What evidence is there that the genealogies in the early part of Genesis refer to tribes instead of individuals?

The evidence that the genealogies in the early part of Genesis refer to tribes instead of individuals is disarmingly simple. It is seen especially clearly in Genesis 10, which is commonly referred to as the Table of Nations. Here is the introductory verse of the chapter:

  This is the account of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, Noah's sons, who themselves had sons after the flood. (Genesis 10:1)

What follows is, in fact, a listing of names of races, nations, and tribes, all organized as a series of three genealogies of Noah's three sons: first of Japheth (Genesis 10:2-5), then of Ham (Genesis 10:6-20), then of Shem (Genesis 10:21-31). The chapter ends with this summary:

  These are the clans of Noah's sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood. (Genesis 10:32)

So although Genesis 10 is in the form of a genealogy of the descendants of Noah's three sons, the names in the genealogy are identified with the nations that repopulated the earth after the Great Flood had destroyed all of humanity except for Noah, his sons, and their wives.

So the basic evidence that the genealogies in the early part of Genesis refer to races, nations, and tribes is that the names in the main organizing genealogy in Genesis 10 are the names of races, nations, and tribes, and are associated with them in the genealogy itself.

Here is a visual representation of the Table of Nations in Genesis 10 in which the various names are placed in their most likely geographical regions on a map of the ancient Biblical world:

As graphically represented on this map:

Japheth represents the races inhabiting Asia Minor (roughly present-day Turkey) and the surrounding areas of Europe and Asia to its west, north, east, and southeast.
Ham represents the races inhabiting northeastern Africa and adjoining parts of Palestine and the Arabian Peninsula.
Shem represents the races inhabiting the northern and eastern parts of the Fertile Crescent, and the bulk of the Arabian Peninsula.

The names in these three genealogies are a catalog of all the major nations and races of the ancient Biblical world within these general racial groups. Some of them figure prominently in the Bible story, such as Egypt and Canaan in the genealogy of Ham, and Ashur (Assyria) and Eber (an ancestor of Abraham) in the genealogy of Shem. Others are mentioned only occasionally elsewhere in the Bible narrative.

The main point is that these names are the names of races, nations, and tribes, arranged in the form of a genealogy showing their origins and interrelationships with one another. This is the basic "evidence" that the genealogies in the early chapters of Genesis refer to races, nations, and tribes. They simply do refer to races, nations, and tribes.

From Genesis 10 we can project the same principles to the earlier chapters of Genesis, making it very likely that the earlier genealogies, such as the one in Genesis 5, also refer to whole races and nations of people that inhabited the earlier, pre-Flood world.

And as Dick Harfield's answer points out, some scholars believe that figures in later genealogies, including the twelve sons of Jacob, also represent tribes rather than individuals.

The Table of Nations in Genesis 10, then, provides the key to the identification of the genealogies of Genesis as being genealogies of races, nations, and tribes rather than the genealogies of individual human beings.


What are the different "Marks of the Church" of Christian denominations?

Every mark of every church is potentially a tall order. I'll count the major branches as Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, and Reformed.

Lutherans say that "The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered" (Augsburg Confession, Article VII).

Roman Catholics say that "'This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic.' These four characteristics, inseparably linked with each other, indicate essential features of the Church and her mission. The Church does not possess them of herself; it is Christ who, through the Holy Spirit, makes his Church one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, and it is he who calls her to realize each of these qualities." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 811).

Reformed say that "The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults" (Belgic Confession, Article 29).

The Eastern Orthodox also use the Nicene formula "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic." I haven't fully explored the difference between EO and RC usage of the word "catholic."

Anglicans have historically said that "The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same" (Articles of Religion, XIX).


Is the LDS observance of the Sabbath on Sunday based on revelation?

According to fairmormon.org:

  Latter-day Saints do not base their worship practices on an analysis
  of early Christian history, or on the comments of scholars in Biblical
  commentaries, though these sources can confirm Church teachings.
  Rather, the Saints follow the guidance of a living prophet. However,
  it seems clear that the Latter-day Saint practice of observing the day
  of rest and worship on Sunday—like most of the Christian world—is
  consistent with the earliest Christian practice of which we have
  record.

See Brian's answer

  Interestingly, however, the most important aspect of Sabbath worship
  for the LDS seems to be the worship, and not the day on which it is
  held. Most LDS worship occurs on Sunday. General Authorities, who must
  often travel on conference assignments on Sunday, fast and receive the
  sacrament weekly on Thursdays. Church branches in Israel worship on
  Saturday. Branches in Muslim countries, such as Egypt, meet on Friday,
  the Muslim holy day. Wrote one account of the Church in Israel:

  Jerusalem is home to three major religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. None of the three shares the same day of worship. Islam
  recognizes Friday as a holy day, Judaism celebrates the Sabbath on
  Saturday, while Christianity generally adheres to a Sunday day of
  worship. These differences posed significant challenges in the lives
  of the Saints living in the Holy Land, and David Galbraith posed
  questions regarding this matter to President Lee during the Prophet's
  visit to Jerusalem [in September 1972].

  Following President Lee's visit, branch president David Galbraith wrote a letter to the First Presidency wherein he outlined four major
  concerns and formally recommended that the day of worship for
  Latter-day Saints in the Holy Land be changed. The four concerns were
  as follows: First, for the Jews, public transportation ceases on
  Saturday, stores and places of entertainment are closed, and in
  Jerusalem the streets are full of families going to and from their
  synagogues. Second, Sunday, on the other hand, is a normal working
  day. Those attending the universities have classes, many of the
  children have school, and, in fact, everyone except those in the
  diplomatic corps have other obligations on that day. Third, the
  members were scattered throughout the country, and the majority relied
  on public transportation. It would be impossible to hold late
  afternoon or evening services on Sunday. Fourth, the members of the
  Church had been holding their meetings on the Jewish Sabbath rather
  than Sunday for some time with at least the tacit approval of the
  mission.

  Two months after President Harold B. Lee's visit to the Holy Land, he authorized President David Galbraith to conduct worship services in
  Israel on the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday). This authorization is dated
  November 20, 1972. This decision in Israel served as a precedent to
  include Friday observance as a day of worship in countries of
  primarily Islamic populations, such as Egypt and Jordan.

Note that this is not an official source, but I have no real reason to doubt that this event happened as reported.

To finish, it seems like there is no clear commandment in Doctrine and Covenants to hold the sunday as Sabbath, but we do hold the sunday as Sabbath because the prophets have taught us so - and it seems to be consistent with the NT, or in other words, that has been the prophets' understanding of the scriptures so far (see Brian's answer).


Are my feelings altered when I enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

Can one be happy in Heaven, with loved ones in Hell?

Yes!

  He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death'
  or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed
  away." (Revelation 21:4, NIV)

If we would still be weeping in Heaven because our loved ones are in Hell, it won't be Heaven at all. Heaven is a place where there are no more tears, no more sorrows and the past is forgotten.

Peter Kreeft, a prominent theologian says,

  We know there is no sadness in Heaven: God "will wipe away every tear
  from their eyes" (Rev. 7:17). I think we will not be sad about the
  damned for the same reason God is not. According to the Sermon on the
  Mount, he will say to them, "I never knew you" (Matt. 7:23). God
  will wipe our memories clean. This is not falsehood or ignorance,
  but truth, for in a sense, the damned no longer are—that is, they no
  longer are in the most real place of all, Heaven. They no longer
  count. They are like ashes, not like wood. They once were fully human,
  fully alive, real men and women. But hell is a place not of eternal
  life but of eternal death. We do not love or weep over ashes; we only
  love or weep over the thing that existed before it was burnt. In
  Heaven, however, we will not live in the past—we will have no regrets;
  nor will we live in the future—we will have no fears; but like God, we
  will live in the eternal present. Our heavenly emotions will be
  appropriate to present reality, not past reality.

  7. If we have emotions in Heaven, why won't we be sad about those we loved who are in
  hell?

It is indeed sorrowful to know that some of our loved ones whom we fail to bring to Christ will go to Hell. However, this should motivate us to witness Christ to our loved ones and pray sincerely for them.

  Many people have wondered how those in heaven could ever be truly
  happy, especially with the knowledge that unsaved loved ones were in
  hell. We do not know the full answer, but we do know what the Bible
  says concerning God’s people: “He [God] will wipe every tear from
  their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain,
  for the old order of things has passed away” (Revelation 21:4).

  We can be sure that with the presence of the Lord, the fellowship of
  believers, and the wonders of eternity, there will be no sorrow in
  heaven.

  We also know that God is perfectly just, and those who are in heaven
  will have every confidence that whatever has happened at the final
  judgment has been totally just and right. The terrible possibility
  that our loved ones might miss heaven should motivate us to earnestly
  pray and lovingly witness to them while there is still time in this
  life for them to experience salvation. (Billy Graham)


Are priests who committed a sin together able to validly administer the Sacrament of Reconciliation to each other?

The case you describe is explicitly forbidden and declared invalid in canon law. (The sixth commandment is against adultery.)

can. 977 CIC The absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is invalid except in danger of death.

Additionally a violation of this rule is punished by one of the most severe sentence of the church.

can. 1378 §1 CIC A priest who acts against the prescript of can. 977 incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

So in the case described in the question both participants did not get the absolution, but incured (without a extra process) excommunication with all its severe consequences. (Something else may apply if there was an extenuating circumstance we do not know of, can. 1324 § 3 CIC. This may be relevant esp. for the victim of the sexual abuse.)
As this is explicitly regulated for sins against the sixth commandment and there is no similiar norm for other sins, the absolution of a participant in any other sin is valid. I fully agree that it is not a good idea to do that.
The norm dates back to the apostolic constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae of Pope Benedict XIV. 1741. In this constitution he ruled comprehensivly about sexual relations in context of confession.
The rule was retained in the CIC 1917. When the current CIC 1983 was draftet, there were discussion whether to expand this to all mortal sins or at least to abortion. They leaved it as it was, having in mind the specific historic situation of Sacramentum Poenitentiae and the freedom of choosing a confessor for the faithful (see can. 991 CIC). Seemingly they saw only a necessity for such a rule in the case of sins against the sixth commandment.

My source for the historic explanation is: Althaus, Commentary on can. 977 CIC. in: Klaus Lüdicke (Ed.): Münsterischer Kommentar zum Codex Iuris Canonici. unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Rechtslage in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. Ludgerus Verlag. Essen, Germany (state: Juanuary 2008)


According to the Catholic Church in her recent pronouncements, what is the order of truths to which the believer adheres?

Since this question has gone unanswered for some time, I will take a stab at it.

Levels of Magisterial Teaching is not the same thing as a hierarchy of truths.

Levels of Magisterial Teaching refers to the level of authority of the person or group giving the teaching and the circumstances under which it is given. So, for instance, the pope issuing a solemn ex cathedra document is accorded an infallible level of Magisterial Teaching. From elsewhere on the web:

  The three levels of teaching are:

  1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine
  and Catholic faith.

  2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial
  faith, to be "firmly embraced and held".

  3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual
  assent ("loyal submission of the will and intellect", Vatican II, (Lumen
  Gentium 25), not an assent of faith.

The phrase a "hierarchy" of truths (quotes in the original) occurs in the second chapter of the document UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO, otherwise known as the DECREE ON ECUMENISM, a Vatican II document, in the following paragraph:

  Moreover, in ecumenical dialogue, Catholic theologians standing fast
  by the teaching of the Church and investigating the divine mysteries
  with the separated brethren must proceed with love for the truth, with
  charity, and with humility. When comparing doctrines with one another,
  they should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists a
  "hierarchy" of truths, since they vary in their relation to the
  fundamental Christian faith. Thus the way will be opened by which
  through fraternal rivalry all will be stirred to a deeper
  understanding and a clearer presentation of the unfathomable riches of
  Christ.(34)

It's clear from the context that a "hierarchy" of truths is referring to the centrality of the content of a teaching to the Catholic faith. Doctrines related to the person of Jesus Christ are more central to the faith than doctrines related to church discipline, for example.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church starting at paragraph 80 makes clear that there is only one source of divine revelation, and we are obliged to adhere to everything that comes to us from the apostles without any order of importance or consideration of authority:

  II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

  One common source. . .

  80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely
  together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them,
  flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some
  fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of
  them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ,
  who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the
  age".41

  . . . two distinct modes of transmission

  81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing
  under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

  "And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which
  has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy
  Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that,
  enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve,
  expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

  82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation
  of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all
  revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and
  Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of
  devotion and reverence."44

  Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

  83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on
  what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they
  learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did
  not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself
  demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

  Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological,
  disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local
  churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to
  different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed.
  In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified
  or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.


Are there any Christian sects that allow for the existence of other "God" claims?

I suppose some would consider Unitarian Universalists to be a Christian sect, and they certainly allow for belief in other gods.


Did Origen castrate himself under a literal interpretation of Matthew 19:12?

This has been debated, so no one knows for sure. The consensus of the scholars seems to be that this was a malicious rumor about him, possibly started by Demetrios, the Bishop of Alexandria, a prosecutor of Origen.

John McGuckin's Westminster Handbook to Origen states that someone who interpreted the Gospels so allegorically would be unlikely to have interpreted Matthew 19:12 so literally and that in Origen's commentary on Matthew, he himself derides the literal interpretation of the eunuch and says only an idiot would consider that. Origen doesn't use the word "idiot," but you can read his derision for the interpretation in his Commentary on Matthew 15.1-5.

The castration story comes from the historian Eusebius of Caesarea. Eusebius, the church historian who lived a generation after Origen, devotes nearly all of Book VI of his Ecclesiastical History to the life of Origen. While some scholars have cast doubt on the reliability of this source due to the author's obvious admiration for his subject and the work's loving hagiographical tone, most do not believe these factors are reason for doubting Eusebius' reports. However, why take Eusebius' account over Origen's own words?

A nice account can be found here: http://houseoftheinklings.blogspot.com/2006/09/on-origen.html


I would say they erred on the side of caution. Your baptism is fully valid in the Catholic Church and since you are mature enough to distinguish the Eucharist from regular food you have every right to partake.

However, because you were raised in a Baptist church, you did not receive a Catholic education nor did you have a Catholic confirmation. (In fact the Baptists do not Confirm since they do not baptize infants.) I also assume that you did not perform the sacrament of penance before taking Communion. Therefore, you partaking could present the appearance of impropriety. If you intend to continue worshiping in the Catholic church you should discuss taking the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults with a priest. This will include education, Penance, Confirmation, and Communion.


Proverbs 9:10 and Isaiah 33:6 are referring to the fear of offending the Lord or sinning.

I believe in Genesis 15:1 God is telling Abraham that he does not need to have fear, because he did a good thing by rejecting the king of Sodom's reward in Genesis 14:21-24.

The Catholic Bible states it pretty well when it says, "Lastly, the gift of fear fills us with a sovereign respect for God, and makes us dread, above all things, to offend Him."

This is saying that we should have so much respect for God that we should fear ever offending him.  While the source is Catholic, I don't necessarily take it as a Catholic only stance.

Some say we should fear the Lord's wrath, but I believe the wrath alone should not be why we fear sinning.  It should also be out of love and respect for the Lord.


To whom the Election applied according to the Calvinist (TULIP)?

God’s Sovereign Election applies to every human being ever born.  That does not mean that every human being ever born will be saved, and universal salvation is not supported within the Five Points of Calvinism.  God’s election means that from before the founding of the world God had predestined whom He would call and that God foreknew who the elect would be.
As far back as the 5th century the basic doctrines of the Calvinistic position had been vigorously defended by Augustine against Pelagius.   The five points of Calvinism (formulated in answer to the five points submitted by the Arminians) was ratified by the Synod of Dort in 1619. Here are a few partial quotes from the book, The Five Points of Calvinism by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing in 1963:

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION (pages 16-17): “God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will...  God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected...  Thus God’s choice of the sinner, not the sinner’s choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation.”
PARTICULAR REDEMTION OR LIMITED ATONEMENT (page 17): “Christ’s redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them.  His death was a substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners.”
LIMITED ATONEMENT (pages 53-54): “The gospel invitation extends a general outward call to salvation to all who hear the message.  In addition to the external call, the Holy Spirit extends a special inward call to the elect only.  The general call of the gospel can be, and often is, rejected, but the special call of the Spirit cannot be rejected; it always results in the conversion of those to whom it was made.”
“All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, is he pleased in his appointed and  accepted time, effectually to call by his word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ.” (The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 10, Section 1)

Some the Scriptures used to support these beliefs include Romans 1:6-7; 8:30; 9:23-24; Galatians 1:15-16; Ephesians 4:4; 2 Timothy 1:9; Hebrews 9:15; Jude verse 1.  Regarding the role of the Holy Spirit in the work of salvation see Romans 8:14; 1 Corinthians 12:3; 1 Peter 1:2; John 1:12-13.
Not everyone is elected unto salvation.  I hope this helps to clarify the Calvinistic view of Election.


I believe the reason people remember Sodom & Gomorrah for the sexual immorality may be due to:

The account in Genesis 19 where the men of the town wanted to have relations with the two angels that were spending the night at Lot's house.
The word sodomy creates a huge link to Sodom & Gomorrah.

So yes, the traditional interpretation as you say is focused on the sexual immorality, but Ezekiel reminds us of what the Lord tells Abraham in Genesis 18:20-21

  20 So the Lord told Abraham, "I have heard a great outcry from Sodom
  and Gomorrah, because their sin is so flagrant. 21 I am going down to
  see if their actions are as wicked as I have heard. If not, I want to
  know." (NKJV)

A few verses later God concedes to Abraham and says, "For the sake of ten I will not destroy it,"  which leads us to believe that not only were the people so wicked in Sodom, but not even 10 were found to be righteous.


In light of grace, How does a Christian consider the devotedness of Muslims and Jews?

Find the most dedicated Jew or Muslim and you probably won’t find anyone more dedicated to God under his moral Laws than the Apostle Paul before he became a Christian.  Paul said he was blamelessly devoted to God before knowing Christ but after becoming a Christian he counted all that devotion as mere rubbish:

If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more:  circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless. But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ.
But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ.  What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ (NIV Philippians 3:4-9 Bold mine)

Pharisees in the Bible were precisely known for the ‘incredible and exceptional level of devotion to God’, a level of devotion which most could not personally dare to imagine or undergo.
We sometime forget how dedicated they were and how much respect they obtained from the general population for that 'holy behaviour'. We forget this wisely, because Jesus said doing holy things for God for the respect that man will provide is evil. This respect you have is what a self-righteous person works for, so they would be very happy to hear you speak this way. However, Jesus looked at it quit differently. If good works are not done by faith in Messiah, they are not done by faith in God. Also anything that is not done by faith is sin, therefore all good deeds done in unbelief is not good at all -- it is sin -- and the deadliest kind -- for it makes a person self-righteous.

everything that does not come from faith is sin. (NIV Romans 14:23)
And without faith it is impossible to please God (NIV Hebrews 11:6)

Jesus took a different view to those 'committed to God', but were not committed to faith in Him, for the forgiveness of their terrible and huge sins.
Religious people without faith in Christ can be very dedicated in converting others to their zeal for God:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are. (NIV Mathew 23:15)

Religious people without faith in Christ can sacrifice many material things in their devotion to God:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. (NIV Mathew 23:23)

Religious people without faith in Christ can sacrifice impress others by outwards commitments to God, but their unrepentant hearts by rejecting Christ shows the true state of their inwards perversity:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. (NIV Mathew 23:25)

Religious people without faith in Christ seem like very good people and its sometime hard to tell what is going on inside but Christ shocked everyone by having a fiery discernment:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. (NIV Mathew 23:27)

I could keep going and going but I think you get the point.
Some of these highly impressive people who were extremely dedicated to God at the times of the Apostles had doubts whether Jesus was the Messiah, or not. Some had converted to Christianity but not with real sincere faith yet. Their religious convictions and how they perceived the faith of their holy forefathers made them seriously doubt the gospel. There were struggling with a deadly poison - unbelief. It was a heaven, or hell, tuype of decicision.
The Epistle to the Hebrews (Jewish people) was written to them, to ensure they do not get confused. In that Epistle we find some of the most severe warnings in all of scripture, because turning away from Christ to Judaism is exposing your soul to the danger of hell – with a sort of 'fast track' direction. For having been exposed to the truth anf grace of Christ and then rejecting it! and turning to another religion is possibly the greatest sin a man can commit.

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth (i.e. turn away from faith in Christ and return to Judaism), no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them (i.e. disrespecting the blood that brought them into an external knowledge of the gospel, offering them eternal life which they were about to possibly reject!!), and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?  For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people. ”It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (NIV Hebrews 10:26-31 Italics mine)

So you see there is nothing here but a disappointing answer. The Bible does not just sprinkle sugar on all our fears and worries. Sometimes it says something pretty tough, and I know this can be very hard at times. The Bible has knocked me down many times, but God’s love pulls me back up! The Bible wants us to 'hang in there' and 'do not get discouraged' about all this. Gods grace is much bigger than our sins, whether they are ‘white’ sins of self-righteousness like those in religion, or those lesser evils, those ‘black’ sins of sexual perversity, drunkenness, greed for money, etc.


What is the difference of icon veneration between various Christian confessions?

From catholic perspective, an icon is a symbol, nothing more. you do not pray to it, but ask for the intersession (of the depicted individual perhaps) for you.

@Andremoniy, I think there is already a lot of good summaries of this on the web, you can probably compile a smaller summary, and ask people to verify if it seems accurate to them.


What does it mean to judge the fatherless?

The KJV uses judge, whereas the others use 'Defend', 'relieve', 'take up the cause of'.

The use of the word judge in the KJV relates ushering them judgments,  similar to a court of law.  Not all judgments are punishment, however.  If you were taking someone to court and won, the judge would rule in your favor. Similarly, when judgments in every day life are done, we judge in thus sense, positive or negative.

Judge, in this case,  indicates helping them.  Do them good, help them get what they can't get on their own, or is harder.  Hence, defend, relieve, and plead the cause of.


Have witches ever been executed by the Eastern Orthodox Church?

Most early Eastern theologians didn't believe in witches (technically, neither did Western theologians, as is evidenced by Canon Episcopi), but most common folk did. Without getting into the confounded history of witch-burning, it is generally held that theologians prior to the 10th century did not believe in witches. The 9th century Canon Episcopi that I mentioned is interpreted by modern historians to be a renunciation of the existence of witches, not of witchcraft itself (the bible sufficiently denounces witchcraft). For various reasons, medieval Western society changed their tune and began burning witches.

According to Stephen Hayes (the link is now dead but clicking here will take you to an online archive),

  It is perhaps significant that the persecution of witches began in the
  West after the Great Schism of 1054. In parts of the Orthodox East, at
  least, witch hunts such as those experienced in other parts of Europe
  were unknown (Stewart 1991:38). The Orthodox Church is strongly
  critical of sorcerers (among whom it includes palmists, fortune
  tellers and astrologers), but has not generally seen the remedy in
  accusations, trials and secular penalties, but rather in confession
  and repentance, and exorcism if necessary (Stewart 1991:212f).

  I have tried to show that the process of accusation, trial, sentencing
  and execution of alleged witches is not a typical Christian reaction
  to witchcraft. It was practically unknown in Christendom for the first
  ten centuries. It then gradually appeared in certain parts of the
  Christian world, but not in others. It lasted for about 600 years,
  though the last 200 years of this period were the worst, after which
  it suddenly disappeared. Such behaviour was fairly common in
  pre-Christian societies, but was altered when those societies became
  Christianised.

The article goes on to elaborate on Orthodoxy and its response to witches (hint: it didn't burn them). The source continually referenced by Hayes in the above quote is:

Stewart, Charles. 1991. Demons and the devil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

I highly doubt that the Eastern Orthodox Church ever executed witches (and I have not found any sources indicating that they did). It is far more likely that they tried to lead witches to repentance.


What is the biblical basis for the belief that man is no longer made in God's image?

In this particular broadcast (I provided a link in my comment - fast forward to around 9:10), Pastor Rogers claims that although Adam was made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26), Scripture later states - in Genesis 5:3 - that Adam begat a son [Seth] in his own likeness, after his image (KJV).  Rogers interprets this to mean that all descendants of Adam were therefore made in Adam's image and likeness, which he says was the "marred and defaced" image of God.

In a very narrow sense, Rogers assertion seems more in alignment with eastern Christian thought than western.  The eastern Church understands that one of the consequences of the fall was spiritual damage to man that impaired his ability to cooperate with God's grace.  The western view, somewhat tersely, is more along the line of God's removing His grace from man.  (As an aside, Orthodox soteriology deals with the healing of man, whereas I think it could be said that western Christian soteriology largely deals with the restoration of God's grace).

It is a subtle theological point, but the eastern Fathers probably would have argued that it was not God's image in man, but rather His likeness that was "marred and defaced".  No Orthodox Christian (I think) would dare to say that a consequence of the fall was that man was no longer made in God's image.

There is also a somewhat pedantic point in that Genesis 5:3 refers to Seth, but does not say anything about Cain or Abel.


Do Paul and Jesus disagree on homosexuality?

You are correct in stating that there are no recorded teachings of Jesus on homosexuality.  However, to suggest that this means there is disagreement between Paul and Jesus is unreasonable, since it is comparing something to nothing. It is certainly wrong to assume that Jesus disagreed with Paul on that just because He never explicitly indicates His agreement -- with Paul and the Law of Moses.

Indeed, if Jesus had disagreed with Moses on this, we should expect to hear about it in His teaching. If, however, He agreed with Moses, then why go to great pains to point that out?

It should be noted that Jesus was Jewish and lived among Jewish people in a Jewish culture.  This whole culture was based on Mosaic teachings that held that homosexuality was wrong and had a very stiff penalty spelled out for it, much like adultery. People caught in adultery still suffered the possibility of death (see John 8:1-11). It is quite likely that this was simply not practiced in this culture.

Jesus never taught that eating pork was wrong either, because everyone in that culture agreed with that and no one ate pork. The idea of "preaching to the choir" about getting involved in the church comes to mind.

During Jesus' life, Israel was still under the Old Covenant, so the prohibition against eating pork was still in effect. Paul's writings occur in the New Testament, but reaffirm the prohibition of Moses against homosexuality.

So, there's absolutely no "discrepancy", and any intimation that Jesus supported homosexuality is not reasonable.

Jesus "did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it" [Matthew 5:17].


How should we interpret Leviticus 18, 19?

The Old Testament Law (Genesis-Deuteronomy) was effectively the constitution of the Israelite nation. It told their history, established them as a nation state, and gave them laws to obey individually and as a whole nation. The core of the law is the Sinai/Deuteronomy covenants. God made a contract with them that he would be their God if they would be his people, and they would show that by obeying the laws he set. Obeying the laws showed that they were God's people. But Christians are not citizens of the ancient Israelite state, and so are not bound by them. We look at the law like we look at the laws of other countries: sometimes interesting, sometimes containing laws we wish our own country had, and sometimes happy that we aren't bound by them.

All of God's laws are good, but they had purposes that do not apply to Christians. Some of them seem very strange, including the food laws which look very arbitrary, but even more some of the other ones, like not wearing clothes made to two types of fabric. God gave them these laws as lessons about how to show that they were different and separated from the nations around them.

We know that God no longer expects us to not eat any food we like because the New Testament specifically says so, such as in Matthew 15:16-20 and Acts 10. In contrast we know that God does still expect us to sexually pure, restricting sexual intercourse to heterosexual marriage, because the NT tells us that many times, such as in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6-7. We don't obey the OT Laws because we're bound by them but because God has shown us that they were not culturally and time specific.


Is it true that there is an inscription that says that Yahweh had a wife?

There are inscriptions found in Kuntillet Ajtud and a further inscription found scratched on bedrock in a tomb at Khirbet el-Qom in Judah, that appear to say the goddess Asherah was considered to be the wife of Yahweh. The first of these was discovered in 1975, when Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze’ev Meshel decided to excavate at remote Kuntillet ‘Ajrud in the Sinai desert. Here they discovered two large pithoi with inscriptions that mentioned Baal, and also Yahweh and his Asherah. Two further references to Yahweh and his Asherah were found on the walls.

The early Israelite dialect was closer to Phoenician than to that of Judah, creating confusion as to whether the Kuntillet Ajtud inscriptions were written by Phoenician worshippers of Yahweh or by Israelites. Careful linguistic analysis has confirmed these inscriptions to be of Israelite origin. Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger explain in Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God, page 247, the mention of 'Yahweh of Samaria', the fact that the theophoric personal names found at Kuntillet Ajrud are formed without exception using the element -yw (not the Judahite -yhw), the paleographic commonalities that link the pithos inscriptions and the ostraca from Samaria, and the iconographically and epigraphically demonstrable combination of elements of (Syro-) Phoenician and Israelite culture all demonstrate clearly that the caravanserai at Kuntillet Ajrud was not Judahite. It was set up using Phoenician skills but was controlled by Israelites and had no local roots. He says it was probably in use no longer than one generation.

As Khirbet el-Qom is in Judah, presumably the early Judahites shared the belief that Asherah was the consort of Yahweh.


Why would Jesus Christ ascend, then descend again?

According to Ellis Skolfield:

The Greek word translated thousand, here and through the rest of
Revelation 20, is χίλιοι, chilioi, an indefinite plural of χιλιάς
chilias, one thousand.

His contention was that millennium should instead be rendered as "millennia", meaning two or more. He accepts a literal "millennium" period, but insists that the length was not set at a single thousand years.
Regardless of length, your question is "Why?"
The time we live in now is the time of preparation. God is preparing his church to be ready for his return.

Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the
Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. (Revelation 19:7)

If you read Ecclesiastes 3, you will see the many trials and phases that the church must go through before reaching full maturity:
There is a time for everything,
    and a season for every activity under the heavens:

2     a time to be born and a time to die,
    a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3     a time to kill and a time to heal,
    a time to tear down and a time to build,
4     a time to weep and a time to laugh,
    a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5     a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
    a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
6     a time to search and a time to give up,
    a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7     a time to tear and a time to mend,
    a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8     a time to love and a time to hate,
    a time for war and a time for peace.

The above verses describe all the challenges that a child must go through to reach full maturity as an adult (at roughly age forty). They also apply to the church as the "Body of Christ" or "Bride of Christ".
As you can see, the last two times that the church must endure are a time for war and a time for peace. The time for war is Armageddon, the great battle in Revelation. The time for peace is the millennium.
When a person reaches full maturity, then they are ready for the great work of their life, whatever that may be. When the church reaches full maturity after the time of war, it will be ready for the great work of the church.
What is that great work? I am not sure and do not want to speculate. But it is to join the fully mature church to accomplish that great work that Christ is coming back. It is a work that we will be doing together.
UPDATE:
Why did Jesus ascend?

7 But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away.
Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I
will send him to you. (John 16:7)

Unless Jesus ascended, the Father and he (unless you are Eastern Orthodox, filioque and all) could not send the Holy Spirit.
Also, Jesus prayed in John 17 for those who would believe in him who had never met him. Then after he rose:

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed;
blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:29)

Jesus' prophetic words could not come true unless he went away. God is not a liar. If Jesus promises something, he has to do it. If there are to be believers who never see Jesus in the flesh but only hear about him from others, then he must leave.
Who has gone up to heaven and come down?
    Whose hands have gathered up the wind?
Who has wrapped up the waters in a cloak?
    Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and what is the name of his son?
    Surely you know!

5 “Every word of God is flawless;
    he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
6 Do not add to his words,
    or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar. (Proverbs 30:4-6)

Ultimately, it all comes down to this: Jesus ascended into heaven in fulfilment of the scriptures. Jesus did it in obediance to the Father.


Yes everyone will be judged:

  2 Corinthians 5:10 New King James Version (NKJV) - For we must ALL
  appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive
  the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether
  good or bad.

but not all will be condemned:

  Romans 8:1 New King James Version (NKJV) - There is therefore now no
  condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,[a] who do not walk
  according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.


As a protestant, may I participate in the Eucharist (Communion) when visiting a Catholic church?

The answer is: "more than likely not".

Catholics do allow others to take part in the Holy Communion, but they maintain tight restrictions on this.

  Guidelines for the Reception of Communion

  For Other Christians

  ... Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion.

  ...Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches.

  For Non-Christians

  ...While we cannot admit them to Holy Communion, we ask them to offer their prayers for the peace and the unity of the human family.

Link to article

So, when they say "not fully united", Protestants generally fall into this category.  (I'm not sure where those other churches fall in the "Protestant-Catholic" spectrum, so I'm leaving this a bit generic.)  So, therefore, Protestants are not admitted to Holy Communion.


What is the point of Jesus' crucifixion?

God is Holy
God is Just
God is Merciful

The combination of these attributes is the answer to your question.

His Holiness demands that He be obeyed, unequivocally.
His justice demands that He deal with disobedience, mercilessly.
His mercy demands that He forgive, lovingly.

How does one strike a balance in a meaningful manner? The answer is that He who knew no sin became sin, and God poured His wrath upon His Son. Unraveling the Biblical language a little bit, this means that our (the elect's) sins were imputed to Christ, Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, and Christ was no longer considered perfect but sinful. Because He took our sin upon Him, we are now blameless before God, but Christ was not. Christ took the merciless wrath due us, satisfied God's justice for those under this covenant of grace, and permits God to show mercy to us because God's justice has been satisfied in Christ. The key here is that Christ became sin by taking our sin (and the corollary, for another question topic, is that we obtained Christ's righteousness). Only God has the power to do this.

The work on the cross was more than physical: the penalty Christ paid was much more than just physical death and suffering. I recommend this one-hour video for a more encompassing explanation from a Baptist/Puritan viewpoint.

Once you understand these points (obedience, justice, mercy), the rest makes perfect sense. There are deeper questions to be asked at this point (and not on this same SE question!) but I think you are better off to think of them on your own at this point.

Edit, to Address more questions from the O.P:

The transfer of the sin was not the purpose of Christ's death on the cross. It was part of the penalty that He paid for taking our sin upon Himself. In the beginning, man disobeyed God (Genesis 3). This man is named Adam. Adam is the head representative of the human race. Because he sinned, his nature changed and he was lost in disobedience without the ability to obey God. Because Adam, who was flesh, sinned, his flesh also became corrupt and he eventually died.

As I said, the point of Christ's work on the cross was to consume the wrath of God for those whom the work will cover (I know this is a confusing way to word it. I'm trying to avoid opening another topic entirely. If you have a question regarding who the work was intended to cover, it is worth another question entirely). This moral and physical death is called the curse of Adam. Christ's death on the cross satisfied the physical side of the curse of Adam. Christ's being forsook by His Father satisfied the spiritual aspect of the curse. The physical death took place in order that He would identify with the flesh and conquer sin in the flesh.

To use the term "murder" is inappropriate, here. Murder implies malice and an innocent victim. When Christ took our sin, He was no longer innocent and His death was not in malice, it was in justice.

Once God imputed our sins to Christ, if God would not have punished Him, His Holiness would have been denigrated because His justice would not be satisfied, as if to say: "Yeah, it's okay if you disobey me. No biggie." The distinction is that it is never ok to disobey God and simple "forgive and forget" could not work, or else God would be giving up His Holiness. The most heinous act you can conceive of doing to a fellow man is not as heinous as the slightest insult you can think of against God (pretending that there is a way to wrong a man without wronging God in the process).

Paul Washer's point in the video at 6:20 was that because Christ is God's Son, all of creation and events in time are for His glory, because the Father loves the Son. If we are obeying God because we want to avoid punishment or to "be moral," then we are doing it in the wrong spirit. All things are to glorify Christ.


Why do adherents to Hypostatic Union believe that God the Son (Jesus) must be fully Human?

Historically, the position of the church on Christology has been explained as "hypostatic union, meaning that Jesus was fully God and fully man).  In the late 300s, Nestorius taught that Jesus' natures were separate.  The problem comes when you consider salvation.

In any Satisfaction theory of atonement, the 'victim' that satisfies God's wrath must be a viable substitute.  As the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry (CARM) writes:

  The problem with Nestorianism is that it threatens the atonement. If Jesus is two persons, then which one died on the cross? If it was the "human person," then the atonement is not of divine quality and thereby insufficient to cleanse us of our sins.

Put another way, satisfaction is untenable, because the sacrifice cannot stand in for the crime.

The opposite error was Eutychism or Monophysitism which ignores the human nature and is not supported by Scripture. Related forms would be if God the Son merely appeared to be human (the heresy of Docetism or Apollinarism.

Monophysitism in general was considered heretical because it denies either the divine or the human nature. Biblically, this negates key passages such as Philippians 2:5-11:

  Who, being in very nature[a] God,
      did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
  7 rather, he made himself nothing
      by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
      being made in human likeness.
  8 And being found in appearance as a man,
      he humbled himself
      by becoming obedient to death—
          even death on a cross!

or Hebrews 4:15:

  For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet he did not sin.

that emphasize Christ's ability to sympathize with our humanity. Absent a human nature, that would be a lie.

Liberals, like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. go further with this. As he writes:

  Where then can we in the liberal tradition find the divine dimension in Jesus? We may find the divinity of Christ not in his substantial unity with God, but in his filial consciousness and in his unique dependence upon God. It was his felling of absolute dependence on God, as Schleiermaker would say, that made him divine. Yes it was the warmest of his devotion to God and the intimacy of his trust in God that accounts for his being the supreme revelation of God. All of this reveals to us that one man has at last realized his true divine calling: That of becoming a true son of man by becoming a true son of God. It is the achievement of a man who has, as nearly as we can tell, completely opened his life to the influence of the divine spirit.

In his moral influence understanding, his human nature that adopted a divine one required as a starting point a human one.


Did Jesus use non-believers to perform acts of community service on his behalf?

Because your questions has a "What would Jesus do?" flavor, I'm going to answer in keeping:

In Matthew 25:31-46 we find there will be those who show up at the judgement and discover they were an outsider even though they did all sorts of work in the name of Jesus thinking they were an insider. Likewise, there will be outsiders who find out they are insiders.

It seems to me that Jesus is suggesting that kindness to those in need is more important than our sheep/goat categories. Believers should read this and get a gut-check. Are we outsiders thinking we are insiders? Are there people we think are outsiders who are really insiders? It sounds possible if you take the parable seriously. I think this can used to establish some priorities in regard to your question.

Additionally, it is possible that some of those outsiders just might come "inside" as they minister "alongside." What greater thing than to make some disciples along the way? It may be best to think of this a secondary aspect of this ministry.

And finally, there is no greater source on this than the Holy Spirit himself. Exercise sanctified discernment when selecting families. The Holy Spirit is able to discern the heart, also regardless of categories. Even Jesus turned some away who seemed like great candidates and accepted others who didn't.


Clarification of what sexual immorality is?

(Note: this answer comes from a reformed, Presbyterian perspective, YMMV)

Sexual immorality is defined pretty clearly by Jesus in Matthew 5:28 (NIV):

  But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

That puts everyone who managed to live through puberty squarely in the guilty category here. So let's start from there. We're all guilty of sexual immorality, that's the fact. That's not to say that instances of sexual immorality are not serious and shouldn't be dealt with seriously. But just to introduce some levity, we're all guilty here.

Now, you assumed that 4 things fall squarely in this category, I don't want to argue that list, but at least 3 are pretty expressly forbidden by scripture and the fourth falls squarely into lust for the most part so we'll accept the list. But the point of the first passages is that sexual immorality is even broader. It's deeply embedded in our hearts and minds.

Then of course you drop the bomb, is oral sex immoral? I'm actually going to take this a step farther and get the question you're really asking. Is it OK for married Christians to have anything but normal intercourse? But let's handle a side issue first.

Positions on sex before marriage and any kind of sexual contact outside of marriage vary. However, in my opinion (and it's one I share with a pretty wide swath of mainstream Christianity) it's both unwise and immoral to engage in sexual contact or sex prior to marriage. This is a well supported argument and it's made elsewhere on this site, so it's really not necessary to delve into it here.

The crux of this question is whether or not things that are believed to be inappropriate outside of a marriage are appropriate inside of one. For normal vaginal sex, the answer is obvious. One of the functions of marriage is to provide a home for children and well to have kids you've gotta have sex (obvious caveats for in vitro, adoption etc). But what about non-procreatory sex acts?

Let me be clear. The Bible contains no clear prohibitions on non-procreatory sex acts (in fact a couple of passages in Song of Songs may refer to oral sex specifically and in a very positive way). Although being intentional about being non-procreatory when you are culturally obligated to may have disastrous effects (see Onan.)

This makes it up to the man and the woman in the relationship to set boundaries and decide what is right and wrong in the context of their marriage. For that the guiding principal has to be Ephesians 5:5 (NIV).

  Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

This passage in Ephesians is much maligned in modern society, but the crux is that we should faithfully submit to one another. It's hinged on respect. In the case of your question that means that anything that you do that is outside of the boundaries set in your marriage can and should be considered sexual immorality.

This brings us back to the passage I mentioned at the outset. Sexual Immorality is not something that has strict definitions. If even looking at a woman with lust in your heart qualifies, then the definition is far broader than any specific act or set of acts. In the context of marriage this means that you must work and communicate with your partner to set your boundaries and decide what is welcome and what is off limits between the two of you.


What is the origin of the Mormon Temple Ceremony and how has it changed throughout the years?

There are more than one LDS Temple covenants.

These include:

Baptism (for the dead)
Endowment (including washing and anointing on first visit)
Confirmation
Ordination to higher offices of the priesthood (and ordination to Elder on behalf of the dead)
Marriage and eternal family sealings

I'm assuming you're referring to the endowment covenant.

From the lds.org page on Temples (under Additional Information):

  One ordinance received in the temple is called the endowment. The word endowment means "gift," and the temple endowment truly is a gift from God. The ordinance consists of a series of instructions and includes covenants to live righteously and follow the requirements of the gospel. The endowment focuses on the Savior, His role in Heavenly Father's plan, and the personal commitment of each member to follow Him.

From the Wikipedia article on Endowment:

  The endowment was instituted by founder Joseph Smith, Jr. in the 1840s with further contributions by Brigham Young and his successors. The ceremony is performed in Latter Day Saints' temples, special places dedicated specifically for the endowment and certain other rituals sacred to Mormons, and is closed to all but worthy Mormons. There was a brief period during the construction of the Salt Lake Temple where a small building referred to as the Endowment House was used to perform the ritual. The endowment is currently practiced by the LDS Church, several denominations of Mormon fundamentalism, and a few other Mormon denominations. The LDS Church has simplified its ceremony from the way it existed in the 19th century, and has removed some of the more controversial elements.

According to the LDS church, the endowment ceremony was revealed to Joseph Smith by God.  According to church detractors, the endowment ceremony was based on the Masonic initiation ceremony.

As to the specific changes, the Wikipedia Endowment article has a section at the bottom called "Later modifications by the LDS Church".  It's too long a section to quote in the answer.


What is the earliest non-Judeo-Christian reference to Jesus?

The following information is from John Dickson's The Christ Files, which is available as both a book and a DVD.

There are several early records which are thought by many historians to refer to Jesus. Here are three of the earliest. With only a sentence or two, sometimes the identifications aren't perfectly clear, and some of them are debated. As with Josephus, some people also argue that some records have been later tampered with by Christians, but as these ones are hostile to Christianity, that seems unlikely.

Mara ben Serapion, a Syrian stoic, wrote shortly after AD 73:

  What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished ... Nor did the wise king die altogether; he lived on in the teaching which he had given.

This is one of the less clear ones, but there are few alternative identifications than Jesus.
Tacitus, a Roman historian (AD 56-120), wrote in Annals 15.44:

  Christians derived their name from a man called Christ, who, during the reign of Emperor Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate. The deadly superstition, thus checked for the moment, broke out afresh not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but also in the City of Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world meet and become popular.

Pliny the Younger wrote in AD 110 to ask Emperor Trajan whether he should continue executing Christians. He said:

  The sum total of their guilt or error was no more than the following. They had met regularly before dawn on a determined day, and sung antiphonally a hymn to Christ as to a god. They also took an oath not for any crime, but to keep from theft, robbery and adultery, and not to break any promise.


What are the main denominations in the world practicing seventh-day Sabbatarianism? What percentage of Christendom do they represent?

By far the largest seventh day sabbatarian churches are the Seventh Day Adventist church which has approximately 21 million members, and the Seventh Day Baptist churches with approximately 50,000 members worldwide.
This means they represent about 1% of Christians


Spectrum of Interpretation on Great Flood

There are 4 basic views regarding the interpretation of the great flood. Generally speaking, these connect to the interpretation of Genesis 1-3 as well.

Global Flood

The first camp is from those who take literal reading of Genesis. Despite some scientific drawbacks here, such as the fact that there does not exist enough water in any form (including ice) to cover the continents and mountain tops and most mainstream scientists state that there is no geological evidence for a global flood. In response, many creation scientists will attempt to dispute this and seek to assemble evidence to the contrary, though mainstream scientists will generally dispute and critique these interpretations of the geological record. This can often lead to some allegations of great conspiracies and cover-ups by mainstream scientists. There is, of course no issue with this interpretation in terms of Biblical Inerrancy.

Local Flood

These scientific challenges generally lead to a second camp of those who take a literal reading of Genesis, but simply do not believe the whole earth was flooded and instead believe a portion of the Levant was flooded. This view depends on the idea that instead of the whole earth being flooded, it was only the whole known earth. This view attempts to appeal to world maps of the time which depict only the Levant such as the Imago Mundi.

Since this was the "Whole Earth" as Noah and the writers of Genesis knew it, the argument is that we should simply be better translating "earth" to clarify that this really refers to the Middle-Eastern region.

Similarly, many believe that Noah simply assumed the whole earth was flooded since there was water as Far as Noah could see. Obviously, Noah did not paddle the ark around in a grid search pattern to verify the veracity of this claim before making it and even had he done so, he would have been unable to map the whole earth in the ark in 40 days. As such, these interpreters would say that this is pretty a pretty obvious exaggeration in the text - so obvious that the author of Genesis did not intend this to be understood as the whole earth literally being flooded, but instead this was intended as an obvious hyperbole. The argument here is if this was intended to be obvious hyperbole, then there is no scriptural errancy - the error is in our own understanding and interpretation of the text.

Those with this view might cite the flooding of the Black Sea, the creation of the Medeterranian Sea itself, the formation of the Red Sea, and/or the formation of the Caspian Sea. Still others might suggest the flood event records a tsunami in the Mediterranean Sea or even the idea that a Tsunami/earthquake caused a strait to burst/give way causing the formation of one of the above events.

Allegorical Interpretation

This view attempts to avoid any scientific problems with the above by simply claiming that the great flood was not intended to be understood as a literal event. This view would appeals to the genre of the text of Genesis to claim that it was always intended to be understood as allegorical. Those in the allegorical school of thought generally would claim that either 1) the entire book of Genesis was intended to be this way, 2) the first 11 chapters of Genesis are allegorical or 3) Only the creation and flood stories are intended to be allegorical. This view would argue that because the text was intended allegorically, it there is no issue with inerrancy.

There are many criticisms of this view including larger theological discussions regarding issues like original sin which debates the need for a literal Adam, and the critique that the flood story is sandwiched between genealogies and historical narratives similar to those of the other patriarchs which do not have the hallmarks of the intent of a non-literal interpretation seen in texts like Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Ecclesasties, and similar texts. In favor of this view is the idea that Genesis 1 seems to take the form of a hymn, poem, or prologue and factors like the fact that "Adam" means "Man" and "Eve" means "Life" which some argue shows that the authorial intent that these names are meant to be proxies for mankind, not specific, real individuals and similar literary notes.

Framework View

This view, favored by Panbabylonists makes little or no attempt to address scriptural inerrancy. Instead, this view prefers to make comparative studies of Genesis as a literary framework. This view notes the presence of things like the Toldoth forumla which divides Genesis into sections of narrative and seeks to make a Poleic comparison to similar flood narratives by other cultures such as the Epic of Atra-Hasis and the Epic of Gilgamesh. This view may appeal to Documentary Hypothesis to suggest that the flood narrative might be a post-exilic addition added by a later redactor to an earlier version of Genesis - a view supported by scholars like Gordon J. Wenham and others.

Instead of looking for the literal plausibility, most who hold the framework view are unconcerned with inerrancy and instead prefer to assume that the story was intended literally, but also as a corrective to the existing flood narratives. This view then looks for the notable differences between the stories to attempt to determine the theological claims being made (namely the superiority of Yahweh) by examining the polemic comparisons.

Instead of retaining the idea of Biblical inerrancy, some adherents of this view favor infallibility of the text - making a distinction between the two. Instead of being concerned with the duration of the flood (was it 40 days or 41 days?) or how much of the earth was flooded, this view focuses on the larger picture and meaning of the text - that Mankind is sinful, that God is a God is a God of salvation who seeks to restore mankind, etc. and views these larger truths to be infallible. Other adherents of this view may adhere to some or all aspects of the Global, Local, or Allegorical views, or none of the above.

This view largely arises as an attempt to explain archaeological and historical discoveries and as such is the "new kid" on the block and is thus not as widespread as other views. Due to the high academic cost of entry and the need to be well-versed in archaeology and the to be read archaic Sumerian and Babylonian texts, this view is largely relegated to the realm of academia. The complexity and academic background needed for this view has often caused it to be largely dismissed by laity in the mainstream which usually prefer one of the 3 above simpler views.


What does "gates of hell" mean in Matthew 16:18?

The Greek word is πυλαι and does literally mean "gates", and this is the only reference to the gates of Hades/Hell in the NT. It's also the first use of the word εκκλησια, "the called-out", "church".

The gates of a city are the point at which attackers lay siege, the weakest point. The strength of a city is directly related to the strength or power of its gates. Here Hades or hell is represented as a city with its strength in its gates. The gates represent the power of hell, and the Church is stronger.

Gates also keep people in. Jesus may be referring to his death: Hades could not contain him, and it will not contain the Church either, those who are called out to belong to Christ. The Church will never succumb with the physical death of its members and fail; it will never die.


What is the English monarch's current relationship to the Church of England?

The Sovereign is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The Head of the Church is Christ, not the Sovereign.

Although the Act of Supremacy of 1534 gave Henry VIII the style "supreme head of the Church of England", doubts were expressed about it and when the Act was reaffirmed by a similar Act in 1559 (having been repealed by Queen Mary I in 1555) the title "supreme governor" was used.

The sovereign appoints bishops who are elected by their electors1 and the Crown has rights in certain Church of England parishes. The Crown governs the Church of England through primary legislation passed either by Parliament or the Church's General Synod.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is Primate of All England (a title conferred by Pope Innocent VI and confirmed by the House of Lords Precedence Act 1539). He is the senior bishop in the Church of England and by convention the "first among equals" within the Anglican Communion.

1 This isn't quite as democratic as it seems: the Crown has a big part to play in presenting the single candidate for the electors to vote on.


To which prophets does Peter refer in 1 Peter 1:10-11?

King David in Psalm 22

  Psa 22:15-18  My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue
  cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
  (16)  For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have
  inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.  (17)  I may tell all
  my bones: they look and stare upon me.  (18)  They part my garments
  among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

and less directly

  Psa 2:1-3  Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain
  thing?  (2)  The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers
  take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed,
  saying,  (3)  Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their
  cords from us.


Is there a scriptural support for "man are ‘half animal, half angel’"?

There is a verse in Genesis that gives room for such interpretation:

"When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were
born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were
attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the Lord
said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his
days shall be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those
days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the
daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty
men who were of old, the men of renown. The Lord saw that the
wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of
the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." — Genesis 6:1-5

So, based on this text, some interpret that the "sons of God" were angels, who had sexual relationship with women, thus giving birth to "half animal, half angel" creatures.

When we consider the context of this text we can better understand what Moses is explaining. In previous chapters we are given a glimpse of two competing lines, the godly line of Seth and the wicked line of Cain. Having established the antithesis in the garden, after affirming that there would be a constant struggle between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent we are given snapshot pictures of each of these armies.
We see Seth’s line about the business of exercising dominion, in submission to the Lord. We see Cain’s line dishonoring the law of God and making names for themselves. But the future is not mere co-existence between the two lines. The drama builds toward the great crisis of Noah’s flood right here in chapter 6. The great change, what creates the great downward spiral of humanity on the earth is that the two lines come together as one. That is, the godly line of Seth, the sons of God, seeing how attractive are the daughters of men, the wicked line of Cain, decide to take them as wives. The end result, however, isn’t mere dilution. It’s not that the now joined line becomes morally lukewarm, but that evil spreads, grows, deepens.
source

I hope this helps.
Blessings!


Which group adhears to the idea of heavenly amnesia?

The Bible says that there is no sadness in Heaven, e.g. Revelation 21:4 "And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

So a common argument goes: There is no sadness in Heaven. If I knew that this person I loved was in Hell that would certainly make me very sad. Therefore it must be that I won't remember them.

To the best of my knowledge there is no more specific Scriptural basis for this theory. And thus I think it's weak. I can easily think of other alternatives.

To take a personal example: My wife left me years ago. In my opinion, she made a real mess of her life, can't hold a job, gone through a series of men, etc. The kids and I feel sorry for her, but for the most part we basically say, "She did this to herself. This is the life she wanted." Okay, some of that is resentment for personal hurts. But if I was a perfect human being, would I being crying for her every day and being miserable because of what she's done to herself? Or at some point is it reasonable and normal to say, "I tried to help you, but you made your choices." This appears to be God's attitude toward sinners. Of course he went way further than I have ever gone for anybody, allowing himself to be tortured to death to save anyone who would accept his offer. But those that don't, eventually he says, "So be it." I think it is plausible that in Heaven we will have a perfect understanding of justice. People are in Hell because of choices they made.

That said, there is one scenario that does really disturb me. My mother once said, what happens if she gets to Heaven, she stands before the judgment seat of Christ and he says yes, you are among the saved. Then the next person comes up and Christ says, No, you are condemned. And then this person turns to her and says, You knew how to be saved, but you never told me?


What is the basis for Lutheran single predestination, as opposed to double predestination?

I'll try to answer in two parts: first by summarizing the Lutheran belief concerning salvation, secondly by summarizing the Lutheran belief about who is saved.

First, the Lutheran belief concerning salvation is basically that we are saved by God's grace on account of Christ's sacrifice, and that nothing we do can gain us or earn us this salvation.  We receive the benefits of Christ's death and resurrection through faith, and this faith itself is a work of God.  Lutherans rely on passages such as Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 10:13-17.  Note too, that salvation is broader than going to heaven; it is being bodily resurrected at Christ's return and being brought into the new, restored creation.

Second, Lutherans believe that Christ died for the sins of all people and that God wants all people to be saved (see, for example John 3:16, 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:4-6).  However, not all people are saved.  Why?  Lutherans would say that we don't know why.  That is, if my first sentence of this paragraph is true, then the logical question is "why is not everyone saved?"  The Lutheran answer is, "we don't know, because God doesn't tell us."

This, then, leads into the concept of single predestination.  That is, we are saved because God saves us.  Why not everyone is saved we don't have the answer to, because God doesn't tell us why.  Calvinism attempts to answer this question by "filling in the blanks," if you will, by stating that God chooses who will not believe and that Christ didn't actually die for the sins of everyone.

As a follow-on, Lutherans believe that - without Christ - we are actually condemned already, as Jesus states in John 3:18.  This is because Adam and Eve's sin caused all of creation to be condemned, so we are born condemned.  Thus, Jesus came to save us from the condemnation in which we already were.  Therefore, it is not as if we were born into some neutral state where we could either "be saved" or "be condemned."  Actually, we were condemned already, so Christ saves us from this condemnation.


Where does the concept of a "God-shaped hole" originate?

In 1670, Blaise Pascal published Pensées, which was a defense of the Christian religion.  (It should be noted that this book was published after his death in 1662.)

In that book, he has a quote:

  “What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace?  This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words by God himself.”
  - Blaise Pascal, Pensées VII(425)

Since then, the concept has taken on a life of its own and the phrase "God-shaped hole," a close approximation of the concept, has been found throughout many Christian circles.  (Recently, in 2002, a book was published with the title 'God-Shaped Hole'.)

While other answers show that the concept can be supported biblically, the concept that there is a void/vacuum/hole is actually a non-biblical one.


Is seeing nudity a sin in Roman Catholicism?

Is seeing nudity a mortal sin in Roman Catholicism?

The short answer is: Yes and No. It depends on the situation.

  In the Catholic Church, sins come in two basic types: mortal sins that imperil your soul and venial sins, which are less serious breaches of God’s law. The Church believes that if you commit a mortal sin, you forfeit heaven and opt for hell by your own free will and actions.

  Three conditions are necessary for mortal sin to exist:

  Grave Matter: The act itself is intrinsically evil and immoral. For example, murder, rape, incest, perjury, adultery, and so on are grave matter.

  Full Knowledge: The person must know that what they’re doing or planning to do is evil and immoral.

  Deliberate Consent: The person must freely choose to commit the act or plan to do it. Someone forced against her will doesn’t commit a mortal sin.

  Venial sins are any sins that meet one or two of the conditions needed for a mortal sin but do not fulfill all three at the same time, or they’re minor violations of the moral law. - Mortal and Venial Sins in the Catholic Church

Seeing nudity in itself is not sinful. But under certain circumstance it may be sinful and even mortally sinful.

It is not sinful for example to see your own naked body when you are bathing or taking a shower.

Spouses often see one another naked and no sin is ever committed. It is a natural part of Christian marriage

It is not sinful for a doctor to se a patient naked in his medical office or operating room while perform some medical procedure. It could be sinful if a doctor abuses his medical privileges for some sexual pleasure.

It is not a sin to see to an artistic piece of art of some personage in the nude. However it becomes sinful if one deliberately does so in order to arose themselves  sexually.

The Creation of Adam by Michelangelo

Watching pornography is always seriously sinful matter and is thus a mortal sin.

If someone saw a nude image ad once on the internet and did not deliberately remain looking at it, no mortal sin would have been committed. However, if one deliberately remained looking at it, one may have committed at least a venial sin. If one remained looking at it for some sexual gratification then a mortal sin would have been committed. It is always best to see a priest in the confessional to make sure one is in the state of grace at all moments.

Let us finish with the definition of sin and the differences between mortal sin  and venial sin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church should be a good source for this and it is given here in it's entirety.

  II. The Definition of Sin

  1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."

  1850 Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight." Sin sets itself against God's love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods," knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God." In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.

  1851 It is precisely in the Passion, when the mercy of Christ is about to vanquish it, that sin most clearly manifests its violence and its many forms: unbelief, murderous hatred, shunning and mockery by the leaders and the people, Pilate's cowardice and the cruelty of the soldiers, Judas' betrayal - so bitter to Jesus, Peter's denial and the disciples' flight. However, at the very hour of darkness, the hour of the prince of this world,126 the sacrifice of Christ secretly becomes the source from which the forgiveness of our sins will pour forth inexhaustibly.

  III. The Different Kinds of Sin

  1852 There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. The Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God."

  1853 Sins can be distinguished according to their objects, as can every human act; or according to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the commandments they violate. They can also be classed according to whether they concern God, neighbor, or oneself; they can be divided into spiritual and carnal sins, or again as sins in thought, word, deed, or omission. The root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man." But in the heart also resides charity, the source of the good and pure works, which sin wounds.

  IV. The Gravity of Sin: Mortal and Venial Sin

  1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture, became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.

  1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

  Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

  1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

  When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner's will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.

  1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."

  1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother." The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

  1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

  1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

  1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

  1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

  1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."

  While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call "light": if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.

  1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven." There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss. - The Catechism of the Catholic Church


Teaching Catechism to 12-15 year olds for the last ten years has ingrained in me the Moral Decision Making Framework, which might be a little... Non-academic for the tone of this question, but it seems relevant to me.  You can see it applied in the Just War theory.  It boils down to his three things.

Circumstances
Object
Means

In consideration of some potentially sinful action you can judge the gravity of the sin (i.e. guilt) by considering those three things.

If i were to kill someone and the circumstances were that they were trying to kill me, i might be less guilty; if i were to kill someone i ran over accidentally, i might be less guilty because my object wasn't their death; and if i were to kill someone who was trying to kill me by rolling them over with a steam roller then i might be more guilty because those means are a tad excessive.

Most of this is spelled out and rooted in scripture in the Faith and Life series Our Life in the Church" the moral decision making framework is what the Bishops (around here at least) are having us teach as part of the settlement with the abuse victims.


What is the basis for the idea that the Song of Solomon is about the relationship between God and the church?

Many interpretations argue that the Song of Solomon is about both the relationship between husband and wife and about Christ and his Church.  This stems in large part from Paul's words to the Ephesians:

  Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.  Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

  Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

  In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.  For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.

  “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”

  This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

  (Ephesians 5:22-32)

Paul quotes from Genesis 2 in his letter, referring to God creating woman from man in order to be one with each other:

  So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.  And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

  Then the man said,

  “This at last is bone of my bones
      and flesh of my flesh;
      she shall be called Woman,
      because she was taken out of Man.”

  Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.  And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

  (Genesis 2:21-25)

Paul's point is that husband and wife were created to be one body, just as Christ and his Church are one body, and the Church exists because of Christ.  With that in mind, you can see why Song of Solomon has been interpreted by the Church as referring to the relationship between Christ and his Church.

Even in the Old Testament, the relationship between God and His people was often compared to the marital relationship.  In the book of Hosea, for instance, God has Hosea take a prostitute as a wife to demonstrate to the people of Israel how they have committed adultery against the Lord (cf. Hosea 1:2).

Then, in the New Testament this is seen most fully in Revelation at the marriage of the bride (the Church) and the groom (Christ) where they are united in perfect communion for eternity.  See, for example, Revelation 19:7 and 22:2ff.

So, taken together, the marital relationship is good; it's God-ordained and provides us with an image of His relationship to His people.  Thus, Song of Solomon can be seen as both a love song between husband and wife and between Christ and his Church.


How do Catholics reconcile a metaphorical Adam and Eve with Original Sin

Catholics cannot believe in a "metaphorical Adam and Eve" for at least these reasons:

The Fathers of the Church all taught that Adam and Eve were two, real people, the first parents of the entire human race (monogenism, contra polygenism, which says humanity has more than two first parents), and Catholics must interpret scripture according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers (cf. Council of Trent Session IV, the Decree concerning the Canonical Scriptures, or the First Vatican Council's Dei Filius).
The 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission decided:

  The first three Chapters of Genesis contain the stories of events
  which really happened, i.e., which correspond with objective reality
  and historical truth (rerum vere gestarum narrationes quae scilicet
  obiectivae realitati et historicae veritati respondeant); no myths, no
  mere allegories or symbols of religious truths, no legends. D 2122.


What do non-Catholic Christians do with the power of binding and loosing?

Well, Lutherans hold this to be the basis of what is called "The Office of the Keys".
Also referred to in John 20:22-23:

22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy
Spirit.
23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you
do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

From Luther's Small Catechism:

What do you believe according to these words?
I believe that when the called ministers of Christ deal with us by His divine command, in
particular when they exclude openly unrepentant sinners from the
Christian congregation and absolve those who repent of their sins and
want to do better, this is just as valid and certain, even in heaven,
as if Christ our dear Lord dealt with us himself.