How does current Church of England polity compare with Richard Hooker's teaching?

Hooker's Arguments

Hooker wrote in the last years of Queen Elizabeth I. He feared that the Church of England, as he knew it, was under threat. The Puritans were growing in strength and influence. He was amongst the many, referred to in the Epistle Dedicatory to the King James Bible, who feared that when Elizabeth died, thick and palpable clouds of darkness would cover the land. He wrote to defend the Church of England as it then was. As things turned out the Puritans did not achieve power until the middle years of the next (i.e. 17th) century. Following the Restoration of King Charles II in 1660 the Church of England returned, in the main, to the way it was in the reign of Elizabeth and Hooker was a major influence on the Caroline Divines and future generations of Anglicans around the world.

He wrote:

  Though for no other cause, yet for  this, posterity may know we have not loosely through silence permitted things to pass away as in a dream; there shall be for men's information extant thus much concerning the Church of God established among us, and their careful endeavours who would have upheld the same.

As the OP points out Hooker believed every Church, that is to say every Christian community (e.g. England), had the right to make its own rules.  This obviously excludes the idea that rules be imposed from Rome. But that arguent had already been won in England, it was not Hooker's focus. Hooker was principally arguing against the Regulatory Principle, the idea that Scripture contains all that is needed concerning worship and church order.

In Book Three he says:

  We have asserted that there is a difference between a) matters of faith which are necessary to salvation; and b) ceremonies and the form of Church government. The first we say must be collected from Scripture. For the second, it is sufficient that there be nothing in Scripture against them.

Referring to Germany (Luther) and France (Calvin) he says:

  When Germany had stricken off that which appeared corrupt in the doctrine of the Church of Rome, but seemed still to retain a conformity in discipline; France took away the Popish orders which the Germans retained.

Whee Luther trimmed what was wrong, Calvin tried to start again, as if from scratch.

In this England was similar to Germany, and Scotland was similar to France (and Geneva). The Church of England was accused by the Puritans of retaning far too many practices of the Roman Catholic Church. It had not yet been as fully reformed as had the Church of Scotland. Hooker characterises the typical Puritan objection to pretty much anything, from wedding rings to bishops, as "We find no such thing commanded in the Word of God."

Hooker said that what was commanded in the Word of God was that nothing be done scandalous or offensive, that all things be done decently and in order, that all things be done unto edification and all to the Glory of God. Within these broad precepts the Church of England, like the Church of every other country (he had no thought of private denominations), had freedom to set its own rites, ceremonies and system of governance.

In Books Four and Five Hooker argues the case for numerous practices in the Church of England,  and in the liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer. His arguments are that nothing is contrary to Scripture, and that what there is is good.

Book Six is devoted to considering whether there must be, in every congregation, lay-elders as ministers of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. He concludes there is no need for lay-elders as ministers of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and argues very strongly against them.  This might, perhaps, suggest he was opposed to lay involvement in church governance, but as we see in Book Eight, this was not the case.

What Hooker was concerned with in Book Six was  repentance, forgiveness, penance and absolution. The Church of England services began with a general confession, by the congregation, and a general absolution said by the priest. There was no need for a person to confess his/her sins individually to a priest as in the Roman Church (though it was permissible). Hooker was attacking the Scottish system which, in some cases at least, required public confesion and the performance of a penance set by the Kirk Session. Every parish has a Kirk Session, consisting of lay-elders as well as ministers. It is this which Hooker means by "jurisdiction of lay-elders".  He argues that it is not necessary, and that it is disadvantageous generally speaking.

Book Seven refutes the proposition that there ought not to be bishops in the Chuch indued with such authority and honour as ours are. Many Puritans believed that all ministers were equal. Hooker did not.

Book Eight refutes the arguments of those who objected to Royal Supremancy in the Church. He acknowledges that, under infidel rule, Church and State are two separate entities. But, he points out, in England Church and State are one and the same community.

  As every man who is a member of the Church of England is also a member of the State, and vice versa, and the same multitude constitute both, there is no real or personal divison between them.

Hooher argued there are 2 kinds of opponents to the spiritual supremacy of the monarch. The first are Papists, those who believe in the universal jurisdiction of Rome. The second are those who believe that the spiritual power belongs to the clergy of every national Church.

Apart from the fact that Old Testament Kings exercised power over religious and civil affairs alike (Solomon the king, not Zadok the priest, built the Temple); Hooker pointed out the practical difficulties if there was no supreme authority.

  Suppose that tomorrow the judicial power requires you to attend court, the martial  power requires you in the field, and the spiritual power requires you in the Temple, and all have equal authority, what are you to do?

He reveals what he thinks of lay governance in the Church in the following passage:

  The Parliament of England, with the Convocation annexed, is the essence of all the government within the kingdom: it is the body of the whole realm and consists of the king and (represents) all his subjects. The parliament is a court, not so merely temporal as that it should meddle with nothing but leather and wool. The most natural and religious course in makng laws is that the matter of them be taken from the judgement of the wisest in those things which they are to concern. In matters of God, in framing forms of prayer, articles of faith and religious ceremonies, the pastors and bishops of our souls must naturally be thought more fit for this offce than men of secular calling. Still, when all that the wisdom of all can devise is effected it is the general consent of all which must give the laws their form and vigour ..... And the Parliament of England has authority to give or withhold that assent and approbation which give laws their force.

The Convocation to which Hooker refers is actually two Convocations, one for the South (Canterbury povince) and one for the North (York province), each consisting of a House of Bishops and a House of Clergy.

Church Polity in the time of Hooker

Preaching the Word and administering the Sacraments was the responsibilty of priests, ordained and supervised by bishops.

The appointment of a priest to a particular parish was usually the responsibility of a layman, the patron,  typically often the lord or gentleman  on whose land the church stood.

Church administration at parish level, was the responsibility of churchwardens. Usually each parish had two churchwardens elected by the parishioners, and the churchwardens were always laymen.

Major developments such as the Approval of the Thirty-Nine Articles or amendments in the liturgy, or the creation of new dioceses etc was generally originated in the Convocations representing clergy in general, and bishops in particular. On approval by both houses of both convocations it would next require approval by both Houses of Parliament representing Commons and Lords (where bishops also sat); and then Royal Assent.

Churchwardens and Patrons were lay, the House of Commons members were lay and the House of Lords was partly lay. The monarch was lay. So there was quite significant lay involvement which Hooker approved of.

How Church Polity has changed

Convocations endorsed the Prayer Book of 1662 before passing it to Parliament. During the eigteenth centuriy convocations exercised  almost no functions. As OP says, since 1919 there was a Church Assembly reconstitued as the General Synod in 1969.  This differs from Convocation in that it also includes lay representatives These lay people  must be communicant members of the Church and are indirectly elected by baptised members of the Church.

The General Synod can pass Measures, approved by the three houses (laity, clergy and bishops). If passed they are conidered by the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament (about 30, 15 lords and 15 members of the Commons). They will then be approved or rejected by the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and finally by the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Her Majesty the Queen.

The House of Commons, and the House of Lords, can and do include persons of any and no religion, as well as representatives of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is no longer the case that members of the Church of England and subjects of the UK state are one and the same group of people. The monarch must be a communicant member of the Church of England.

As OP points out there are now diocesan synods consisting of the bishop,  any suffragan bishops,  representatives of clergy, and representatives of laity.

At the parish level churchwardens still exist and are still elected by the parishioners. Any resident of the parish can vote, provided he or she is a Commonwealth citizen. He does not have to be a Christian of any kind to vote. The churchwardens though must be members of the Church.   Alongside this there are now also parochial church councils, elected by baptised members of the Church of England living in the parish (regardless of whether they attend church) and any person living outside the parish who worships within it.

What might Hooker think?

Hooker wrote at a time when Church and Nation were identical. The Church of England today is both a national Church, and at the same time is one denomination amongst many. Many citizens are of other faiths, or other denominations, or have no interest in Church. It is a situation Hooker did not envisage or address.

Hookers principle point was that each Church has the right to make its own rules. I do not see that he would find anything impermissible in current arrangements. He would say modern England can make its rules too. But what would he think of them?

The creation of Diocesan Synods pretty much mirrored the creation of County Councils, a general acceptance in the country of the need for local repesentaion. Diocesan Synods are to bishops as County Councils were to magistrates.

The chief problem was how, and whether, to adjust for the fact that many members of civil society are not Anglicans, not Christians even.

For a time non-Anglicans were barred from Parliament. Later this became widely unaceptable and Parliament was opened up, progressively, to other Protestants, other Christians, anybody.

One solution would have been to  effectively disestablish the Church, replacing the lay involvement of Parliament with a separate body consisting of lay Church members only.  Another would have been to say lay Church member needd no special representation. By creating the House of Laity in the General Synod, England has recognised that the lay members of the Church are now a distinct subset of the population as a whole; and deserve a particular say. But by retaining the role of Parliament there is also the recognition that the Church belongs to, and is for, all the people of England.

At the parish level too,  Parochial Church Councils, representing Church members, were brought in alongside Chuchwardens, representing everybody.

I think Hooker could have written a very strong defence of the current polity.  I fear he might be less impressed with the state of the Church generally.  He would, I feel sure, be pleasntly surprised that the Church of England has lasted in anything like the form he knew it; perhaps in no small part, thanks to him.


While the Jewish Law from the Old Testament may focus on sins that result in actions that can be observed, investigated, and prosecuted by the state, i.e., crimes, it has also always said that there are thoughts that are sinful too. One of the most prominent examples of these is the last of the Ten Commandments: do not covet your neighbour's wife or property. You don't have to act on lust or greed for it still to be sin and an obstacle between you and God.


What is the biblical support that the Catholic Church is the custodian of truth?

The key Biblical passage is Mt 16:18: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it" (NRSVCE). Though such a citation inevitably hearkens back to certain meta-questions about the use of "πέτρᾳ," the Catholic Church has always seen it as referring to the specific ministry of Peter, out of which grew the institution of the Papacy.
It would follow as a corollary that this "not prevailing" depends not on any human strength but on a special kind of assistance: hence the "parakletos" referred to most insistently in Christ's Last Supper Discourse.
Important to note (though perhaps a bit ancillary to this particular question) is that a Catholic would take issue with one notion that seems to underlie your question, that a doctrine is valid only insofar as it is "founded" on or directly corroborated by Scripture. Though Scripture is an extremely important "fons revelationis"--and some theologians would be willing to argue that all doctrine can be implicitly found in it--the Catholic Church has always had strong confidence in the value of Sacred Tradition (capital "T"), built on the practice of the Apostles and the teachings of the early Church.
As for the precise meaning of "custodian of the truth": the Catholic Church speaks of a "depositum fidei" (deposit of faith) closed at the death of St. John, which constitutes the public revelation of Christ, in whom all the truths of salvation are contained. Though further revelations ("private revelations") are not rejected, and sometimes are approved as useful (such as the apparitions at Fatima and Lourdes), they belong to a separate category altogether because they are directed at understanding the "depositum" in a more profound or culturally focused way. Catholic dogma all exists in the "depositum," though centuries of development and interpretation prompt us to see things that were not clear before, such as the Assumption or Immaculate Conception. No "modern revelation" that purports to add something to the deposit of faith is admitted by the Church.
The proper relation of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium is expressed well in Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. Cf. especially #10:

Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)
But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.
It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls. Source: Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum Solemnly Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Bl. Paul VI, November 18, 1965.


God won't give us more than we can handle?

The passage most commonly associated with this idea is 1 Corinthians 10:13 (NLT):

  The temptations in your life are no different from what others experience. And God is faithful. He will not allow the temptation to be more than you can stand. When you are tempted, he will show you a way out so that you can endure.


Revelation 10:4: "Don't write this down....?" (Catholic perspective)

Fr. Herman Kramer's commentary The Book of Destiny says this regarding Revelation 10:4:

Verse 4
According to this verse, St. John had been taking notes all the way through the visions and narratives. He is about to dip his pen into the ink and write what the Thunders had spoken. He therefore understood their message clearly and knew its import. But a voice came forth from the Church ordering him to seal up what the thunders had revealed by not writing it. Through the Seven Thunders, God gave him a special revelation of great importance, indicating what would immediately precede the coming of Antichrist, but it was to remain a secret to the Church. It was as with the revelation made to Daniel concerning the most savage persecutor of the Jews, Antiochus. The length of time he would oppress God's people was to be revealed through Daniel, 2300 days, but the time of his arrival was not to be revealed, was to be "sealed up" (Dan. VIII. 26; XII. 4 & 9). St. Paul likewise heard secret revelations which he was not allowed to communicate to the Church [2 Cor. 12:4]. The Thunders do reveal this: there will be special decisions made by the Church and these will complete the work of her magisterial office before the culmination of evil is due to arrive. The decisions may be the "reed" by which the wicked are separated from the good and expelled from the Church. This scene of the Seven Thunders is a scene within a scene leaving the Church at sea as to the time of Antichrist but foreshowing her preparedness for the attack. No creature will know his time until the Church has enacted what the Seven Thunders have spoken.


What is the sin of St.Peter that made St.Paul opposed him in Galatians2:11?

It is true that they didn’t have the NT so what was the issue? Hypocrisy

'There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the LORD your God.'" Leviticus 24:22

Peter was setting up division in the body of Christ between the Jew and the Gentiles. But no one enters by blood rights into the body of Christ according to John1:13

who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God

Therefore if all men enter by the will of God there should not have been an issue for Peter to have remained at the table with the gentiles.
User SLM comment added to the answer

“The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.”
Acts 15:6-9 ESV

Apostle Paul was in the audience

“And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.”
Acts 15:12 ESV

It would be hypocritical of Peter to acknowledge the Gentiles (Ten Lost tribes of Israel and gentiles) as being indistinct from the Jews (Tribe of Judah and Benjamin only) if both are accepted into the body and receive the same Holy Spirit by faith.
It could be that Paul is pointing out Peter’s inconsistency or hypocrisy


Why do Baptists believe in the autonomy of local congregations?

There are two concepts that are important to understand.  How they interact show directly how this works:
Sola Scriptura
The idea of sola scriptura is that the Bible is the highest authority.  Anyone and everyone (who can read) has direct access to the final word of God.  If someone is saying something that isn't in line with the Bible, then they are clearly not from God.
Priesthood of All Believers
Essentially, every believer in Christ has the authority to preach, interpret the Bible, and determine doctrine (providing it falls in line with the Bible, of course).  Given this, the authority of Christianity lies directly with the believers in Christ, not with a church per se--neither a local congregation, nor a central authority.  Each person becomes responsible for his/her own beliefs.
Reaction!!
Now, combine those two ideas together and you get an emotional, fiery reaction:  All central authority crumbles, since each individual believer has the authority to reject or accept another person's word.  Furthermore, the only way to rebuke another believer to bring them in line with your way of thinking is using the Bible--a book that can be twisted, bent, confused, and misconstrued--all in the name of personal exegesis.
Local Congregations
As the dust settles, believers start to realize that there needs to be a church--a gathering place for others who share their beliefs--and a preacher--someone who can comfort, guide, and instruct them when they need answers.
Each church is built on these ideas: a place to gather for corporate worship, lead by someone to help guide, instruct, and lead the people.  When church leaders start to get off track, they are either let go, or the church falls apart.  The only cohesion being the Word of God and the beliefs established by the members of the congregation.
Authority of the Local Church
Finally, as all men do, the members of the congregation begin to stray.  Matthew 18:15-17 has given authority to believers to attempt to steer each other in the right direction.  If that doesn't work, some authority has been given to the church itself to guide members to right thinking: but which church?  A local church?  A central church?
Unfortunately, this passage (as with all) is open to interpretation; and schisms between believers throughout history have determined this to be (for their convenience, I suspect) authority of the local church, rather than a central authority.  That means the each local church has the ability to reject its own members.
However, if there are enough believers (which agree with the errant way) to form a new church, a new church is formed and a split occurs, dragging part of a congregation from one church (one authority) to another.
Summary
The doctrines of Sola Scriptura and the Priesthood of All Believers have caused each person to have the authority to reject or accept any given spiritual authority.  Churches band together on common beliefs for corporate worship, instruction, and support.  However, their cohesion is purely based on individual support of the church.
Ultimately, the authority is not with the local church as much as it is with the believers within that church.  Each church rises and falls on the beliefs established by its members.  It's these two doctrines that are the source of this "authority" of the local church (in a round-about way).


According to the Bible, what kind of debt, if any, is lawful?

This is a very large subject that might be too big for an answer but I will make an attempt anyway. I apologize for the length.

I think the answer to the question can be almost fully derived by this fairly long section of scripture, so I quote it all:

  1At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel any loan they have made to a fellow Israelite. They shall not require payment from anyone among their own people, because the Lord’s time for cancelling debts has been proclaimed. 3You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your fellow Israelite owes you. 4However, there need be no poor people among you, for in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, 5if only you fully obey the Lord your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. 6For the Lord your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you.
  7If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. 8Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need. 9Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for cancelling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward the needy among your fellow Israelites and give them nothing. They may then appeal to the Lord against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. 10Give generously to them and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. 11There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land. (Deuteronomy 15:1-11, NIV)

It may seem odd to appeal to Mosaic legislation to understand the Christian view of debts and our obligations under them, but in many ways all Christian principles are first inlaid in the Old Testament.  From the verses above we can conclude two principle aspects about debts under a Biblical framework:

Both lending and borrowing are not condemned, but actually encouraged when the poor need temporary help. This is a peculiar case of a law for an agricultural society who shared the land God was giving them.  Therefore, we can imagine if a neighbor suffered providential loss, due to bad weather affecting their crops, etc., a neighbor might loan his own seeds, tools, etc., recognizing that he may too need help at another time.
It is not moral to take advantage of the poor through a loan, as the principle was to forgive the whole loan, where it could not be repaid after seven years.

From these two aspects the church at a very early age condemned what was called 'usury'. Usury did not mean a high interest loan, but almost any kind of interest on 'money'.  Interest was not the same thing as 'usury' but if the lender did not in some way take on risk in a loan, then it was considered usury.  An excellent article on the history of interest including church views can be found at A Brief History of Interest, Dr. Jurg Conzett.  The basic idea that has floated around the subject relates to the history of the world changing from an agrarian society to a capitalist trading society.  When we think about it it makes sense.  In the early days, such as under Moses, if you needed some seed to survive, a neighbor might lend some of his seed, or land. They did not necessarily have silver coins, so the payment for seeds would be seeds from a successful crop.  It would be easy to pay a bit of interest as one seed would produce hundreds of seeds.  In this way early lending was fair and the lender assumed risk, because if there was no crop, a payment could not be made, and after seven years the whole thing must be forgiven.  Even Aristotle argued against interest on silver, saying that it did not naturally increase as did seed.

We can see these principles applied under the Mosaic law for among brother 'no interest was allowed' but interest was allowed for loans to foreigners:

  Do not charge a fellow Israelite interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a fellow Israelite, so that the Lord your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess. (Deuteronomy 23:19-20, NIV)

However, even for a foreigner the interest could not be a kind of 'usury' that exploited the poor, as:

  “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt. (Exodus 22:21, NIV)

To apply this basic ethic to today, or with the New Testaments command that
'Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another' (Romans 13:8) we can draw the same principles under the gospel light.

First, any loan by a person in need is lawful, in order to help the person make a living and take care of his own family.  Second, such a loan should be provided for without exploitation. Yet we live in a wicked world, so this is not always possible as that would pretty much end all credit-card usage today as they all charge high interest especially among the poor!

As the New Testament is not under a government of God's people following God's laws in Canaan but an invisible church in a wicked world, the New Testament seems to focus more on charity, rather than loans by Christian love, as well as Christian duties for those who have debts in this wicked world. Therefore, for those with debts, the command is to not forsake the obligation of paying them, but work hard at being faithful to our commitments.  It also implies that we must not enter into debt unless necessary:

  The wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous give generously (Psalms 37:21, NIV)

The only way we can really determine what debts or lawful, is not under a legalistic rule, but under the rule of love, which must define all principles of godliness. The question we should ask ourselves when entering into a debt obligation is: 'Can we truly incur and repay this loan, without causing anyone harm?' If the answer is no, then the debt is not lawful, for love is the law.

A student loan, to become employed and a productive member of society would naturally be a good debt, for without such many could not earn income for a family or support church ministries and other charities later in life.  A loan to borrow from your next years predicted savings, to go on a vacation because you are stressed might not pass the rule.  The New Testament drives the idea of obtaining an 'independence' and respect from the outside world, which is included in working towards having no debts, where possible:

  And to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: You should mind your own business and work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody. (1 Thessalonians 4:11-12, NIV)

I myself once took a loan to pay for expenses necessary to adopt an orphan.  I would consider that a good loan.  The question we must ask ourselves when considering to take on a loan, is: 'Do we really need now what we want the loan for, for the benefit of ourself, our family and our brother?'


Diocletian's four decrees & Persecution of christians

As far as I am aware, we do not have the original texts of any of the Diocletian edicts. The course of events is recorded, however, by Eusebius in his Church History (c.323-324) and Martyrs of Palestine (after 311), and by Lactantius in his Deaths of the Persecutors (c. 316-321). Our knowledge of the "four edicts" is compiled out of these sources.
First edict

It was in the nineteenth year of the reign of Diocletian, in the month Dystrus, called March by the Romans, when the feast of the Saviour's passion was near at hand, that royal edicts were published everywhere, commanding that the churches be leveled to the ground and the Scriptures be destroyed by fire, and ordering that those who held places of honor be degraded, and that the household servants, if they persisted in the profession of Christianity, be deprived of freedom. (Church History 8.2.4)
Next day an edict was published, depriving the Christians of all honours and dignities; ordaining also that, without any distinction of rank or degree, they should be subjected to tortures, and that every suit at law should be received against them; while, on the other hand, they were debarred from being plaintiffs in questions of wrong, adultery, or theft; and, finally, that they should neither be capable of freedom, nor have right of suffrage. (Deaths of the Persecutors 13)

Second edict

Not long after... a royal edict directed that the rulers of the churches everywhere should be thrown into prison and bonds. (Church History 8.6.8)

Third edict

Other decrees followed the first, directing that those in prison if they would sacrifice should be permitted to depart in freedom, but that those who refused should be harassed with many tortures. (Church History 8.6.10)

Fourth edict

In the course of the second year [=304], the persecution against us increased greatly. And at that time Urbanus being governor of the province, imperial edicts were first issued to him, commanding by a general decree that all the people should sacrifice at once in the different cities, and offer libations to the idols. (Martyrs of Palestine 3)

For further context, the story of the Diocletian persecution is told in Church History chapter 8, and in Lactantius chapters 7-19. See also Wikipedia on Diocletianic Persecution for many other accounts and references.


How did Baptists in the southern US justify slavery as compatible with Christianity?

I have not been able to find evidence of a Baptist argument for slavery that differs from other pro-slavery denominations. Baptist minister Richard Furman (for whom Furman University was named) published a philosophical defense of slavery that alluded to biblical support but did not elaborate on it. The proof texts would have been well known to his readers.

The starting point for Christian justification of slavery is Genesis 9:24-27.

  When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done
  to him, he said, "Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to
  his brothers." He also said, "Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem; and
  let Canaan be his slave. May God make space for Japheth, and let him
  live in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave."

From this a tradition arose that the curse gave Canaan black skin, and that he subsequently migrated to Africa. Although these ideas can't be found in the Bible, they dovetailed with a pro-slavery narrative. Author Anthony Pagden explains:

  This reading of the Book of Genesis merged easily into a medieval
  iconographic tradition in which devils were always depicted as black.
  Later pseudo-scientific theories would be built around African skull
  shapes, dental structure, and body postures, in an attempt to find an
  unassailable argument--rooted in whatever the most persuasive
  contemporary idiom happened to be: law, theology, genealogy, or
  natural science -- why one part of the human race should live in
  perpetual indebtedness to another.

Exodus 21 contains rules and regulations for slave owners. A male Hebrew sold into slavery had to be released after six years, but females and children born into slavery could be held for life under certain conditions. A male slave could choose to remain a slave in order to stay with his family.

Deuteronomy 15:12-14 liberalizes some of the rules for Hebrew slaves, especially concerning who can be freed and what type of severance a freed slave should be given.

  If a member of your community, whether a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman,
  is sold to you and works for you six years, in the seventh year you
  shall set that person free. And when you send a male slave out from
  you a free person, you shall not send him out empty-handed. Provide
  liberally out of your flock, your threshing floor, and your wine
  press, thus giving to him some of the bounty with which the Lord your
  God has blessed you.

Rules for foreigners sold into slavery can be found in Leviticus 25:44-46. Regardless of age or gender, they could be held for life and could be inherited as property.

  As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the
  nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You
  may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and
  from their families that are with you, who have been born in your
  land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession
  for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These
  you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one
  shall rule over the other with harshness.

That's probably the closest biblical match to slavery as it was practiced in the United States and Britain.

Slavery is taken for granted in many New Testament passages too. For example, in Ephesians 6:5-6 Paul1 says:

  Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in
  singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched,
  and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will
  of God from the heart.

This is followed a few verses later (Ephesians 6:9) with:

  And, masters, do the same to them. Stop threatening them, for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and with him there is no partiality.

The phrase "both of you have the same Master" can be--and has been--interpreted to mean Paul is giving instructions to Christian masters of Christian slaves.

Similar instructions appear in Colossians 3:22-4:1.

Titus 2:9-10 states:

  Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction
  in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to
  show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be
  an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior.

Finally, 1 Peter 2:18-21 commands slaves to accept whatever harsh treatment their masters deal out.

  Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not
  only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For
  it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while
  suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong,
  what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer
  for it, you have God's approval. For to this you have been called,
  because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that
  you should follow in his steps.

These last two passages have no corresponding instructions for slaveholders.

In conclusion, the Bible contains many passages--in both the Old and New Testaments--that have been used to justify slavery.

1 Many modern scholars do not believe Paul wrote Titus, Ephesians, or Colossians, in part because they doubt the man who had said, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus," (Galatians 3:28), and who urged Philemon to free Onesimus and accept him as a brother (Philemon 1:15-16), would have been so accommodating to slavery.


What is the significance of taking hold of the horns of the altar?

This looks like a reference to the manslaughter provision in Exodus:

  Exodus 21:12-14

  12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

  13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.

  14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.

By fleeing to the tabernacle and taking ahold of the altar, Joab was claiming that he was not guilty of murdering Absalom (see 2 Samuel 18) and deserved mercy.  Apparently Solomon disagreed.


Do Orthodox Christians believe that God wants a personal relationship with the individual?

Here is an exerpt from an article by Fr. Steven Kostoff's (OCA Priest and he is also a member of the adjunct faculty of the theology department at Xavier University in Cincinnati, where he has taught various courses on Orthodox theology) weekly articles on Orthodoxy that does justice to the topic theologically from an Orthodox perspective:

If I am not mistaken, the phrase "a personal God," fairly current in contemporary religious discourse, is meant to say something first about the nature of God, rather than our subjective or "personal" understanding of God. To paraphrase the French philosopher Blaise Pascal, we believe in "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob," and not the "god of the philosophers." The former is "personal" but the latter is "impersonal." This personal God is the God of the Scriptures Who is love and not the Unmoved Mover of the Greek philosophers. The God who reveals/shows/manifests Himself to persons so that a conscious and living relationship, ultimately based on faith, hope and love can be created, sustained, and ever deepened. A "personal God" means that God is concerned about, and engaged with the world and human persons. God cares about our lives and our destinies. "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father's will. But even the hairs of your head are numbered." (MATT. 10:29-30) As the Russian elder, Macarius of Optina put it: "To hold the faith does not only mean that we believe God to be our Creator. It also means that we recognize His unceasing and detailed attention to our good .."
A "personal God" is not the God who remains aloof from the world, as if God is a cosmic clockmaker, who wound up the universe and now allows it to "run" on its own inherent laws free of providential care and engagement. (That would be the "God" of deism, the belief of many of the Founding Fathers of our country). "For God so loved the world ..." could only be said of a personal God concerned about the direction and destiny of the world - a world that exists because God "loved" it into existence. God desires that we will all be saved "and come to the knowledge of the truth." (I TIM. 2:4) This is the God that we worship in the Liturgy and that we pray to in our homes "in secret." We then extend our belief in "a personal God" to our "subjective" and "personal" relationship with God, based on the faith that we can "know" God in His self-revelation. That means through the Son of God and the Holy Spirit. Every human being has the potential to have a "personal" relationship" with the "personal" God of Christian revelation. One can believe that an impersonal deity exists, but one cannot relate to such a "God." We thus return to my initial point that the term "a personal God" is meant primarily to tell us something about the nature of God, and then by extension about our relationship with God. It does not mean a God that we "create' through our personal ideas or musings. At least that is how I understand the term as commonly used in contemporary religious discourse.

Full article: http://holycrossoca.org/newslet/0807.html


Q: Mere Christianity Book I Chapters 1 and 2: How would Lewis explain morality being inherently known but also taught?
Lewis made the point that there are Laws of Human Nature or morality which are known to almost all people on Earth. He believed that most people in most cultures would agree that stealing or murder are wrong.
Yet Lewis also pointed out that theft and murder happen all the time.
Why? Lewis answers:

...a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or
not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or
to disobey it.

[Lewis, C. S.. Mere Christianity (C.S. Lewis Signature Classics) (p. 4). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.]
Lewis summed this issue in this passage:

...These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human
beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to
behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly,
that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of
Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear
thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.

[Lewis, C. S.. Mere Christianity (C.S. Lewis Signature Classics) (p. 8). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.]
The laws of gravitation or mathematics are universal. Drop an object and it falls. Try to disobey the law of gravitation by jumping from a building and you will fall.
Lewis described Laws of Human Nature that are inhereent in our nature. These laws are known to all, but they can be disobeyed unlike natural laws such as gravitation.
If the Laws of Human Nature are known to all, yet frequently disobeyed, what is the purpose of teaching them?
Parents, family members, teachers, and preachers all emphasize the need to follow these laws and I believe they do so in order to make it more likely that the students or children or friends would actually choose to follow the moral laws Lewis described.


The question "Was Jesus a Rabbi" is covered here.  Short version: Yes, He was.

The question "Was Jesus a carpenter" is covered here.  Short version, "yes, but in typical fashion people dispute the exact meaning of the word, which could also be translated as craftsman."  In this case, whether carpenter could mean craftsman or stonemason or whatever other occupation doesn't matter.  You're asking how he could have been a carpenter and a Rabbi.

Not to point out the obvious, but it was a career change.  In His early days, He was a carpenter. Later, He began His true calling - His earthly ministry.

There is no discrepancy in Scripture referring to Him as a carpenter in one place, and as a Rabbi in another.  Were someone to write about my life (what a boring book that would be) they could just as easily refer to me as a Restaurant Manager and a Software Developer, a Father, Husband, Satellite dish salesman, etc.

To answer the remaining point in your question, the first link above also covers how "one became a Rabbi in those times".


The word "raised" in Romans 9:17-18 and Exodus 9:16?

Read Romans 9 in the light of Romans 2:4-11.  Mercy is intended to lead to repentance, but in the case of Pharaoh, mercy hardened his heart.

Exodus 8:15

  When Pharaoh saw there was relief, however, he hardened his heart...

When God relented and showed mercy, Pharaoh hardened his own heart.


Yes they were, in fact the problem was not that they were expecting something less than God in the flesh, the problem was they were not expecting a lowly appearance. They expected his return in glory and judgment when he establishes peace forever -- what we now understand will happen at his second coming. It was his humanity, not his divinity, that tripped them up.


What resurrection are they talking about? Matthew 22:28

The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead, the question was simply a set up.
Even though they did not believe in this, the resurrection they are referring to is the resurrection of dead the Pharisees believe in, which according to Act 23 is similar to what Paul (Christians) believes in.

6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
7 And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided.
8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.


Should a Bible believing Christian be pleased at the death of Osama bin Laden?

In one sense, I don't think we should be "pleased" that he is dead.  God is not "pleased", which should be our ultimate example:

  Ezekiel 33:11 (NIV)

  11  Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live.    Turn!    Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’

However, just because we should not take pleasure in his death, does not mean we cannot be pleased with the net outcome of the situation.  We can be pleased that future lives will be spared.

For example, even though God did not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, he still ordered sentences of death for certain offenses (and he does all that he pleases).  This was for the net benefit of the society.  So, although God did not take take pleasure in the death of the individual, he took pleasure in the protection of the masses.

So while we ought to grieve his individual death, for his sake, we can still be pleased overall for the sake of others.


Who is the object of the New Covenant and what are it's terms?

1. The Covenants of Men
When an agreement was reached about wages of a penny a day, Matthew 20:13, the word used is συμθονεο, sumphoneo (sun, together, and phoneo to speak strongly). The same word is used when two agree together on earth about any matter, Matthew 18:19. Another, stronger word is used when the Jews agreed together, in council, to cast believers out of the synagogue, John 9:22, or to conspire against Paul and to murder him, Acts 23:20 - συντιτηεμι suntithemi (sun, together and tithemi, to lay down or establish). Yet another word is used when the Jews 'covenanted' with Judas for thirty pieces of silver to betray Jesus - 'ιστεμι, histemi (stand, set up, establish).
These are all agreements among men where parties negotiate and bargain and come to a conclusion.
None of these words are used, by the Holy Spirit's inspiration, in matters of the New Testament.
2. The New Testament
Instead, the word διαθεκε diatheke (dia through and theke, a secure containment) is used thirty three times in the Greek scriptures. Tyndale, in his 1534 New Testament, translated this word by 'testament' thirty one of those times. The KJV translators have chosen, unusually, not to conform to Tyndale on this particular matter and have only called it 'testament' twelve times.
The word διαθεκε diatheke is defined for us in Hebrews 9:16 and 9:17 where the writer says :

For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

The other types of agreement among men, above, are defined otherwise, as seen by the words used. But a διαθεκε diatheke, is defined for us in Hebrews 9:16 and 17.
The Testament which the Holy Spirit conveys through the writers of the Greek scriptures concerns a Testator and it only comes into force when the Testator dies. In fact, it is even stronger than that - it is prevented from coming into force until the Testator is deceased.
3. The Object of the New Testament
The objective was made clear six centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem :

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: [Hebrews 8:10 and 10:16 KJV]

This prophecy, originally delivered through Jeremiah, 31:33, promises two things : an internal rule of the heart from God himself (and, therefore, it must be of Spirit) and a shared inheritance, that is to say an inherited relationship between Deity and corporate humanity.
Inherited, of course, after the death of Another.
It promises a better rule than that of the legal commandment. It promises a better human existence than one in Adam. It promises a better communal worship than that of external ritual and earthly government.
4. The Terms of the New Testament
The terms are not temporal, they do not relate to this present world. It is an 'everlasting covenant' Hebrews 13:20. The promises are not dependent on man's works or man's abilities. It is not a covenant with man, at all. It is promised; it is assured; it is everlasting.
And, more - Hebrews 9:15.

And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

This testament is mediated. By the one mediator between Deity and humanity - Christ Jesus. There is no other name whereby men might be saved, than his name. He is the one who mediates it to every single needy soul who needs his mediation. And he does it personally - to each and every, single soul.
And by his mediation, the transgressions (which the first - 'old' - covenant could by no means remove) are thoroughly and utterly taken away by the shedding of his precious blood : Matthew 26:28 :

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

5. The Beneficiaries of the New Testament
The 'many' referred to by Jesus, above, are clearly they whom Jesus also described as :

He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

. . . which is clearly not a matter of digestion, but of faith. And it is to 'he' - it is personal and individual, neither congregative nor corporate.
6. The Messenger of the New Testament
Mark makes it clear in the first verses of his gospel account that 'the beginning of the gospel' involves the ministry of John the Baptist (the baptism of repentance) and the coming of the one prophesied by Malachi - 3:1 -

... the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant ...

Jesus Christ, the Lord, come in flesh, is the Messenger of the Covenant, he is the Testator of the New Testament, He is the Meidator of the New Testament and his is the blood of the Everlasting Testament.
7. The Inauguration of the New Testament
The rich man who wanted to pull down his barns and build bigger, Luke 12:18, used the word apotheke to describe a containment secure against animals foraging or thieves stealing his agricultural wealth. Apo is a matter of dimension - it's big.
Jesus uses the word theke when he tells Peter to put up his sword in its theke, John 18:11. More likely than a sheath, is a secure containment at home, bearing in mind what Jesus said about bearing a sword. Put it in its secure box at home : is what I understand to be his exhortation, but whatever - it is a secure containment.
As to the Testament - the diatheke - the 'through' theke - I suggest a coffin  or a sepulchre is in view. A secure place to store a body until resurrection, is, I understand, to be the meaning.
The Testament comes into force through a securely contained body : in death.


Does Christianity solve personal problems?

Christianity solves a couple of "personal" problems.  It solves our struggle against sin (this is called sanctification), and it solves the problem of our well deserved awaiting judgement (this is called justification).  It also empowers us to further the kingdom of God.

  Mark 11:24 (NASB)
  24 Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you.

In saying this, Jesus did not intend to place himself inside a genie lamp to fulfil our every whim.  When Jesus says "all things for which you pray and ask", there is an implied qualification on the "all things".  That is, what you ask for must be in accordance with God's will.

This concept is clarified if we take a look at 1 John.

  1 John 5:14-15 (NASB)
  14 This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him.

Here, John makes the qualification explicit.  What we ask must be in accordance to His will.  In James, we see something similar:

  James 4:3 (NASB)
  3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures.

James's audience did not receive, because they did not ask in accordance with God's will.  They asked selfishly, in order to fulfil their own desires, and not to further the kingdom of God.


Looking for a Copy (Preferably PDF) of ``On the Visible Monarchy'' by Rev. Nicholas Sanders, D.D

Œuvres (vol. 1): Controverses, p. CXL, cites it as:

Sanders Nicolas, professeur de théologie à Louvain[professor of theology at Leuven] (1527-1583).     De visibili monarchi Ecclesiae libri octo[On the Visible Monarchy in Eight Books], Lovanii, 1571

There doesn't appear to be an English translation.


Confessional Lutheranism: How does Unlimited Atonement work?

I am not familiar with what modern Lutherans might believe, if any different from Luther, but I am very familiar with what Calvin and Luther thought.  They thought the same in many ways but used different lenses. I do not see them at disagreement. They differed in emphasis and detail.  Luther emphasized Christ dying for all (which Calvin also believed). Calvin emphasized election more than Luther (which Luther believed).
What makes them seem different is that Calvin speculated deeper on the subject where Luther does not really form an opinion. Calvin sees the death of sin as like physical debts. Son can’t be aid for twice, therefore sins are either paid for by Christ or by the sinner.  In Calvin’s view Christ only died effectually for sin. In Luther’s Christ died provisionally for all sin and effectually only for those that receive it.  In other words Christ paid the penalty and then the sinner pays, so the sin is paid for twice – under a Calvinist view of Luther.
Luther himself would not draw this Calvinistic distinction and was happier leaving something hidden behind a veil of the unknowable.  The end result is the same.
As far as the recording you had linked to I do not find the Lutheran representing Luther’s view so well. Luther and Calvin both believed that our assurance comes from our belief that Christ died for sin in general, and not faith that we are ‘elect’.  Both Luther and Calvin believed that if we have faith in Christ then we are ‘elect’.
The other things to remember is that Arminian thought was really not that developed while Luther was writing and even while Calvin was writing minute detailed responses to Arminian beliefs, such as that found in John Owen’s ‘Death of Death, in the Death of Christ’ treatise was not needed.
In both Luther and Calvin, they limited atonement in scope. Calvin limited more strictly in eternity but neither limited the atonement in its power by making it dependent on human effort.
But to answer the question specifically, 'How did Luther think it worked?' He didn't he did not see much value in thinking too much about things he thought were incomprehensible.
Because Luther did not think about predestination that much some of the more interesting things he said were recorded by his close friends:

No. 3655b: Speculations About Predestination Unhealthy December 25, 1537
He [Martin Luther] spoke at length about the idle people who occupy themselves with disputation about predestination beyond the limits of Scripture. It is flue most ungodly and dangerous business to abandon the certain and revealed will of God in order to search into the hidden mysteries of God.” (Luther's Works 54.249)
No. 514: Predestination Is an Impenetrable Mystery Spring, 1533
“Paul wasn’t discussing predestination322 with the Jews but was disputing only with those who opposed it and said, ‘We are the people of God, we have the fathers, the promises were given to us,’ etc. He didn’t touch upon predestination except to repudiate the righteousness of the law. Paul said that we should not preach as if we could become good by our works, our fathers, etc. These don’t help. The others, those who believe, have it just as good as those who have fathers, etc. God has decreed it so from eternity. Hence Paul attacks only this.
“By grace alone are we saved. God doesn’t want to be obligated to anybody. Once we believe, he tells us (and this, too, is by grace), ‘Give, and it will be given to you [Luke 6:38]. You are bound to give in any ease, whether out of pity for the Turks or some other unfortunates, so you may just as well do it when I command it.’ We have no claim on him. So Esau and Jacob also testified to righteousness.323
“Otherwise one can’t settle the deep questions of theology, but Paul simply argues that it is by grace alone that we are saved. He meant to stick to this. Think what it means that you are not saved by the law, etc., but the Jews have works! Nobody but Christ can solve this. Hence he [Paul] said, ‘O the depth [of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God,’ Rom. 11:33]!” (Luther's Works 54.90)


I think that a distinction needs to be drawn between authentic in the sense that the works were historically authentic (i.e. indeed written by the Dionysius of Acts) and authentic in the sense that they correctly reflect Apostolic teaching.

Eastern Christian theology is not based so much on the former as the latter.  The Pseudo-Dionysian corpus was not so much accepted because the latter Fathers thought it was written by Dionysius (which many seem to have believed), but rather because of the clarity with which it expressed certain truths which they held.

To perhaps further shock, Pseudo-Dionysius continues to remain an important part of the written tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church to this day, despite full awareness of the issues with its historical authenticity.  The entry on Dionysius in the text of one prominent Russian Orthodox theologian reads, for example:

  St. DIONYSIUS the Areopagite ---          A.D. 96

  A disciple of the Apostle Paul (Acts 17: 34), first Bishop of Athens,
  martyred in Paris; commemorated October 3. To him have been attributed
  a number of works (Mystical Theology, The Divine Names, The
  Heavenly Hierarchy, The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy) which formulated
  the basic Orthodox teaching on these subjects and inspired later
  Orthodox theologians from the time of St. Maximus the Confessor (7th
  century). Because his works seem to have been unknown in the first
  Christian centuries, and in a style and content seem to be later in
  date, it is generally accepted that in their present form they are of
  the 5th century. Modern scholars therefore call the author
  “Pseudo-Dionysius,” but in the Orthodox world, where the concept of
  “authorship” is not so restricted, there is no difficulty in seeing
  these works as in the tradition of St. Dionysius — and through him, of
  St. Paul.1

This sentiment is echoed in one of the most important Orthodox Christian theological works of the 20th century - based largely on the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius - Vladimir Lossky's The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church:

  Modern critics, so far from agreeing as to the identity of the ‘Pseudo
  Dionysius’ and as to the date of the composition of his works, wander
  amidst the most diverse hypotheses. The way in which the critical
  researches waver between dates as far apart as the third and sixth
  centuries shows how small a measure of agreement has as yet been
  reached in regard to the origins of this mysterious work. But whatever
  the results of all this research may be, they can in no way diminish
  the theological value of the Areopagitica. From this point of view
  it matters little who their author was. What is important is the
  Church’s judgement on the contents of the work and the use which she
  has made of it. Does not the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews say
  in quoting a psalm of David: ‘But one in a certain place testified
  …’2? thus showing to what extent the question of authorship
  is of secondary importance in the case of a text inspired by the Holy
  Spirit. What is true of Holy Scripture is also true of the theological
  tradition of the Church.

So the answer I would give to your question, "Why were Pseudo-Dionysius's works accepted as authentic for so long?" is that historical accuracy was not as important issue as might be imagined in the eastern Church - with a footnote that the works are still accepted as being theologically authentic, even if  their historical origin is in question.

1 Michael Pomazanski, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (3rd ed.), p.382
2 Hebrews 2:6


Is there any extra-Biblical 'evidence' of Herod's murder of babies?

The short answer is: none known to date.  A variety of speculation has arisen on the relationship between how Herod conducted himself and the impact that had on the narrations related to him in scripture.

At the lowest level of detail: the Wikipedia article cites a decent range of sources and still concludes there are no contemporary sources that match one for one with the event reported in scripture.  (As Wiki articles go, it's a decent one).

G.J. Goldberg (http://www.josephus.org/ntparallels.htm#innocents) examines NT parallels with Josephus, in detail, arrives at the same conclusion.  He cites an example from antiquities having to do with a number of Pharisees being put to death as being possibly related.

  The story demonstrates at the least that the actions of Herod and the
  other people in the nativity story was not unheard of for the time, so
  that something of the sort {slaughter of innocents} might have occurred but escaped Josephus' notice. Or, the above story itself might have served as the nucleus of a tale that was elaborated over the years and applied to Jesus by his followers.

Herod was rough with a lot of people.  From Goldberg:

  Incidentally, in Antiquities 17.6.5 174 there is described a forced
  mass movement of people just before Herod's death. These people the
  king had planned to have these murdered so the Jews would be mourning
  when he died, rather than holding joyful festivities to celebrate his
  passing. This movement could conceivably have contributed both to the
  story of the slaughter of the innocents and the census of Quirinius ...


I agree with gwofatlanta's conclusion and would put it in even stronger terms - it is highly unlikely that the servant in 1 Kings 18 refers to Obadiah.

Firstly, "your servant" was a common polite form of address in biblical times, and it is extremely common for it to be used in this non-literal sense.
Secondly Obadiah is specifically described as a palace administrator (18:3), so technically,if anyone's, he would have been regarded as King Ahab's "servant", and he would have been using the phrase "your servant" non-literally.
In order for him to have become the literal servant referred to later in chapter 18 and in chapter 19, verse 3, he would have to either: have been dismissed; have resigned; or have abandoned his previous position, and there is no mention of any of those things happening whatsoever.
Finally as gwofatlanta has already argued after being mentioned by name in chapter 18, it is unlikely he would not continue to be identified by name in the later episodes of the narrative.


Why is the The Nativity called "Christmas"?

Why is the Nativity called “Christmas”?

There is no clear cut source as to why the word "Christmas" became such a popular term at this time of the year than that of the "Nativity".

However there are a few hints as to why this came about. Let us take a look at the etymology of the word "Christmas" first.

  “Christmas” is an Old English word, constructed from the combination of two words, namely “Christ” and “Mass”. The first recorded Old English version of the phrase, “Crīstesmæsse,” dates back to 1038, but by the Middle Ages the term had already morphed into “Cristemasse;” a slightly more modern version of the phrase.

  The two separate parts of the word can be traced back to Greek, Hebrew and Latin origins. “Christ” comes from the Greek word “Khrīstos” (Χριστός) or “Crīst,” and there’s a lot of evidence to suggest that the Hebrew word “Māšîaḥ” (מָשִׁיחַ) or “Messiah,” which actually means “anointed,” has also played a considerable role in the construction of the first part of the word “Christmas.” The second part most probably comes from the Latin word, “Missa,” which refers directly to the celebration of the Eucharist. - Where does the word Christmas come from?

So, we can see that the word "Christmas" could actually mean the "Mass of the Anointed One", for that is what the word "Christ" truly implies and means in itself.

We must remember also that during the Middle Ages, Latin was more popular in the liturgical books of the day.

The fact that the English term for the Navivity of Our Lord Jesus Christ is called Christmas and not ""Nativitissimas" or something similar is due to the fact that the Church also celebrates the Nativity of Blessed Virgin Mary (September 8) and the Nativity of St. John the Baptist (June 24). There can not be three feasts called "Nativitatissimas'. That would just be too confusing to say the least.

The whole idea of calling the Nativity or Birth of our Lord Jesus Christ instead of Christmas reminds me of the solemn Proclamation of the Birth of Christ that one time was pronounced (sung/chanted) just before the Midnight Christmas Mass. It is with true love and moving faith to be able to remember this tradition where it still exists.

  The Proclamation of the Birth of Christ, Kalenda Proclamation, or Christmas Proclamation, is a chant sung before the Midnight Mass for Christmas in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. The long text is a timeline, in which each verse represents the years from an historical event, either secular or religious, until birth of Jesus Christ, and the number of years – expressed in centuries or years – decreases until the day of the first Christmas.

  Ceremonial

  Originating from the Roman Martyrology, traditionally read during the hour of Prime, the proclamation places the birth of Christ "within the context of salvation history."1 Prime was suppressed as part of the liturgical reforms following Vatican II, but Pope John Paul II restored the usage of the Proclamation during the 1980 Papal Christmas Midnight Mass. Since then, many parishes re-instituted the Proclamation as well.

  In the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, the Christmas Proclamation is chanted during Midnight Mass.

  Octavo Kalendas Januarii Luna N.
  Innumeris transactis saeculis a creatione mundi, quando in principio Deus creavit caelum et terram et hominem formavit ad imaginem suam; permultis etiam saeculis, ex quo post diluvium Altissimus in nubibus arcum posuerat, signum fœderis et pacis;
  a migratione Abrahæ, patris nostri in fide, de Ur Chaldæorum saeculo vigesimo primo;
  ab egressu populi Israël de Ægypto, Moyse duce, saeculo decimo tertio;
  ab unctione David in regem, anno circiter millesimo;
  hebdomada sexagesima quinta, juxta Danielis prophetiam;
  Olympiade centesima nonagesima quarta;
  ab Urbe condita anno septingentesimo quinquagesimo secundo;
  anno imperii Cæsaris Octaviani Augusti quadragesimo secundo;
  toto orbe in pace composito, Jesus Christus, æternus Deus æternique Patris Filius, mundum volens adventu suo piissimo consecrare, de Spiritu Sancto conceptus, novemque post conceptionem decursis mensibus, in Bethlehem Judæ nascitur ex Maria Virgine factus homo: Nativitas Domini nostri Jesu Christi secundum carnem. - Proclamation of the Birth of Christ

The Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh.

"Christmas" sounds so much better instead of "Nativitatimas" and it also keeps Christ in Christmas, just like Michaelmas keeps St. Michael in St. Michael's Day and Martinmas keeps St. Martin in St. Martin Day.


What are the practical effects of sanctifying grace?

How refreshingly honest of your daughter to say what she thinks rather than simply give the answer that is expected.   But how prove to her that sanctifying grace is real?  By example, by demonstrating to her that the practical effects of sanctifying grace result in a transformed life to; to illustrate how God’s sanctifying grace sets believers apart for holiness.
This is my understanding of the Catholic view of sanctifying grace:

Sanctifying grace refers to a specific supernatural infusion of God’s grace that makes a person holy and pleasing to God. Deifying grace and perfecting grace are other terms for sanctifying grace, which is believed to be imparted through the Catholic sacrament of baptism. The Roman Church teaches that at baptism, the time when sanctifying grace is received, a person becomes part of the body of Christ and able to receive additional graces for living a holy life.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, sanctifying grace is also called the “grace of justification” because it is the grace that makes a soul acceptable or justified before God. This grace transforms a sinner into a holy child of God. Source: What is sanctifying grace?

I realise this comes from a Protestant source, so if this is inaccurate or misleading, please say so.
Another approach might be to simply explain to your daughter that if she wishes to experience the free and undeserved gift of God’s sanctifying grace, first she has to acknowledge it is real, second that she needs it more than oxygen, and third that she first has to empty her hands in order to receive it.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8).

For what it’s worth, when I first came to saving faith in Christ Jesus and presented myself for adult baptism with my husband and our son present, our son asked me, “Mum, does this mean you have to become holy?”  Our son was only 12 years old.  He intuitively realised that my public declaration of my Christian faith necessitated a big change in my life!  Out of the mouths of babes and children...
Perhaps this is the only evidence that matters to children – that they can see how Christians live a life that is different to others, that God’s sanctifying grace has transformed their lives.  It’s a case of walking the walk, rather than talking the talk.  Children are not easily fooled!  Role models might be the answer here - real-life, in your face, modern and even public figures who exemplify the ongoing process of sanctification and grace in their lives, who are a witness to the world that they have been separated from the world and set apart to be holy.


What basis is there for defining sin as "rebellion"?

I would like to add to the answers already posted a few observations about the theological lexical register of the Biblical writers that may bear on the OP's question.

  Is there any lexical support for [sin as rebellion] (either through a sub-sense of those words, or through other words)?

Yes. This is true both in the OT and the NT. The NT understanding of sin is the development of a Hebrew concept, and the vocabulary follows suit. Thus, although, as pointed out by the OP, the Greek ἁμαρτία (and a slurry of cognates) in Ancient Greek denoted "missing the mark", they are frequently used in the LXX to represent the particular Jewish notion of sin.1  In the NT these words are never used without these moral connotations (NIDTTE). This Hebrew background is therefore of primary importance in understanding the meaning of the NT authors.

In Hebrew, there are indeed other words conveying the notion of sin.  The OP mentions חטא (ḥṭʾ), which can be used outside the moral realm to mean "to be mistaken" or "to miss". (See, for instance, Judg 20:16, of archers who could sling stones and not "miss" (ḥṭʾ).) The term is also used to express interpersonal ethical lapses (e.g. 2 Kings 18:14). The most common use in Biblical Hebrew, however, is in the theological sphere, where it denotes failure in one's obligations toward God, particularly in the legal and cultic domain. This is the most common word used for sin, used ~595 times. It contains no a priori notion of rebellion.

However, there are many other words that express related concepts of human evil sometimes translated "sin".2  The most relevant here is the term פשע (pšʿ) (~145 times). Unlike ḥṭʾ which can refer to a mere mistake (primarily cultic inadvertences), pšʿ essentially means "rebel", also sometimes translated "revolt" or "transgress".3   In interpersonal relationships, it means "willful violations by an inferior against a superior" (Luc; see, e.g., Gen 31:36, Prov 28:24). In man's relationship with God, this sense is preserved:

  In biblical theology, the term refers to an open and brazen defiance of God by humans.

This, then, is the word that denotes the aspect of sin that comes closest to the notion of rebellion. Not surprisingly, it is a favorite of the (latter) prophets, where the role of Israel's pšʿ in their broken relationship with Yahweh is relentlessly rehearsed.

  These prophets...make repeated use of pšʿ because their ministries devote significant attention to Israel’s past or present covenant treachery. They indict Israel for disrupting their covenant relationship with Yahweh. Isaiah begins his prophecy by depicting Yahweh’s relationship with Israel in terms of a father-son relationship. Israel, although a recipient of Yahweh’s abundant, tender care, has rebelled against her father (suzerain) (Isa 1:2) and faces severe judgment (1:28) (Carpenter).

A few (of many available) examples that well illustrate this theme:

Hos 7:13:

  Woe to them, for they have strayed (or fled) from me!

          Destruction to them, for they have rebelled (pšʿ) against me!

Hos 8:1:

  because they have transgressed (lit. passed by) my covenant

          and rebelled (pšʿ)  against my law.

Isa 1:2:

  Children have I reared and brought up,

          but they have rebelled (pšʿ) against me.

Rebellion is thus central to pšʿ.

The OP further asks:

  Are there any passages which define or equate sin and rebellion?

Other answers have given many relevant conceptual parallels, the connection with Genesis 3 (which uses neither of these terms!4 ) being the strongest in my mind. This is summarized by Bloesch:

  It should be acknowledged that sin entails both privation and positive rebellion, but the latter is prior to the former. "The origin of pride," says the prophet, "is to forsake the Lord, man's heart revolting against his Maker" (Ecclesiasticus 10:12 NEB).

To expand on this idea with a bit of lexical precision, I will just point out that, although they certainly emphasize different aspects of sin, the Biblical writers recognized close connections between ḥṭʾ, pšʿ, and other terms in this semantic domain (most prominently ʿwn). Isaiah states this directly in terms of their common end (1:28):

  But rebels (pšʿ) and sinners (ḥṭʾ) shall be broken together,

          and those who forsake the LORD shall be consumed.

The Psalms include repeated rehearsals of synonymous parallelism using these two terms. This is often formulated in terms of Yahweh's grace, which, as with his punishment, applies "together" to every brand of evil entertained among men:

  I acknowledged my sin (ḥṭʾ) to you,
                 and I did not cover my iniquity (ʿwn);
       I said, “I will confess my transgressions (pšʿ) to the LORD,”
                and you forgave the iniquity (ʿwn) of my sin (ḥṭʾ). (Psalm 32:5)

Notes

 All English is ESV unless otherwise stated.

1. There are, of course, many other terms. See, Trench, "Synonyms of the New Testament",  p. 239ff, for an extensive discussion. As pointed out by Silva (NIDTTE) and undoubtedly many others with modern linguistic sensitivities, the etymological distinctions drawn out there are not necessarily meaningful with respect to NT usage. Silva, regarding the dominance of ἁμαρτία + cognates:

  [U]sing the language of semantic hierarchy, ἁμαρτία may be viewed, with some qualifications, as the superordinate of the other nouns, which are its hyponyms... But more important, within a theological framework, ἁμαρτία becomes for the NT writers the key term to express the fallen human condition.

2. Excerpted from NIDOTTE's index of semantic fields:  אָוֶן (mischief, iniquity, deception, H224); חָטָא (sin, commit a sin, purify, H2627...); עָוָה (do wrong, pervert, H6390...); עָוַל (act wrongly, H6401...); פָּשַׁע (rebel, violate, transgress, H7321...)

3. Like ḥṭʾ, pšʿ has both noun and verb forms that are both very common. Both also can be used as participles: "sinner", "rebel", etc. I have represented all of these with the root consonants here.

4. In fact, none of the common words for "sin" is used in the Gen 1-11 saga that is so formative for the Hebrew notion of sin, with the single exception of Gen 4:7 (as if we needed another source of obscurity in that verse).

References

"ἁμαρτάνω". New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis. Ed. Moises Silva. Zondervan, 2014.

Donald G. Bloesch. Essentials of Evangelical Theology. Prince Press, 1978; 1:93.

Eugene Carpenter, Michael Grisanti. "פשע", New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Ed. Willem A. Wangemeren. Zondervan, 1992; 3:705.

Robin C. Cover. "Sin", Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, Ed. David Noel Freedman. YUP, 1992.

Alex Luc. "חטא", New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis.  Ed. Willem A. Wangemeren. Zondervan, 1992; 2:90ff.


What priesthood did the line of Adam from Seth to Melchizedek and Noah hold in LDS/Mormon teaching?

The crux of this question seems to lie in the final paragraph:

  So, what specific priesthood did the line of Adam from Seth to Noah
  hold that would have to predate the other two priesthoods by at least
  four centuries?

The confusion leading to this question is cleared up in Doctrine and Covenants, section 107:

  2 Why the first [order of Priesthood] is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because
  Melchizedek was such a great high priest.

  3 Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order
  of the Son of God.

  4 But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being,
  to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in
  ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the
  Melchizedek Priesthood.

Therefore, the Priesthood from the time of Adam to Noah was the Melchizedek Priesthood; it just wasn't called that yet.


Does the Seal of Confession include saying whether or not a person confessed to them?

No, a priest cannot even reveal that because it would betray the penitent.

Can.  983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner [e.g., by signs] and for any reason.
Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.§2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.

Technically, a priest can reveal good things about a penitent he has heard in confession. This is what St. Catherine of Siena's confessor Bl. Raymond of Capua was able to do in his biography of St. Catherine; ibid. pt. 1, ch. 2 fn 1:

“The virtues and graces of the penitent are not matters for the seal [of Confession], provided they are not manifested in order more clearly to declare the sins themselves, e.g., the gravity of ingratitude towards God*.” (Emphasis in original). (Jone, Moral Theology, no. 618, Imprimatur 1961; TAN reprint 1993).—Publisher, 2003.

* ∵ the more graces one has, the greater his ingratitude could be


How do Protestants understand the "unforgivable" sin?

Protestants basically fall into three main camps, claiming that the unpardonable sin is:

attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to the devil; or,
refusal to repent even to the end of one's life; or,
hatefully and willfully slandering the Holy Spirit's testimony of Christ.

Within (3), there are three views regarding who can commit the sin: 3a) only the regenerate (saved), 3b) both regenerate and unregenerate (unsaved), and 3c) only the unregenerate.

(1) Some, particularly dispensationalists like Lewis S. Chafer, take the view (also held by Jerome and Chrysostom) that the unpardonable sin could only be performed during Jesus' time on earth, since the sin specifically "consisted in asserting that Christ’s works, which were wrought by the Holy Spirit, were accomplished on the contrary by Satan."1  Charismatics like J. Rodman Williams similarly view it as the "utterly perverse ascription of the work of God to Satan," but argue that it can still be committed today.2

(2) The second position was held by Augustine,3 some early Lutherans, and several Scottish theologians.  One of the latter was Thomas Chalmers, who writes that "it is a sin which can be charged upon every man who has put the overtures of forgiveness away from him."  Expressing his disagreement with other views, he writes:

  So that this sin, looked upon by many as the sin of one particular age, or, if possible to realise it in the present day, as only to be met with in a few solitary instances of enourmous and unexpiable transgression, is the very sin upon which may be made to turn the condemnation and the ruin of the existing majority of our species.4

(3) The third position is held by later Lutherans, Arminians, and Calvinists.  The Lutherans espouse the first subdivision, the Arminians the second, and Calvinists the third.

(3a) Lutheran John Mueller explains that the sin is "committed only when the Holy Spirit has clearly revealed the divine truth to the sinner and the sinner nevertheless utters blasphemies against it."5  He notes that most dogmaticians6 in his tradition "teach that the sin against the Holy Ghost can be committed only by those who were regernerated," with the exception of those who argue that it can also occur in the unregenerate "in the very moment when the Holy Ghost is about to convert them."

(3b) The second subdivision, that either regenerate or unregenerate can commit the sin, is held by Arminians.  Jacobus Arminius described the sin as the "rejection and refusing of Jesus Christ through determined malice and hatred against Christ [...] against conscience."7

(3c) The third subdivision (only the unregenerate commit the sin) is believed by those in the reformed tradition, like John Calvin and Louis Berkhof. Calvin writes that the sin is committed by those "whose consciences, though convinced that what they repudiate and impugn is the Word of God, yet cease not to impugn it,"8 but that "he who has been truly regenerated by the Spirit cannot possibly fall into so horrid a crime."9 Berkhof's definition reads:

  The sin consists in the conscious, malicious, and wilful rejection and slandering, against evidence and conviction, of the testimony of the Holy Spirit respecting the grace of God in Christ, attributing it out of hatred and enmity to the prince of darkness.10

Notes and References: Berkhof and Combs provide helpful summaries; Combs in particular includes additional quotes, including some from church fathers and medieval theologians, and a review of how modern theologians fall into the camps above.

Combs, William W., "The Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit," Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal (2004), p64–67.
Williams, Renewal Theology, Volume I, p256.
Cited in Aquinas, Summa Theologica.
Chalmers, "On the Nature of the Sin against the Holy Ghost" (alt source, p192).  More from Chalmers on this is available in his Institutes of Theology, Vol. II, Lecture 4 (p472).
Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, p233.
A number of quotes are given in Schmid, Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, p276–77.
Arminius, Works of James Arminius, Volume 2, p528–29.  For who can commit the sin, see p523–24.  (Alternate source)
Calvin, Institutes, Book 3, Chapter 3, 22.
Calvin, Harmony of the Gospels, Vol. 2.
Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 2.2.4, p252–54.


How does Jesus' death and resurrection save humanity?

The atonement theology is a complicated one to explain. To the believers, it is a simple acceptance of one's imperfection and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ the perfect one to render us perfect in the eyes of God. To the unbelievers, it is foolishness that God would become human to die for their sins.

  For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are
  perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1
  Corinthians 1:18, NIV)

Some facts from the Bible,

The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23)
All have sinned (Romans 3:23)
All must die because all have sinned (Romans 5:12)

"Sin entered the world through one man"
Sin is like a deadly disease which infected the first man Adam and the effect continued down to all generations. There was no death before the fall of man in the garden of Eden. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate the fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden, sin entered the world and death along with it, for the wages of sin is death. Man is now sinful and cannot be with God.

  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death
  through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all
  sinned. (Romans 5:12, NIV)

"The blood of Christ is the remedy for sins"
Man cannot create a cure from sin. Man cannot do anything to stop sinning. Only God can cure us from our sickness. The medicine to cure sin and death is the Blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Only the blood of Christ can cleanse us from all sins.

  But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship
  with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from
  all sin. (1 John 1:7, NIV)

"Christ died for us" Jesus Christ not only poured out His blood but also gave His life. The death penalty of sin was also paid by Jesus by dying on the cross.

  But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still
  sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8, NIV)

"Christ defeated death" After receiving the death penalty, Jesus again rose from the death to declare victory over death. The resurrection of Christ enables us to share in His resurrection.

  And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is
  your faith. (1 Corinthians 15:14, NIV)

  For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will
  certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. (Romans
  6:5, NIV)

"We will be resurrected like Christ" The main purpose of the death and resurrection of Christ is that, one day we will be resurrected like Christ to live forever with God and there will be no more death. God will cleanse us from all our sins by the blood of Christ and we will be transformed to immortality.

  Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will
  all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last
  trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised
  imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must
  clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.
  When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the
  mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come
  true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”
   “Where, O death, is your victory?
      Where, O death, is your sting?” (1 Corinthians 15:51-55, NIV)

"Why does someone without sin need to be punished in order to atone for another person's sins?" It's not only the punishment that plays the main role here.

It's the blood of Christ which can wash away our sins and make us perfect like Jesus Christ.
It's the resurrection of Christ which gives us victory over death.
It's the wounds of Christ which give us healing.
It's the punishments received by Christ which liberates us from the eternal punishment of Hell.

The whole idea is,

"You cannot save yourself from sin and death, you need God to do that for you".


Why does Jesus feel only certain people that come into physical contact with Him?

As Jesus Himself said Luke 8:46:

  I know that power has gone out from me.

So presumably He noticed the touch because at the same moment power had gone from Him.

So to answer the rest of your question, why only this person? Here it helps to notice that this story is also told in Matthew 9:18-26 and Mark 5:21-43, because they draw out different details. (By the way, the quote in your question ends before the relevant verse - the full story is in Luke 8:40-56.)

In Luke (v48) we read that Jesus said to her:

  “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace.”

And this faith is further detailed in the other Gospels, Matthew 9:21:

  She said to herself, “If I only touch his cloak, I will be healed.”

(See also Mark 5:28.)

Summary: her faith caused the power to go out from Jesus, which caused Him to notice the touch.

To answer your other questions:

Can we concluded anything about the other people who touched Him, where He didn't feel anything like that? Only that they did not touch Him in faith, expecting healing. Indeed, they were a crowd doing what crowds do - crowding (Mark 5:31).
Were they all not in need of any health that touching Him had no effect on them or Him, does it mean they were all unbelievers, incapable of understanding what Jesus was trying to tell them or something else? The text doesn't tell us. The fact that this woman alone (of the crowd) is mentioned as an example in the three Gospels implies that she was indeed an exception - the only one who touched Jesus in faith.


Where did the idea that Catholics can have a break from their Lenten discipline on Sunday originate?

In the previous century Laws concerning Fasting and Abstinence have changed considerably and at different intervals.

Pope St John XXIII altered the rules for fasting and abstinence in 1966 with his Apostolic Constitution PAENITEMINI.

  II. 1. The time of Lent preserves its penitential character. The days of penitence to be observed under obligation throughout the Church are all Fridays and Ash Wednesday, that is to say the first days of "Grande Quaresima" (Great Lent), according to the diversity of the rites. Their substantial observance binds gravely.

  Apart from the faculties referred to in VI and VIII regarding the manner of fulfilling the precept of penitence on such days, abstinence is to be observed on every Friday which does not fall on a day of obligation, while abstinence and fast is to be observed on Ash Wednesday or, according to the various practices of the rites, on the first day of "Grande Quaresima" (Great Lent) and on Good Friday.

More Closer to home for you in Wisconsin can be seen here:

  In the USA:

  In Paenitemini, Pope Paul VI gave authority to the episcopal conferences on how the universal rules would be applied in their region. On November 18, 1966, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops legislated the following to be observed in the United States:

  •Abstinence is obligatory on all Fridays of Lent, except Solemnities (i.e., I Class Feasts).

  •Fasting and abstinence are obligatory on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

  •Abstinence on all Fridays, though not obligatory under pain of sin, is “especially recommended.”

  •Fasting on all weekdays of Lent, though not obligatory under pain of sin, is “strongly recommended.”

  The local ordinaries also have authority to grant dispensations from these rules within their dioceses.

All this being seen and more through the Church's legislation on fasting and abstinence, there is nothing stated officially as to what the faithful must or must not give up during Lent as a form of penance. As I mentioned in my comment I know many Catholics in various countries that practice giving something up for the entire Lenten season, while some follow the Sunday exception rule, seeing that Sundays have never been a day of fasting in the Church.

Where the idea that Catholics can have a break from their personal Lenten disciplines on Sunday originate, I fear can not be traced to a specific place or time since it was most subtle in coming about.


Why do Jehovah's Witnesses have a problem with my relationship with one of their members?

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses he really shouldn't even be dating anyone outside the congregation either since dating is a precursor to marriage.

tacosalad is correct, that is the reason we do not marry outside our faith. The scripture that really elaborates on this is 2 Corinthians 6:14

  "Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers. For what fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what sharing does light have with darkness?"

What this means is that our beliefs are not compatible with other religions. A good example from the bible is king Solomon. He married wives that worshiped pagan gods. In time he too started to worship them and was punished for it. By marrying only in the lord we don't have to worry about distractions that may lead us astray.

Our perception and understanding of God and Jesus is different than the Catholic standpoint. We don't believe in the trinity, hell, that most of us will not be going to heaven, so on.

Ask yourself this: What will we teach our children? What are we going to do about holidays? (We don't celebrate the holidays.)

If you were to study with the intent of becoming baptized then it would be OK for you to date. However, you would not be able to get married in a Kingdom Hall until both of you are baptized witnesses.

I am surprised that the elders haven't counselled him about this. Unless that is they don't know.....

You are correct in your last question. 'Do JW see other Christians as unbelievers?', we see other religions as false. 2 Timothy 3:1-5

  "But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2  For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3  having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4  betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5  having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away."

I suggest you both go to your respective spiritual leaders and ask for their advice. The longer you let this play out the more heartache if things go south. I wish you the best in dealing with this situation.