. They also had elaborate rituals for restoring "cleanness" to themselves on various occasions and to various articles which may incur uncleanness.

Eucharist: Jews had communion sacrifices. An animal was sacrificed in the temple, certain fatty parts were burned on the altar and the rest was eaten by the family.

Marriage: Jewish marriages were (most likely) conducted and blessed by the rabbis (synagogue leaders) in NT times, but it was based upon a covenant or contract between the husband and wife, with the father of the bride negotiating the best interests of the bride.

Holy Orders: Jews had various processes for the ordination and induction of their priests and other leaders. You can read about these rites in Leviticus.

Sacrament of the Sick:
The Jewish religion did not have prayers for the sick and dying (so far as I know) but they did have a procedure for returning lepers to the community after they were healed. The former leper would be inspected by the temple priests and be pronounced clean.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  (c) Sacraments of the Mosaic Law. As the time for Christ's coming drew
  nearer, in order that the Israelites might be better instructed God
  spoke to Moses, revealing to him in detail the sacred signs and
  ceremonies by which they were to manifest more explicitly their faith
  in the future Redeemer. Those signs and ceremonies were the sacraments
  of the Mosaic Law, "which are compared to the sacraments which were
  before the law as something determined to something undetermined,
  because before the law it had not been determined what signs men
  should use" (Summa Theologiæ III:61:3, ad 2). With the Angelic Doctor
  (I-II:102:5) theologians usually divide the sacraments of this period
  into three classes:

  The ceremonies by which men were made and signed as worshippers or
  ministers of God. Thus we have (a) circumcision, instituted in the
  time of Abraham (Genesis 17), renewed in the time of Moses (Leviticus
  12:3) for all people; and (b) the sacred rites by which the Levitical
  priests were consecrated.

  The ceremonies which consisted in the use of things pertaining to the
  service of God, i.e. (a) the paschal lamb for all the people, and (b)
  the loaves of proposition for the ministers.

  The ceremonies of purification from legal contamination, i.e. (a) for
  the people, various expiations, (b) for the priests, the washing of
  hands and feet, the shaving of the head, etc. St. Augustine says the
  sacraments of the Old Law were abolished because they had been
  fulfilled (cf. Matthew 5:17), and others have been instituted which
  are more efficacious, more useful, easier to administer and to
  receive, fewer in number ("virtute majora, utilitate meliora, actu
  faciliora, numero pauciora", Reply to Faustus XIX.13). The Council of
  Trent condemns those who say that there is no difference except in the
  outward rite between the sacraments of the Old Law and those of the
  New Law (Sess. VII, can. ii). The Decree for the Armenians, published
  by order of the Council of Florence, says that the sacraments of the
  Old Law did not confer grace, but only prefigured the grace which was
  to be given by the Passion of Christ. This means that they did not
  give grace themselves (i.e. ex opere operato) but only by reason of
  the faith in Christ which they represented — "ex fide significata, non
  ex circumcisione significante" (Summa Theologiæ I-II:102:5)


Esau despised his birthright. In order to understand this, first we need to understand what it means in this context to "despise" and also what the birthright was.

What was a birthright?

An abundance of sources will tell you that in the Ancient Near East context, the birthright goes to the eldest son. All sons receive a "portion" of the inheritance of their father, but the one who receives the birthright receives a double portion. He would also be the "head" of the family.

What did despise (בָּזָה) mean?

Different translations have:

  Despise (NIV, ESV, NASB, KJV, HCSB, NET, WEB), contempt (NLT), belittle
  (ISV), make little account of (Douay-Rheims)

Strong's defines it as:

  despise, disdain, contemptible, think to scorn, vile person

NET Bible Notes say:

  So Esau despised his birthright. This clause, which concludes the
  episode, is a summary statement which reveals the underlying
  significance of Esau’s actions. “To despise” means to treat something
  as worthless or with contempt. Esau’s willingness to sell his
  birthright was evidence that he considered it to be unimportant.

Bottom line: He considered his birthright to be unimportant.

What was Esau's birthright?

God makes a covenant with Abraham in Genesis 17:

  I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.

This reiterates and expands on the promises God had already made to Abraham in Genesis 12, 13, and 15. In Genesis 25:11, it says that "after Abraham's death, God blessed Isaac." In the next chapter, God speaks to Isaac:

  Stay in this land for a while, and I will be with you and will bless you. For to you and your descendants I will give all these lands and will confirm the oath I swore to your father Abraham. I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because Abraham obeyed me and did everything I required of him, keeping my commands, my decrees and my instructions.

These are the blessings that Esau was to inherit, in addition to his father's property. He was to receive the promise of fathering many nations, being a blessing to other nations, and a close relationship with God. But this he despised.

Why did he despise it?

In Hebrews 12 we read:

  See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for
  a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son.
  Afterward, as you know, when he wanted to inherit this blessing, he
  was rejected. Even though he sought the blessing with tears, he could
  not change what he had done.

Esau is implicitly contrasted with Jesus, who is mentioned at the beginning of the chapter:

  For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Jesus endured the hardship of the cross in order to secure blessings for all nations. Esau gave in to his momentary hunger in order to forego his blessing. Ultimately the reason he despised his birthright could be said to be that his god was his stomach. Paul has this to say about such men in Philippians 3:

  For, as I have often told you before and now tell you again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

Additional Resources

A Despised Birthright | Ligonier Ministries
Despising the Blessings of God | First Baptist Church of Toulon


According to Catholicism, what is the purpose of praying for the dead?

Those on earth do not know with certainty whether one is in hell, purgatory, or heaven—unless the Church has canonized the faithfully departed as a saint, in which case one is certain he or she is in heaven. Thus, Catholics pray for departed souls in the case they might be in purgatory:

  …the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, from the Sacred Writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught, in sacred Councils, and very recently in this œcumenical Synod [i.e., the Council of Trent], that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages [intercessions] of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar…

Holy Mass and the prayers of the faithful help shorten the holy souls' time and sufferings in purgatory.

Catholics' prayers are of no avail for the damned souls, as those souls are damned for all eternity and can never enjoy the Beatific Vision: "Those (the rejected) will receive a perpetual punishment with the devil." (4th Lateran Council, 1215).


Are there two different creation accounts in the bible?

After even more study of Genesis, I think I may understand why the original question may have been asked.

Yes, there are 2 different accounts here, but they are of the same creation event.  The first part is an account of God creating the universe and everything in it.  The second part begins with the creation of Adam (which was mentioned in the first account), but then continues on with the story of Adam.

What I did not understand earlier was why someone would say there were contradictions, but now I believe one thing which may be in question is Genesis 2:19.  I had been reading the NIV which says "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name."  It says God had formed the animals, so it didn't seem contradictory.  Other translations do use verbiage which would suggest man was created before animals in this account.

After searching a bit for information on the contradictions, I found that the Hebrew used in this verse does not specify an order.  It can be translated as now or as in the past.  I would think that people reading this in the original Hebrew language would understand that it was meant that God had already created the animals, since that was the order presented in chapter 1.
Reference


I think that there are two main reasons why the Messiah had to be God.

One, which you alluded to in your question, is that he had to be sinless in order to be the perfect sacrifice for sins.  I don't hold that Mary was sinless (Romans 3:10), and I believe that only God could have been sinless.  So in my opinion, that is a valid line of reasoning for the necessity of the Messiah to be God.

The second reason, is that the Messiah needed to be God for the same reason that he needed to be man.  Hebrews tells us why Jesus had to become man:

  Hebrews 2:17-18 (NIV)
  17  For this reason he had to be made like them,  fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful  and faithful high priest  in service to God,  and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.  18  Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

  Hebrews 4:14-15 (NIV)
  14  Therefore, since we have a great high priest  who has ascended into heaven,  Jesus the Son of God,  let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.  15  For we do not have a high priest  who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are  —yet he did not sin.

The Messiah needed to save mankind, and in order to do so, he needs to act as a high priest, an intermediary between God and man.  These verses show us that Jesus needed to become man in order to empathetically mediate for man.  I suggest that he also needed to be God, in order to mediate to God.  Jesus acts as a bridge between God and man, by having both natures.

Because Jesus is in nature God, we have a perfect high priest in the heavenly tabernacle.   This provides for us an anchor behind the veil (Hebrews 6:19), which is far superior to any merely human priest.  Hebrews 7 explicitly states the flaws in having human priests, and why a priest with the eternal nature of God is far superior:

  Hebrews 7:23-25 (NIV)
  23  Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24  but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood.  25  Therefore he is able to save  completely those who come to God  through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

This is contrasting the disadvantages of human priests with the advantages of having God as our high priest.  The writer of Hebrews then goes on to list some characteristics of such a high priest that meets our needs:

  Hebrews 7:26 (NIV)
  26  Such a high priest  truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners,  exalted above the heavens.

In order to intercede for us to God, the writer of Hebrews tells us that this high priest needed to have many characteristics that we would only associate with God: holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.

Even if we accepted the sinlessness of Mary, I don't think anyone would attribute to her these necessary characteristics of an effective heavenly high priest (except perhaps pure and blameless).


What is the difference, if any, between the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives vs. the apostles lives?

The Holy Spirit can still remind us of what Christ has said to his apostles in the Gospels, as well as what through the epistles and in Revelation. You may wonder what good that may be, but the answer is: Plenty! When you are talking to people, you don't always have time to scour your Bible for answers. If you are well read in the Bible, the Holy Spirit could bring to mind verses that you have read.

I think the Holy Spirit does the same kind of works today as he did back then, to those who are open to allow Him to work in their lives with free reign.


What are the differences between the ELCA and UCC?

I can't give you a text book answer. I can say I am a member of a small church here on the ND/MN border where it is a combination of ELCA and UCC. We are not formally/legally one entity but we act as one with one unified Church Council and a retired Presbyterian minister. All I know is it works wonderfully, because we want it to. It is this works or both congregations would cease to exist. The biggest difference is Lutherans tend to be what is called "high church" and UCC is "low church." What that means is Lutherans, including the ELCA, have more liturgical structure, more ritual than the UCC. For us we just compromised so the ELCA in our church is getting "lowered churched" and the UCC is experiencing a "higher church." And our Presbyterian minister reworked communion so both camps are happy. As a UCC I would not be able to handle the true high church of eh ELCA but our arrangement works. If you have kids ask about the Sunday School and what sources they use. So far our UCC and ELCA parents are happy. A great think about the ELCA and the UCC is they both have progressive stances on gay issues and marriage. The UCC was the first church to hire an openly gay minister in 1972 and our formal language was worked out about 1985. We use the phrase "open and affirming." The Lutherans had a harder, much harder time getting there so I would say about 4 years or so ago they too went progressive (this is the ELCA) and use the language "Reconciled in Christ." So on that critical social issue the UCC and ELCA are very compatible. The UCC has a reputation for being very strong on social and economic justice. Many ELCA are in line with that. I am UCC and will always be UCC but I love my ELCA church members.


Searching the web I came across this fascinating site which allows you to enter a route and it will calculate the cost of freight and passenger transport as it was in Roman times along that route.

For example entering Antioch to Ephesus, and forcing a land route, gives you a cost of around 30 denarii to ship 1kg of wheat, and 1500 denarii for a passenger in a carriage! Remembering that a denarius is about a day's wages for a peasant, this is a not inconsiderable cost. Shipping is noticeably cheaper than land transport, and I'm guessing Paul travelled more cheaply than a passenger in a carriage, but even 50kg of wheat would cost 1500 denarii - a considerable sacrifice for those who sent him.


Are there any differences between Protestant and Catholic theology concerning the distinction between demonic possession from mental illness?

From this article by Got Questions Ministries, who describe themselves as "Christian, Protestant, conservative, evangelical, fundamental, and non-denominational", the answer to "How do we distinguish a psychological disorder from demon possession?" is

  The short answer to this question is that the Bible does not speak to
  distinguishing between demon possession and a psychological disorder.
  Because God chose not to equip Christians for this task, we should
  probably assume this is not something we are called to do.

In the Gospels, for example in Matthew 9, there is a clear distinction between 'every disease and every infirmity' that Jesus healed and the casting out of demons.

In the Catholic Church, "before an exorcism is performed, it is important to ascertain that one is dealing with the presence of the Evil One, and not an illness."

cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1673

  1673 When the Church asks publicly and authoritatively in the name of Jesus Christ that a person or object be protected against the power
  of the Evil One and withdrawn from his dominion, it is called
  exorcism. Jesus performed exorcisms and from him the Church has
  received the power and office of exorcizing.1 In a simple
  form, exorcism is performed at the celebration of Baptism. The solemn
  exorcism, called "a major exorcism," can be performed only by a priest
  and with the permission of the bishop. The priest must proceed with
  prudence, strictly observing the rules established by the Church.
  Exorcism is directed at the expulsion of demons or to the liberation
  from demonic possession through the spiritual authority which Jesus
  entrusted to his Church. Illness, especially psychological illness, is
  a very different matter; treating this is the concern of medical
  science. Therefore, before an exorcism is performed, it is important
  to ascertain that one is dealing with the presence of the Evil One,
  and not an illness.2

  1. Cf. Mk 1:25-26; 3:15; 6:7, 13; 16:17.
  2. Cf. CIC, can. 1172.


What influence does pietism have on modern-day Lutheranisms?

The answer to this relies on the meaning of "influence" as well as the definition of "pietism". If one takes a narrow view of pietism as a movement started by Philipp Jakob Spener, then his attempt to reform Lutheran practice has pretty much died out.

However if one defines pietism as the desire in the heart of a person to greater devotion, practice, and expression of faith, then there are examples of this in many Lutherans today.

The definition of influence also comes into play. The desire for piety can spontaneously emerge from the heart. It can also be triggered by reading or hearing about others. (In this way the influence of Spener may still be said to "influence" others).

Spener wrote a book called "Pia desideria" which listed things he thought would improve Lutheran practice. They read very much similar to what you might find in "house church" literature today.

The problem for pietism of all ages is that, like revival, it cannot be taught. Christians often tend to settle into a comfortable routine that the heart drawn to piety struggles against.

Expressions of individual and even group piety today are less a causative result of historical doctrines, than it is a resonance with those drawn to the deeper Christian life throughout history.


Apart from any claim related to antiquity, does the modern Roman Catholic Church claim to be ‘The Body of Christ'?

Apart from any claim related to antiquity, does the modern Roman Catholic Church claim to be" The Body of Christ"?

The short answer is: Yes.

Pope Pius XII's encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi (Mystical Body of Christ) (June 29, 1943) should count as being on topic for this post? And, if so, keep reading.

Although Pope Pius XII states in his encyclical states that the true Church is which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church as being the Mystical body of Christ; he also states that the Universal Church comprises of the Latin and Eastern Rites.

  If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Christ" - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers.

  (42) What we have thus far said of the Universal Church must be understood also of the individual Christian communities, whether Oriental or Latin, which go to makeup the one Catholic Church. For they, too, are ruled by Jesus Christ through the voice of their respective Bishops.

Of all the Eastern Rites Churches, the Maronite Catholic Church has never been separated from unity with the See of St. Peter. Thus indicating a small flaw in the title of this question as it is presented at this moment in time.

  The Maronite Church is considered the only one of the Eastern Catholic Churches to have always remained in full communion with the Holy See, while most of the other churches unified from the 16th century onwards.

Before going on any further, I believe the word "Roman" should be used with caution. The reason being is that the first three centuries the liturgical language in Rome was Greek, not Latin. Some believe that it was St. Augustine who first brought in Latin in to the liturgy while in Africa. The Church has from her very foundation worshiped in several languages and still does. This is not an historical claim, but an historical fact and as such is permitted in this response.

The following is not an historical claim from antiquity, but an historical fact dating back to antiquity.

  The first language of Christian liturgy was Aramaic, the common language of the first Christians, who were Palestinian Jews. While Hebrew was the language of scripture and formal worship, Christian worship occurred in the home where Aramaic was spoken. The words Abba and maranatha are Aramaic.

  Christianity quickly spread from Palestine to the rest of the world, and the Eucharist came to be celebrated in many languages, including Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian. In most of the Mediterranean world, the common language was Greek, which became the language of liturgy in that region and remained so until the early third century.

  Eucharist itself is a Greek word, meaning thanksgiving. The phrase Kyrie eleison and the words liturgy, baptism, evangelize, martyr, and catechumen, among other familiar church words, are also Greek in origin.

  From around the third century B.C., what we call “classical” Latin was the language of the Roman aristocracy and the educated classes. Around the time Jesus was born, during the reign of Augustus Caesar, the language began to change. The Roman aristocracy was destroyed by war and political infighting; when they disappeared, their language went with them. Classical Latin was replaced by a less refined version of the language.

  In the third and fourth centuries A.D. this form of Latin began to replace Greek as the common language of the Roman world and soon became the language of the liturgy.

  Exactly how this change in the liturgy came about is uncertain. In the early church the liturgy was led extemporaneously by the bishop, according to a pattern. There were written examples of Eucharistic Prayers, but they were models, not prescribed prayers. The last such document in Greek was written around the year 215. By the sixth century, the Roman Canon (which is still in use, also called Eucharistic Prayer I) appears, completely in Latin and prescribed for use exactly as written. - When did we start celebrating Mass in Latin?

Now for responding to the question at hand: Apart from any claim related to antiquity, does the modern Roman Catholic Church claim to be "The Body of Christ"?

Yes.

Well it so happens that Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi (29 June 1943) affirms that the Catholic Church is in fact the Mystical Body of Christ. The pope is the head of the Catholic Church on earth whether of the Roman Rite or Eastern Rite Catholics. We are still one Church in Christ.

  The Maronite Church is considered the only one of the Eastern Catholic Churches to have always remained in full communion with the Holy See, while most of the other churches unified from the 16th century onwards. However, the Melkite Catholic Church and the Italo-Albanian Greek Catholic Church also claim perpetual communion. Eastern Catholic Churches (Wikipedia)

Pope Pius XII boldly asserts that the Universal Church is made up of the Roman Rite and those of the Eastern Rites united to the See of St. Peter.

  Mystici corporis Christi (29 June 1943) is a papal encyclical issued by Pope Pius XII during World War II, on the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ.2 It is one of the more important encyclicals of Pope Pius XII, because of its topic, the Church, and because its Church concept was fully included in Lumen gentium but also strongly debated during and after Vatican II. The Church is called body, because it is a living entity; it is called the body of Christ, because Christ is its Head and Founder; it is called mystical body, because it is neither a purely physical nor a purely spiritual unity, but supernatural.

The actual encyclical has much to say and here follows just a small sampling. One may peruse the entire encyclical at one's leisure (Mystici Corporis Christi):

  The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, was first taught us by the Redeemer Himself. Illustrating as it does the great and inestimable privilege of our intimate union with so exalted a Head, this doctrine by its sublime dignity invites all those who are drawn by the Holy Spirit to study it, and gives them, in the truths of which it proposes to the mind, a strong incentive to the performance of such good works as are conformable to its teaching.

  (14) That the Church is a body is frequently asserted in the Sacred Scriptures. "Christ," says the Apostle, "is the Head of the Body of the Church." If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity, according to those words of Paul: "Though many we are one body in Christ." But it is not enough that the Body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses as Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: "the Church is visible because she is a body. Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely "pneumatological" as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are untied by an invisible bond.

  (15) But a body calls also for a multiplicity of members, which are linked together in such a way as to help one another. And as in the body when one member suffers, all the other members share its pain, and the healthy members come to the assistance of the ailing, so in the Church the individual members do not live for themselves alone, but also help their fellows, and all work in mutual collaboration for the common comfort and for the more perfect building up of the whole Body.

  (22) Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

  (34) That this Mystical Body which is the Church should be called Christ's is proved in the second place from the fact that He must be universally acknowledged as its actual Head. "He," as St. Paul says, "is the Head of the Body, the Church." He is the Head from whom the whole body perfectly organized, "groweth and maketh increase unto the edifying of itself."

  (42) What we have thus far said of the Universal Church must be understood also of the individual Christian communities, whether Oriental or Latin, which go to makeup the one Catholic Church. For they, too, are ruled by Jesus Christ through the voice of their respective Bishops. Consequently, Bishops must be considered as the more illustrious members of the Universal Church, for they are united by a very special bond to the divine Head of the whole Body and so are rightly called "principal parts of the members of the Lord;" moreover, as far as his own diocese is concerned, each one as a true Shepherd feeds the flock entrusted to him and rules it in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff. Therefore, Bishops should be revered by the faithful as divinely appointed successors of the Apostles, and to them, even more than to the highest civil authorities should be applied the words: "Touch not my anointed one!" For Bishops have been anointed with the chrism of the Holy Spirit.

  (66) And if at times there appears in the Church something that indicates the weakness of our human nature, it should not be attributed to her juridical constitution, but rather to that regrettable inclination to evil found in each individual, which its Divine Founder permits even at times in the most exalted members of His Mystical Body, for the purpose of testing the virtue of the Shepherds no less than of the flocks, and that all may increase the merit of their Christian faith. For, as We said above, Christ did not wish to exclude sinners from His Church; hence if some of her members are suffering from spiritual maladies, that is no reason why we should lessen our love for the Church, but rather a reason why we should increase our devotion to her members. Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary grace through which with inexhaustible fecundity she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors. But it cannot be laid to her charge if some members fall, weak or wounded. In their name she prays to God daily: "Forgive us our trespasses;" and with the brave heart of a mother she applies herself at once to the work of nursing them back to spiritual health. When, therefore, we call the Body of Jesus Christ "mystical," the very meaning of the word conveys a solemn warning. It is a warning that echoes in these words of St. Leo: "Recognize, O Christian, your dignity, and being made a sharer of the divine nature go not back to your former worthlessness along the way of unseemly conduct. Keep in mind of what Head and of what Body you are a member."

Then there is the fact that the Church claims of Apostolic Succession; but because this question overtly refuses to allow such legitimate claims (in Antiquity) shows yet another flaw on the subject (wording in the title of this post) of the true Universal Body of Christ which is the Church.

The Pope is the Supreme Pontiff of the entire Catholic Church (Latin or Oriental) which is called the Mystical Body of Christ, yesterday and today.


Arguments For/Against Spiritual Uses of Cannabis in Christianity?

There is no Biblical argument for any food or drink of any type to 'aid in spiritual connection with God' or in 'developing a deeper understanding of his Word'. However, as you already noticed, the Bible does oppose drinking too much alcohol.

  9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? ... nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:9–10)

Alcohol is an interesting subject because it shows that the Bible is not unreasonable or defensive. On one hand, it assigns the destination of hell for all drunkards, yet a little wine it does not condemn.  It is natural therefore that there is no need to concern ourselves with this controversial debate among some scholars, whether there was some Cannabis in the Holy Oil, or whether there was not. It has no bearing on real life.

The Holy Oil was simply used for anointing physical things in the temple services. The oil was not smoked; it was just dabbed on the utensils used in the service. It was not even allowed to be put "on men’s bodies". It was also commanded that they "do not make any oil with the same formula." (Exodus 30:32) So actually, if there was some Cannabis in the oil, the only bearing it would have on life in ancient Palestine, is that it would prevented a wider use of Cannabis.

The point here is that there is no evidence Cannabis was ever used in a manner that would have any effect on the mental state of the Hebrew worshipper. If it did, the Bible would condemn it just as excessive alcohol was condemned.

The Bible looks on the subject with pity, rather than with anything else.  Basically the Bible say's one is to be pitied, if one allows mind-altering drugs to make them into a lazy fool.

  20 Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, 21 for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags. (Proverbs 23:20–21, NIV)

  Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise. (Proverbs 20:1, NIV)


God's Justice and Mercy

To start off, it should be noted that doing a lot of good things does not exempt any of us from human law.  I give a lot of money to charities, treat people well, pay taxes, etc.  It could well be said that I am a good person.  However, a few years ago, I received a speeding ticket.  I did not go before the judge and plead "I'm a good person."  I simply acknowledged that even though I am, by this world's standards, a fairly good person, I still broke a law.  I realized there was a penalty for breaking the law, so I willfully paid the penalty for myself.  No amount of good deeds that I could volunteer make up for my offense.

There are, indeed, a whole lot of people who live very good and exemplary lives.  However, we are not judged for the good that we do, but for the offenses we commit.  A doctor who saves a million lives is not exempt from the penalty if he murders only one person.  Neither are we exempt from our offenses just because we do many good things.  Before God, all of us have sinned and are subject to penalties for that.  That is basic justice.

It is very important to note, however, that even though God's holiness is so great that He requires justice for even the slightest disobedience, His love and mercy are so great that even the greatest offense can be forgiven.  Thus, there is forgiveness offered not for only the best people who live the most exemplary lives, but also for the worst of us who have sinned the greatest.

God's Judgment

It needs to be stated that God's justice righteously punished people for their offenses, yet He has done everything necessary to offer people forgiveness, taking upon Himself the penalty that we ourselves deserve.

You asked how could God condemn "good" people to torture?  We should also ask how God could take the penalty for the sins of evil people?  His justice can certainly be seen as harsh, even if it is righteous.  His love, however, is quite extravagant, opening forgiveness for all people--not just the best ones.

That is why salvation is not of works, but of faith.  Salvation by works could only be attained by a few.  Salvation by faith opens the door to all people, and that is much more loving, gracious and merciful.

One more comment

I would suggest, however, that your belief on whether or not there is a God should not depend on whether or not God lets people earn their way to heaven.  In doing so, one would have to charge God with a moral wrong, but implicit in the acknowledgement of a moral standard is the recognition of a moral lawgiver, which is God.

Also, someone once said, if I had a deadly disease, I would not be angered to find out there was only one cure that would heal me--I would be most appreciative.  We are all sinners--those who have broken God's law to various degrees.  Yet, God longs to see all people receive forgiveness that He has provided through the greatest of sacrifices.


How is the feet-washing ritual observed during Lent?

According to en.wikipedia.org , Foot washing is observed by many denominations, not only Roman Catholics. But in non-catholic denominations, the rite is not necessarily observed during Lent only.

Excerpt from Wikipedia:

  Protestant practice:

  Foot washing is observed by numerous Protestant and proto-Protestant
  groups, including Seventh-day Adventist, Pentecostal, and Pietistic
  groups, some Anabaptists, and several types of Baptists. Foot washing
  rites are also practiced by many Anglican, Lutheran and Methodist
  churches, whereby foot washing is most often experienced in connection
  with Maundy Thursday services and, sometimes, at ordination services
  where the Bishop may wash the feet of those who are to be ordained.
  Though history shows that foot washing has at times been practiced in
  connection with baptism, and at times as a separate occasion, by far
  its most common practice has been in connection with the Lord's supper
  service. The Moravian Church practiced Foot Washing until 1818. There
  has been some revival of the practice as other liturgical churches
  have also rediscovered the practice.

  The observance of washing the saints' feet is quite varied, but a
  typical service follows the partaking of unleavened bread and wine.
  Deacons (in many cases) place pans of water in front of pews that have
  been arranged for the service. The men and women participate in
  separate groups, men washing men's feet and women washing women's
  feet. Each member of the congregation takes a turn washing the feet of
  another member. Each foot is placed one at a time into the basin of
  water, is washed by cupping the hand and pouring water over the foot,
  and is dried with a long towel girded around the waist of the member
  performing the washing. Most of these services appear to be quite
  moving to the participants.

In some churches, the Bishop may wash the feet of those newly ordained deacons.

Examples:

Unification Church USA.  Source
The Church of England: Source  (Notes 14)

  14 Foot-washing

  Before the Welcome, the bishop may wash the feet of the newly ordained
  deacons. Appropriate hymns or chants such as Ubi Caritas may be sung.
  After the foot-washing, John 13.12-17 may be read.


Why do Christians stand to sing ?
I think the reasons are fundamental to the act, so I do not see biblical instructions or precedents to be relevant.
One may ask, how one should eat a meal : should one sit, or recline ? One may ask, how should one read the bible  : should one be seated or kneeling ?
These are matters of preference and matters of practicality, I suggest.
So I am answering under your suggestion of 'wide-reaching convention'.
After a comment mentioned common practice in Germany, I have to maybe say that my own experience is solely in the UK and solely within Protestant Trinitarianism.

Often, God is being addressed in what is being sung. So : reverence is one reason. This is expressed both individually and corporately, by an entire congregation, by standing.

For proper singing, the lungs need to be filled to capacity, not to make a loud noise, but in order to sustain a note and to sing the whole line without pause.

Abdominally, standing is a better posture than sitting, if one wants to repeatedly fill the lungs and exercise the abdominal muscles.

Singing is a physical activity, sometimes accompanied by (small) body movements or movement of limbs in an expressive manner, so standing is better than sitting.

I don't mean anything excessive by these movements, I refer only to very slight swaying in time to the music, or the tapping of a foot to keep rhythym and to very small gestures of expression as the heart engages with the words and with the melody.
Singing for spiritual purposes is an engagement of the whole person : spirit, soul and body. It is active. It is focused.
And it is very effective.

Paul encourages singing of psalms and hymns and songs in his epistles and the psalms repeatedly encourage singing and praising throughout that book of one hundred and fifty examples of praise, worship, petitioning, pleading, lamenting, crying out and triumphing.
I don't see there is any commandment or statute regarding standing to sing in the bible but there are examples which are worthy of note. Just as nowhere in the bible am I told to pray three times a day, yet I read that Daniel did so : not that he advertised the fact but when people put him under surveillance, they couldn't help but notice.
For example, there is a hint in Psalm 134 [KJV version]:

(1) Behold, bless ye the Lord, all servants of the Lord. which by night stand in the house of the Lord.

(2) Lift up your hands in the sanctuary and bless the Lord.


Why does Paul pay special attention to the sexually immoral in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11?

Because, as 1 Corinthians 6:18 says,

  Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body

As a port-town frequented by sailors (and Cretens!) Corinth had a lot of sexual sin going on. The town had all sorts of temple prostitutes.  In sinning with said prostitutes, a person is using his own body in such a way as to bring disgrace to Christ:

  Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

And finally, at least one member of the Corinthian church was engaging in gross immorality, even by the standards of such an immoral town.  As 1 Corinthians 5:1 states:

  It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife.


Where did the concept of Christians attending a church building come from?

In the earliest days of the church Christians met in the Temple in Jerusalem and in each others homes. (Acts 2:26)

The Apostles would preach in the Jewish synagogues, often evangelistically, but sometimes even at the invitation of the other Jews. (See Acts 13 for example)

They would meet in lecture halls, such as the Hall of Tyrannus in Ephesus. (Acts 19:9)

The New Testament doesn't mention purpose built church buildings, and in the New Testament era the most common meeting place for Christians was in each others' homes.

The earliest known church building is the Dura-Europos church, which was converted from a regular house in around 233-256AD.


if homosexuality is a sin, why isn't abstinence?

I think you've given a very good argument why it's implausible to theorize that homosexuality is a sin because it does not produce children. I agree: that line of reasoning doesn't hold up.

But that's not the only conceivable (no pun intended) reason why the Bible would say that homosexuality is a sin.

The easiest answer would be to say, "it just is, just like all others sins are sins because they just are". Why is murder a sin? It just is. People often answer, "because it hurts another person". Okay. So hurting another person is a sin? Why? What makes hurting another person a sin? All you've done is push the question back a step.

You could say that there's a general principle in the Bible that sex is good and beautiful within a marriage between a man and a woman, but wrong in any other case. Thus pre-marital sex is a sin, adultery is a sin, beastiality is a sin, and homosexuality is a sin.

Why is sex outside of marriage wrong? We could, I suppose, discuss the health problems and social problems and emotional problems it causes. Just like we could talk about the economic problems that would be created if murder was allowed. But again, that just pushes back the question. Are veneral disease and broken homes "bad"? Who says? Why? Again, all you've done is push back the question. At some point you have to say that some things are good and others are bad because they just are.

It appears that in general, things that God forbids as sins do in the long run hurt the people who do them or those around them. Murder obviously hurts the victim, and violent people have a tendency to meet violent ends themselves. Adultery destroys relationships and broken homes hurt children. Etc. But I'd be very cautious about saying that that's the entire reason why God forbids something.


What is Paul saying in Romans 7:15 - 7:25?

Paul brings up covetousness as a personal example of the tension he is about to explain, which tension is brought about through the new birth.  "When the commandment came", Paul says, "sin came alive and I died" (Romans 7:9).  Now we know that Paul was raised not only as a Jew but also as a Pharisee (Philippians 3:5-6) so it is clear that he is not referring to the first time he was exposed to the 10th commandment; he had known the words his entire life.

When the new birth ushers one into the Kindgom, the commandments come in a new way.  The Spirit of Christ, the living Word, living in and renewing minds through obedience brings the commandments to a newly cleansed conscience and sin is revealed for what it truly is: "Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure." - Romans 7:13.

Sin is in view in the rest of the passage, not so much as specific instances, but as a governing principle lodged in his humanity.  It is this principle that came to power when the commandment came and he died; not because he suddenly coveted but because the newly illuminated Law revealed how covetous he already was.  The Law is the opposing principle and though it is good and holy it is too weakened by sinful flesh to bring about righteousness: "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.- Romans 7:14"  Paul could not rid himself of the covetousness
he now abhorred.

Paul has a desire in his renewed mind to do that which is good but does not find within his natural self the ability to carry those things out.  Instead he finds himself doing what he does not wish to do (Romans 7:15).  All sin is birthed at the level of intention which is made clear in the Sermon on the Mount.  He cannot attribute this failing to the presence of the Law (which shines the light upon sin but cannot alleviate it) and so he attributes it to "sin that lives in him." - Romans 7:16-17  He is not dodging culpability but outlining his moral failure at the level of intent.  His responsibility is to consider himself dead to sin but alive to God; essentially to believe the Gospel and act accordingly, relying on the mercy and grace of God every step of the way.

The closing statements reveal where his hope lies in the midst of this tension.  It is not in his agreement with the Law nor in his inner (and newly spiritual) desire to do that which is good.  It is not in his natural ability since, in that arena, he is sold under sin.  "For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members." - Romans 7:22-23  His hope lies in Christ who both satisfied the Law on his behalf through his obedience and condemned sin in the flesh through the cross:  "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin." - Romans 7:24-25

Paul is able to live in this tension where the flesh and Spirit lust against one another free of condemnation by faith in the work of Christ and the sanctifying presence of the Spirit.

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.
For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." - Romans 8:1-3

His trust is: "And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." - Philippians 1:6


Concubinage/cohabitation is a sin because, among other reasons, it

belittles the sacrament of marriage.
gives scandal.
places one in the occasion of sin to fornicate.

cf. McHugh & Callan's Moral Theology "2527. Forms of Fornication." (c):

  (c) Free love is fornication committed with one's concubine, that is, with a woman who is not a public harlot but who has contracted with one man for habitual sexual intercourse as if they were man and wife. According to reports, this is quite common in Europe, where lawful marriage is very often preceded by free unions. The trial marriage advocated by some in this country, in which paramours agree to live together as husband and wife for a certain term of years or at pleasure, also falls under the category of concubinage. This sin is worse than mere whoremongering in one respect, namely, that it includes the purpose to continue in the state of sin, at least for a certain length of time. Moreover, there is often the public scandal and contempt for public opinion which other kinds of fornication may be free from. One who practises concubinage is living in a proximate occasion of sin, and hence he cannot be absolved unless he dismisses the concubine, if they cohabit, or agrees to keep away from her, if they do not cohabit.