How long are extraordinary ministers allowed to possess the Eucharist?

The answer to the Skeptics.SE question you cite says a Presbyterian minister "supplied the communion kit (bread, wine and cup)." Since Presbyterian ministers are not valid, ordained priests, they are unable to effect transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ; thus, what Aldrin had was not the Eucharist but only "bread, wine and cup."

Traditionally, only Catholic priests, whose hands have been consecrated upon receiving the Sacrament of Orders, can touch the Sacred Species with their fingers. Laypeople touching the Eucharistic Species should be a rare extraordinary (i.e., out-of-the-ordinary) exception.

Paul VI wrote in his 1969 Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion (Memoriale Domini):

  Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See—wishing to help them fulfill their task, often difficult as it is nowadays—lays on those conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there, taking care to avoid any risk of lack of respect or of false opinions with regard to the Blessed Eucharist, and to avoid any other ill effects that may follow.

Notice, he says Communion in peoples' hands is a "contrary usage," contrary to the traditional practice of the Church; however, he opened the door to bishops' conferences abusing this contrary usage by allowing Communion in the hand.

Thus, there isn't a law regulating what should be a very rare occurrence in extreme situations, e.g., someone is to steal the Eucharist and a layperson is the only one around, then of course he or she should touch and consume or help others consume the Eucharist as quickly as possible.

Cf. my answer to the question "How are Roman Catholics to receive the holy Eucharist at Mass?"


Jesus Christ said that he will come back in the generation of his disciples (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21). I wrote the details about it here (check my post).

How will Jesus be recognized at the time of "Second Coming"?

We have now access to the kingdom of God after we die. After we die, we will be like angels in heaven exactly like Jesus taught Saduccees in Matthew 22. I am sure you will recognize your child just like the disciples recognized Moses and Elijah in transfiguration.


In LDS doctrine, why isn't repentance possible without eternal punishment?

There are similar discourses elsewhere in the Book of Mormon, notably in  2 Nephi 2 and 2 Nephi 9.  Especially in 2 Nephi 9:6-8 it is explained that without the atonement of Christ, the judgement that came on Adam would have been eternal and unending, but not why that is a precondition for repentance.

2 Nephi 9:6-8
6 For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfil
the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs be a power of
resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason
of the fall; and the fall came by reason of transgression; and
because man became fallen they were cut off from the presence of the
Lord.
7 Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be
an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption.
Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have
remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid
down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more.
8 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh
should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who
fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the
devil, to rise no more.

It appears that Alma is using "repentance" as shorthand for the plan of redemption including repentance, as summarized in Alma 42:13. Otherwise, this particular verse is difficult to interpret.


Is "Rapture" mentioned in the Book of Revelation?

This is the LCMS answer to questions concerning the Rapture:

The short answer is: On the Last Day.

When is the Last Day? We don't know. The last day will come "like a thief in the night," bringing destruction to unbelievers but salvation to believers (1 Thess. 5:1 - 10).

  Q:  Does The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod believe in the rapture?

  A:  The answer to your question depends on what you mean by "the
  rapture." The English word "rapture" is derived from the Latin
  translation of the verb "caught up" in 1 Thess. 4:17 (rapiemur).
  Lutherans certainly believe what Paul teaches in this passage, namely,
  that those who are still living on earth when Christ returns visibly
  on the last day "will be caught up" ("raptured") together with "the
  dead in Christ" to "meet the Lord in the air."

  Some Christians teach, however, that the "rapture" will take place not
  on the last day but in connection with an "invisible" coming of Christ
  occurring before a seven-year period of "tribulation" on earth,
  allowing Christians to "escape" this tribulation and then later return
  to earth for a literal "1,000 year reign of Christ."

  Lutherans do not believe that these teachings are based on a proper
  understanding of Scripture. Scripture teaches that all Christians will
  endure varying degrees of "tribulation" until the last day, that
  Christ will return only once (visibly) to "catch up" ("rapture") all
  believers, living and dead, into heaven, and that all believers will
  reign forever with him in heaven. Lutherans understand the "1000
  years" of Rev. 20:11-15 to be a figurative reference to Christ's reign
  here and now in the hearts and lives of believers, which will
  culminate in our reigning with Christ forever in heaven following his
  return on the last day.

  For more information, you may want to read the Synod's theological
  commission report titled The End Times: A Study of Eschatology and
  Millennialism.


Were the Jews right in accusing Jesus of claiming to be God?

I'm going to approach this by saying the following. Whether or not the Jews are correctly or incorrectly understanding Jesus is not the issue. The issue is what was it that Jesus "SAID" that caused the Jews to say He was claiming to be God?

John 5:16, "And for this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing thins on the Sabbath." What Jesus did was heal on man on the Sabbath. Jesus says at John 5:17, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working."

John 5:18, "For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to KILL Him, because (or why?) He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God in the sense that no other believer is of God's essence. Look what Jesus says at Luke 2:49 when He was a boy. "Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in MY FATHER'S HOUSE?"

What did Jesus say at John 8:58 that upset the Jews? "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Jesus was saying to the Jews that before Abraham's existence He himself was existing. This is also confirmed at John 1:15 by John the Baptist. "John bore witness of Him, and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, FOR HE EXISTED BEFORE ME."

So how did the Jews reply to what Jesus stated, "Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus his Himself, and went out of the temple." Did you notice Jesus made His statement right there in the Temple.

How about what Jesus says at John 10:30, He literally says in the Greek, "I and the Father WE are one." Jesus distinguishes the "I" from the "Father" and uses the plural verb "are" denoting "we are." Asserting their unity of essence or nature as identical. Hence John 10:31, "The Jews took up stone AGAIN to stone Him."

The Jews understood Jesus correctly. There could be no mistake about His meaning. "Again" refers to John 8:59 at which time the Jews also attempted to stone Him for blasphemy.

At John 19::7, "The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out the Son of God." Matthew's trial record gets into more detail than the trial record here at John 19.

The high priest Caiaphas at Matthew 26:63 ask Jesus a question? "I adjure You (swear to us) by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God?" Caiaphas was clearly asking if Jesus was ONE person; "The Christ, the Son of (God)." Obviously Caiaphas did not believe that Jesus was "The Christ the Son of (God)"; it was a rhetorical question intended to trap Jesus into committing blasphemy.

Jesus, calling Himself the Son of God is not blasphemy because He really WAS the Son of God. This is confirmed or proved by multiple Scriptures. Notice also how the the claim "Son of God," "equal to God," "making Yourself out God" are used interchangeably by the Jews. The high priest Caiaphas finally says at Matthew 26:65, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy."

In conclusion, I find that there is an abundance of evidence that the Jews knew exactly that Jesus was clearly claiming to be God. Moreover, there is clear evidence throughout the New Testament that others stated He was God who were Jews as well.

As a side note! I could have proved the Jews knew Jesus was claiming to be God by writing the following 16 words or so and calling it a day. "If the Jews misunderstood Jesus, why did they bring up the Law at John 19:7?" The law that Jesus "supposedly" broke can be found at Leviticus 24:16. Bottom line, the Jews did not believe Jesus Christ.

The following is from "Jews For Jesus." https://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/issues-v14-n02/the-claims-of-jesus/

This is another site that backs up what Jesus was claiming. https://www.oneplace.com/ministries/bible-answer-man/read/articles/did-jesus-claim-to-be-god-by-hank-hanegraaff-8825.html


Jehovah's Witnesses Memorial of Christ's Death

The Jehovah's Witnesses have the practice of celebrating the Memorial of Christ's Death on the 14th of Nisan which corresponds with the Jewish Passover.

"Jehovah's Witnesses commemorate Christ's death as a ransom or "propitiatory sacrifice" by observing the Lord's Evening Meal, or Memorial. They celebrate it once per year, noting that it was instituted on the Passover, an annual festival. They observe it on Nisan 14 according to the ancient Jewish luni-solar calendar. Jehovah's Witnesses are taught that this is the only celebration the Bible commands Christians to observe."

The year 2016 poses a unique set of circumstances as to why the Jewish community has decided to defer the celebration of their Pesach to such a late date this year. The Jewish Passover is to be commemorated on April 23 2016 starting  at sundown!

The Jewish calendar follows a lunar cycle calendar, which comprises of some 354/355 days. Since the lunar calendar is about 11 days shorter than a 365-day solar calendar, it is necessary to added an extra month every so many years to realign the two calendars! This is what is happening this year.

The Jehovah's Witnesses have apparently decided to keep the first possibility of celebrating the Commemoration of Christ's Death on the first possibility after the first full moon after the spring equinox (March 20/21), which falls on March 23 this year.

Nevertheless there are some communities that feel that the Jewish community should have chosen another year than 2016 to add the extra month than 2016 to realign their calendar and moving their Pesach to such a late date.


What is the consequence of being baptized twice, according to the Catholic Church?

Nothing.
The Code of Canon Law states:

Every person not yet baptized and only such a person is able to be baptized.

(Canon 864; emphasis added)
Here's what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about baptism and why it can only be received once:

Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.

(Catechism, paragraph 1272)
In other words, baptism (the first time) marks a person out as belonging to Christ. It is a consequence of this marking (the "seal" of Baptism) that a person is made part of the Body of Christ, purified from original sin, and given justifying and sanctifying grace:

Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte "a new creature," an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature," member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit.
(paragraph 1265)
The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:

enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;

giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;

allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues.

(paragraph 1266)
The baptized have become "living stones" to be "built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood" By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light." Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers.
(paragraph 1268)

If someone is inadvertently re-baptized, nothing particular happens. The person has already been marked out as part of Christ's flock; has already been made part of the Mystical Body of Christ. A second baptism has no effect on that:

Baptism imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual sign, the character, which consecrates the baptized person for Christian worship. Because of the character Baptism cannot be repeated.

(Catechism, paragraph 1280)
No penalty or censure is attached by the Church to conferring or receiving a second baptism (inadvertently or otherwise); however, the importance the Church places on baptizing only once can be seen in their instructions (in the Code of Canon Law) to priests on baptizing those who might possibly have been baptized before (including in another Christian community whose baptism is recognized as valid):

Canon 869 §1. If there is a doubt whether a person has been baptized or whether baptism was conferred validly and the doubt remains after a serious investigation, baptism is to be conferred conditionally.

[That is, the priest is required to carry out a thorough investigation, and if after that the priest has any reason at all to believe that the person might possibly have been baptized, he is to give only a conditional baptism—saying not "I baptize you" but instead, effectively "If you haven't been baptized, I baptize you."]

Canon 869 §2. Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism.

[If someone has been baptized by another Christian denomination, they're presumed to have been baptized validly, and thus will not be re-baptized at all—even conditionally—unless there is serious reason to believe that the Catholic Church doesn't recognize that baptism as valid.]

Canon 869 §3. If in the cases mentioned in §§1 and 2 the conferral or validity of the baptism remains doubtful, baptism is not to be conferred until after the doctrine of the sacrament of baptism is explained to the person to be baptized, if an adult, and the reasons of the doubtful validity of the baptism are explained to the person or, in the case of an infant, to the parents.

[So if the priest determines that the person has, or may have, already been baptized, he needs to explain to the adult baptizand or to the parents just exactly why the Church considers them already baptized, and why they're going to be baptized conditionally or not at all. They have to understand what's going on and why.]

Canon 870 An abandoned infant or a foundling is to be baptized unless after diligent investigation the baptism of the infant is established.

[Even in the case where there aren't any parents available, you still have to investigate the possibility that a child might have been baptized.]
This is something the Church takes quite seriously, even though it doesn't penalize for it. To make it easier to discover whether someone has been baptized, the Church requires priests who baptize to make a record of the fact in the permanent parish record:

The parish priest of the place in which the baptism was conferred must carefully and without delay record in the register of baptism the names of the baptised, the minister, the parents, the sponsors and, if there were such, the witnesses, and the place and date of baptism. He must also enter the date and place of birth.

(Code of Canon Law, Canon 877, section 1)
And this record needs to be duplicated in the diocesan records as well:

A diocesan bishop is to take care that the acts and documents of the archives of cathedral, collegiate, parochial, and other churches in his territory are also diligently preserved and that inventories or catalogs are made in duplicate, one of which is to be preserved in the archive of the church and the other in the diocesan archive.

(Code of Canon Law, Canon 491, section 1)
Thus, even if the pastor doesn't know whether someone has been baptized, he needs to at least ask where they grew up—the chancery office (administrative division) of the diocese including that city or town will have a record of any such person being baptized.


Anything that anyone says has eternal implications. When God speaks, His words go like the rain, they accomplish His work, and they return to Him (Isa. 55:10-11). Our words can be like that, too, like Samuel, who "let none of his words fall to the ground" (1 Sam. 3:19). Contrarily, James 3 speaks of the death that is in the tongue. It is impossible for man to tame it. Even the man who lies and then says he was joking throws around "firebrands, arrows, and death" (Pro. 26:18).

God would not have us share in deathly things. Paul condemns a long list of characteristics (among which include "disobedient to parents" and "inventors of evil") saying:

  ...Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things
  are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them
  that do them.

Romans 1:21 (emphasis added)

By being entertained with unwholesome things, we are taking pleasure in things that are worthy of death. Everything said has eternal implications. See Matthew 12:36-37

Also, to the Ephesians Paul writes:

  For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord:
  walk as children of light:... And have no fellowship with the
  unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.For it is a
  shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. Eph 5:8,10-11 (emphasis added)

Being entertained is not a Christian value, though it is not a bad thing at all. We should not let unwholesome talk get in the way of our walk with God.

  Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are
  noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure,
  whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if
  there is any virtue and if there is anything
  praiseworthy--meditate on these things. Philippians 4:8

(related to this question/answer is What does the Bible say about "bad" words?)


Was the Obadiah in 1 Kings 18 the same Obadiah who wrote the Book of Obadiah?

For what it's worth, I once heard a sermon in which the preacher said it was not the same fellow.

My bible has the following intro to Obadiah:

  Obadiah wrote this shortest book of the Old Testament probably soon
  after 586 B.C. when the armies of Babylon destroyed Jerusalem. During
  this conquest, the people of Edom helped capture fleeing Israelites
  and turn them over to the Babylonians. They even took up residence in
  some Judean villages. This angered the Lord, for the Edomites, as
  descendants of Esau, were related to the Israelites (Gen. 25:21-26,
  30) and therefore should have helped them. Obadiah prophesied that
  Edom would be repaid for mitreating God's people. Within a hundred
  years, Edom was in ruins. Obadiah also asserted that God is sovereign
  over the nations and that the house of Jacob would be restored because
  of God's covenant love for his people.

This would seem to preclude the Obadiahs being the same, as Elijah was well before the Judean exile (he was even before the northern kingdom was overrun).


What happened to the the practice of women covering their heads?

This article provides a good summary of the historical and current practices within Christianity regarding head coverings.

Basically for large portions of Christianity wearing some kind of head covering before the 20th century was the norm, even for Protestants:

  Among the Protestant reformers, Martin Luther's wife, Katherine, wore a headcovering in public worship and John Knox and John Calvin both called for women to wear headcoverings in public worship. Other commentators who have advocated headcovering during public worship include John Gill, Charles Spurgeon, Matthew Henry, A. R. Fausset, A. T. Robertson, Harry A. Ironside and Charles Caldwell Ryrie. In fact, until the 20th century no Reformed theologian taught against head coverings for women in public worship. While Anabaptists, Amish, and Mennonites advocate the wearing of headcoverings at all times, as a woman might pray or prophesy at any time, the Reformed teaching is that "praying and prophesying" refers to the activities taking place in public worship, as the Apostle Paul is dealing with public worship issues in 1st Corinthians, chapter.

For current practice:

  Headcovering, at least during worship services, is still promoted or required in a few denominations and among the more traditional Catholics.Among these are Catholics who live a plain life and are known as Plain Catholics. Some Anabaptist denominations, including the Amish, Old Order Mennonite and Conservative Mennonites, the Old German Baptist Brethren, the Hutterites, and the Apostolic Christian Church; some Pentecostal churches, such as the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith, The Pentecostal Mission, the Deeper Christian Life Ministry, and the Christian Congregation in the United States; the Plymouth Brethren; and the more conservative Scottish Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed churches. Though most Protestant denominations have no official expectation that women cover, some individuals choose to practice headcovering according to their understanding of 1 Corinthians 11.

However to properly understand this phenomena of changing practices I think it is necessary to understand Paul's literal teaching. There is both a cultural and natural basis that explains both the submission to the rule and its abandonment. To Paul one should become 'a Jew to a Jew and Gentile to a Gentile', therefore if a given culture communicated submission to her husband by wearing a purple cone on her head, a Christian woman in that culture should also wear a purple cone on her head.

Let's look at the Apostles meaning, this well then explain why in many churches this practice has ceased.

Bible times regarding head dress were not that different than  various places in the Middle East today, where the social meaning is the same (or similar) as it was at the time of Christ. One must  realize woman should keep their head covered in these places otherwise it is seen as a huge protests against a woman's submission to her husband. To do so while praying would almost seem like blasphemy.

However what complicates the issue is when Paul argued this case against some sort of biblical radical 'feminists' who were ready to throw away the authority of men under the new changes of the gospel, he appealed to nature.

Paul said:

  Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. (1 Corinthians 11:14-15, NIV)

I believe we must accept the scripture everywhere without forcing the language and then handle the 'damage' to our own ideas after the fact, as well as resolve any seeming contradictions without twisting the original statements.  Therefore, I think Paul is now referring to something here that is 'not cultural'.

The way I accept this unchanging rule, while opposing the enforcement of the cultural rule, only relevant in the Middle East, is this way.  First, Paul in referring to nature is simply pointing out what most people realize.  In general men look silly with long hair (with some exceptions) and in general women look beautiful with long, flowing, gorgeous hair (with some exceptions).  Nobody would ever be able to deny this, just looked at models in magazines.  Why is this the case? Paul argues it is a natural symbol that shows a woman under the headship of the man.  In a man's case his headship is not in this world but invisible, so when praying to God the open air is a better symbol.  Not that a woman does not ultimately have Christ as her head as well but that she came from the man, i.e. wo-man, as symbols of societies organization from the original template of Adam and Eve.

Now, I would never imagine for a minute that Paul intended to refer to the natural observation to become legalistic, so that a woman can't be bald in modern day, if she chooses, or that a man can't have long hair and play in a christian rock band, or try out for a Jesus movie, where for some odd reason Jesus is depicted as having long hair. Rather, as a bald woman was a great cultural shame back then, and that not keeping her head covered was interpreted as rebellion, the natural images of nature should not at all be rebelled against. That was Paul's argument.  Why rebel against a cultural ceremony if it even has some support in nature? However, once a culture no longer has that meaning, the natural element of beauty is purely a personal matter.  Really its about looking good for the opposite sex, or what takes the least amount of time to get ready in the morning, or suits your career image, etc.

Even God did not always follow his own natural symbolism, therefore neither do we need to as a matter of law.  For example, the Nazirite was instructed to go against this symbolism as a revised symbol of his 'dedication'. Interestingly his hair may have possibly become a symbol of Christ in the flesh, for when it became large it may represented his 'head' on top of his own head, whereby his 'commitment' actually became part of the fellowship offering.  Whenever something is burned in offering to God, it is reasonable for us to draw imagery of Christ in the flesh.

  “‘Then at the entrance to the tent of meeting, the Nazirite must shave off the hair that symbolizes their dedication. They are to take the hair and put it in the fire that is under the sacrifice of the fellowship offering. (Numbers 6:18, NIV)

Therefore in the Bible an open airy head may indicate the headship of God as the divine Christ, yet long hair could be the human manifestation of Christ.

Today in most countries we can do whatever we please, even die our hair purple or green and no particular cultural message is being communicated that would be necessarily offensive to Paul.  The natural order of things no longer has a direct ceremonial and cultural significance as it once had for most countries.

This explains why the practice for many has been abrogated. There was no Biblical command inaugurating it, but while a culture communicated its values with this symbolism, there was no reason to oppose it. Now that many cultures do not put much weight on outward appearance in terms of the male-female role, there is no reason to oppose to forms of cultural communication.  If Christianity attached undue importance to clothing than it could be argued that men should wear tunics and sandals to pay respect to Christ's culture.


Does the Associate Reformed Presbyterian church believe in replacement theology?

The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARPC) holds to a somewhat modified version of the Westminster Confession of Faith. It can be found here: http://arpchurch.org/documents/confession-of-faith/

They also hold to the Westminster Shorter and Larger Catechisms, as evidenced here: http://arpchurch.org/documents/standards/

Replacement theology is a term usually used by those who hold to the eschatological position known as dispensational premillenialism. It is defined as the teaching that the Church has replaced Israel, hence, "replacement" theology. However, it is usually used as a mischaracterisation of covenant theology.

Covenant theology, in the context of the ARPC, is the teaching that God has dealt with humanity through two overarching covenants: the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace. The Biblical covenants (e.g. Adamic, Noahic, Mosaic, Davidic, New) fall within the categories of the Covenant of Works or the Covenant of Grace. The ARPC subscribes to covenant theology, as defined in their doctrinal statements found in the Westminster Standards. For example, in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 7 describes God's covenants with man.

Covenant theology teaches that the church is the new Israel, and that all of the elect throughout history are members of the church. This means that the believers during the Old (Mosaic) Covenant, who were citizens of the nation of Israel, are members of the church. As such, there is not a strong distinction between Israel and the church in covenant theology.

Dispensational premillenials typically miscategorise this as replacement theology, but covenant theology doesn't teach that the church replaced Israel, but that the church is Israel. This is supported by passages such as Romans 4:16-17, and Romans 9:6-7. This does depend on Israel being understood not as a physical nation primarily, but rather as a spiritual nation, comprised of the spiritual children of Abraham by faith, namely, the church.

So the ARPC does not subscribe to replacement theology, but many dispensational premillenials will say that it does based on their understanding of ARPC theology.

Your other two questions should probably be in another question, and I can answer them if you ask them as new questions.


Perowne's quoting John Calvin in Psalm 56

This is from Calvin's treatment of Psalm 56:3.  The most common translation of this work, by James Anderson (published 1846), is available online for free, and the relevant section reads:

  The true proof of faith consists in this, that when we feel the solicitations of natural fear, we can resist them, and prevent them from obtaining an undue ascendancy. Fear and hope may seem opposite and incompatible affections, yet it is proved by observation, that the latter never comes into full sway unless there exists some measure of the former. (CCEL; cf. Google Books)

Comparing your quote to this one, it's easy to see how they differ only in translation.  Since his exact wording doesn't appear to predate his work, it seems likely that Perowne provides his own translation of Calvin's original text.


Did Jesus really had to be God for the atonement of sin to work?

I think what you express in your question is actually a form of the Nestorian heresy. You say that Jesus's "nature" died in our place and not his divine nature. The Nestorian controversy was named after the bishop Nestorius who taught that Mary gave birth to Christ and that Christ was crucified on the cross, and drew a distinction between the person of Christ and the divine nature in such a way as he could say that God's nature did not suffer on the cross and was not given birth to.

This teaching was condemned at the council of Ephesus and stands in opposition to the orthodox position that Jesus Christ is one person with both a divine and human nature and that those natures are united and unmixed in such a way so that Mary is called the Theotokos (birth-giver of God) and that we say God died on the cross for our sins.

This is expressed well in the recantation of Leporius recorded by St. John Cassian in Book 1 Chapter 5 of his work On the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius:

  Therefore we confess that our Lord and God Jesus Christ the only Son of God, who for His own sake was begotten of the Father before all worlds, when in time He was for our sakes made man of the Holy Ghost and the ever-virgin Mary, was God at His birth; and while we confess the two substances of the flesh and the Word, we always acknowledge with pious belief and faith one and the same Person to be indivisibly God and man; and we say that from the time when He took upon Him flesh all the belonged to God was given to man, as all that belonged to man was joined to God. And in this sense 'the Word was made flesh:' not that He began by any conversion of change to be what He was not, but that by the Divine 'economy' the Word of the Father never left the Father, and yet vouchsafed to become truly man.

So yes certainly. Jesus Christ's divine nature has something to do with our atonement according to the canonical orthodox Christian faith. John Cassian offers many arguments in this work, but I will simply summarize the first one that directly pertains to the atonment. In Book 2 Chapter 4 of the same work St. John quotes Malachi 3:8 for an argument:

  Shall a man pierce his God, for you are piercing me.

The interesting thing here is that most English translations appear to say "rob" and not "pierce". This may have something to do with the fact that the early Christians referred to the Septuagint and not the Hebrew text for the Old Testament; I'm not sure. But anyways, St. John says this is a prophecy of Christ's passion and that it clearly shows God contending with those persecuting him, not simply saying you have killed God's anointed, but that you have killed God himself.

As to how exactly the incarnation and crucifixion save us (it is not only the crucifixion, but the incarnation in its entirety that saves us), the best summary I can think of is this short sentence from St. Gregory of Nazianzus in his work To Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.pdf)

  For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved.

So you see that it is because the divine nature enters all things pertaining to man (birth, life, work, eating, and death) that it can be transformed for our salvation. This is broader than just the atonement, but encompasses all of human life on earth. This is why the incarnation and nature of Christ were critically important doctrines to the Church and why bishops spent centuries arguing about the correct terminology and teachings about Christ, and sometimes were exiled, killed, or had their tongues cut out for teaching that Jesus Christ was fully man and fully God and truly suffered on the cross. Note that the Nicene creed is very careful to mention that God "suffered".


Which denominations believe that the misfortunes of Jews are a result of "God's curse" for their killing of Jesus?

Even within Christian groups there are differences among individuals.
I would say that the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. was absolutely a consequence of the corporate sin of Israel, like the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. No difference, really. Why did God allow the Babylonians to destroy Jerusalem? Because of Israel's sin. There's no need to whitewash this, and Christians shouldn't be ashamed to state this as a fact. If anyone thinks God allowed the Romans to conquer Jerusalem because He was pleased with Israel, such a one is twisted.
During the siege of Jerusalem, there was an interval in which the Roman army under Cestius essentially retreated, giving time for the Christians (who were privy to Jesus' prophetic warning; cp. Matt. 24:16) to escape and flee before the full onslaught of the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem.
In Wars of the Jews, 2.19.7 (§540), the Jewish historian Josephus wrote,

It then happened that Cestius was not conscious either how the besieged despaired of success, nor how courageous the people were for him; and so he recalled his soldiers from the place, and by despairing of any expectation of taking it, without having received any disgrace, he retired from the city, without any reason in the world.

In Ecclesiastical History, 3.5.2-4, the Church historian Eusebius wrote,

2 For the Jews after the ascension of our Savior, in addition to their crime against him, had been devising as many plots as they could against his apostles. First Stephen was stoned to death by them, and after him James, the son of Zebedee and the brother of John, was beheaded, and finally James, the first that had obtained the episcopal seat in Jerusalem after the ascension of our Saviour, died in the manner already described. But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name."
3 But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella. And when those that believed in Christ had come thither from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men.
4 But the number of calamities which everywhere fell upon the nation at that time; the extreme misfortunes to which the inhabitants of Judea were especially subjected, the thousands of men, as well as women and children, that perished by the sword, by famine, and by other forms of death innumerable,—all these things, as well as the many great sieges which were carried on against the cities of Judea, and the excessive. sufferings endured by those that fled to Jerusalem itself, as to a city of perfect safety, and finally the general course of the whole war, as well as its particular occurrences in detail, and how at last the abomination of desolation, proclaimed by the prophets, stood in the very temple of God, so celebrated of old, the temple which was now awaiting its total and final destruction by fire,—all these things any one that wishes may find accurately described in the history written by Josephus.

He ends chapter 5, stating,

7 But passing by the particular calamities which they suffered from the attempts made upon them by the sword and by other means, I think it necessary to relate only the misfortunes which the famine caused, that those who read this work may have some means of knowing that God was not long in executing vengeance upon them for their wickedness against the Christ of God.

Read Leviticus 26 and note all the curses Israel would endure because they refused to listen to God. The curses are extremely severe. I guess many simply skim over that as though God made empty threats; He does not.
Finally, there's Deut. 18:15-19. Altough it applies to any prophet of Israel, it is also referring to the Messiah (cp. Acts 3:22, 7:37), the prophet par excellence, who would be "like Moshe." God commanded the Israelites to listen to this prophet because he spoke the words that God put in his mouth. Again, this applies to every prophet, but especially the Messiah who would be a greater prophet than Moshe (contrary to Judaism which says that he will only be "near" Moshe's prophetic degree).
But, pay particular attention to Deut. 18:19, in which it is written, "And it shall come to pass, whoever shall not listen to My words that He shall speak in My name, I will require of him." "Require" doesn't really capture the meaning of the Hebrew.
The Hebrew in this particular context essentially means "exact vengeance" (cp. Gen. 9:5; Ps. 10:4; Eze. 33:6, etc.). Ibn Ezra cited one example of this occurring. He refers to a particular prophet ("man of God") in 1 Kings 13:1 who did not listen to the word of YHVH (1 Kings 13:9). Long story short, this "man of God" --- yes, he was actually a prophet of Israel --- was riding a donkey in the way when God sent a lion to devour him. The donkey, remained unharmed. The man of God, torn to shreds.
Jesus (who was a prophet) repeatedly said that he did not speak his own words but the words of the Father. The Jewish people refused to listen to him. God the Father commanded them to listen, as it is written (Matt. 17:5), "This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased; listen to Him!"
Unbelieving Jews are still under the Old Covenant, and the curses of the Law (which they acknowledged in an oath), still remain if they refuse to listen to God. It is certainly true that Jews have suffered countless calamities because of their unbelief. With that being said, it does not excuse those who murdered Jews. God will judge both. I cannot emphasize that enough. Also, do note that it is not only because they (again, not all Jews) had a hand in killing Jesus, but the prophets and other saints of God.

Addressing Anixx's question.
The answer is "no," because man is not aware of God's predeterminate purpose and will.
Regarding Jerusalem during the Babylonian captivity, God said (Jer. 34:2), "I will give this city into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall burn it with fire."
God is going to give it. It's His will, His counsel, His purpose.
Yet, Nevukhadne'tzar said (Dan. 4:30), "The king spoke and said, 'Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?" ("Babylon" would have also included Jerusalem since they had captured it and incorporated it into their kingdom.)
Nevukhadne'tzar didn't believe in the God of Israel. He conquered Jerusalem with evil intentions, not thinking He was serving the God of Israel. Accordingly, God judged him for the evil he committed.
Likewise, Vespasian, Titus, and all those of Rome who conquered Jerusalem did not believe in the God of Israel, nor did they believe they were performing His will. They did so because of the evil in their heart.
Now, you may say, "What if an individual (e.g., a Christian) does believe in the God of Israel and does believe He is performing the will of God by killing a Jew?"
Well, now we have the true Scottsman fallacy, and unfortunately, it is my response. Any Christian who murders another human being, Jew or Gentile, is going straight to Gehinnam (Gal. 5:21). Oh wait...let me make that more precise. Any individual who calls him/ herself a "Christian," yet murders another human being, is going straight to Gehinnam. Because, anyone who murders another human being is not a Christian. Christ gave a new commandment (John 15:12), "Love one another as I have loved you." He also said, "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13). Nowhere does he advocate killing unbelievers, nor does Paul.
I understand this may not sit well with my Jewish brothers. My ancestors were killed in the Inquisition, burned alive in "autos-de-fe." Many, many of the Jews on Mi Yodeya and here have ancestors who died in the Holocaust. They may have been killed by individuals claiming to be Christians and supposing to do the will of God. What they know of Christians is likely distasteful, and I cannot blame them. I cannot heal those wounds; only God can.
History has shown that many Jews, despite knowing that so-called "Christians" killed Jews in the name of Christ, reaized that such individuals were not Christians at all and did not represent the teachings of Christ. These Jews then later became Christians, most willingly. Again, there is the unfortunate aspect of forced conversion by both Islam and Christianity. While the Qur'an may advocate forced conversions (cp. Qur'an 8:39, 9:29), the New Testament never does. After all, one of the most fundamental teachings of Christ is "forgiveness" and loving one's enemies (thanks to David Stratton and svidgen for their comments on that previous thread of mine).


Q - Does the verse in Song of Solomon 5:16 contain the name of the Islamic prophet Muhammad?
A – No, it does not.  In Song of Solomon 5:16, the maiden says of her lover, "His mouth is sweetness itself; he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, this is my friend, daughters of Jerusalem." The word translated as "lovely" is the Hebrew word ‘machamadim’. It is the plural of ‘machamad’, which means “lovely, cute, or desirable.”  Although it is the root word of Muhammad, it does not follow that the verse refers to Muhammad, especially since the word used is a plural adjective, not the name of a person.
Q – Is the Muslim understanding of Song of Solomon 5:16 based on exegesis or eisegeis?

The process of exegesis involves 1) observation: what does the passage say? 2) interpretation: what does the passage mean? 3) correlation: how does the passage relate to the rest of the Bible? and 4) application: how should this passage affect my life?

Eisegesis involves 1) imagination: what idea do I want to present? 2) exploration: what Scripture passage seems to fit with my idea? and 3) application: what does my idea mean? Notice that, in eisegesis, there is no examination of the words of the text or their relationship to each other, no cross-referencing with related passages, and no real desire to understand the actual meaning. Scripture serves only as a prop to the interpreter’s ideas.

Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/exegesis-eisegesis.html

A – It is based on eisegesis.  One reason is that the Muslim interpretation fails to adhere to the rules of grammar.  It fails the literal principle because it tries to spiritualize or allegorize words that literally mean “lovely, cute, or desirable.”  It also fails the historical principle because it interprets Hebrew Scripture according to a modern culture/religion rather than placing scripture in its historical context.  Finally, the Muslim interpretation of this Bible verse fails the “Synthesis Principle” of good exegesis:

The best interpreter of scripture is scripture itself. We must examine a passage in relation to its immediate context (the verses surrounding it), its wider context (the book it’s found in), and its complete context (the Bible as a whole). The Bible does not contradict itself. Any theological statement in one verse can and should be harmonized with theological statements in other parts of scripture. Good Bible interpretation relates any one passage to the total content of scripture.

Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-exegesis.html

Biblical exegesis does not support the Muslim interpretation of Song of Solomon 5:16.


There are differing traditions about this. Only in Eastern Orthodoxy have I run into a very specific definition, where 'Image of God' is treated like a term of art with a specific, well defined meaning.

Generally speaking, most Christians interpret it to mean that we share in the spiritual reality with the spiritual beings, and traits specific to God (spiritual traits, since God is Spirit) belong to man. Such things then do not belong to other creatures, which may or may not include the angels. What traits these are vary from interpretation to interpretation, but they may include:

Ability to create
Reason
Having a 'spirit'
Being able to have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit

In Eastern Orthodoxy, there is a specific definition that is sometimes offered (though it does not exclude the above.)

Each human is unique, as God is unique (being one!)
Each human is relational, that is, he exists only in relation to others, as God is Trinity in himself and thus even if there is no other, God is 'in relation' via the persons of the Trinity
Each human has free will, as God has free will.


How is Abraham able to speak to the rich man across the chasm of hell in Jesus' story in Luke 16?

I am not claiming that this is orthodox, but it is the explanation I heard in a Baptist church. It was the pastor's explanation.

First, according to the pastor, this story is not a parable. Jesus never gives names in His parables (instead He uses descriptions such as a certain rich man).

Second, at the time the parable was told, Jesus had yet to be crucified, resurrected and ascended to the Father. So the sacrifice for sins had yet to be paid. Thus, the righteous souls from the old testament (those who looked forward to the sacrifice Christ would one day make) were also not yet ascended to the Father. Instead, they waited in Paradise, which was separated from the place of punishment, but in the same proximity (center of the earth?).

After Jesus was resurrected, the graves were opened and many dead also arose. These were the souls from Paradise ascending to Heaven.

It is late and I don't have time to look up the scripture references that he used, but I will try to add them tomorrow. As I said at the beginning, I don't claim this to be orthodox, but it was the explanation given by a Baptist pastor.


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

The case against a Holy Spirit person or entity that IS NOT the Father is clearly outlined in scripture. IOW, the HS IS the Spirit of the Father according to the scriptures and not a separate entity of a 3 part God.
Basically, according to Jesus and the Apostles, he hardly even exists if all the verses speaking of the Father and His relationship with Jesus and us is concerned.
No one gives greetings or sends messages, or prays to the HS.
No instruction is given about 'him'.
No mandate for his place within the so-called 'Godhead'.
To understand otherwise is to read into the text that which is not plainly provided.
In Luke, Jesus rules out everyone - humans, spirits, devils from his statement - 'only the Father knows'. If there was a Holy Spirit entity he would have to be included in this intimate knowing.

All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. Luke 10:22

Furthermore, the disciples have left us with their wisdom on this matter which shows us what the holy spirit is.

the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say Luke 12:12

For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaks in you. Matt 10:20

We have many examples of 'the spirit of...' Christ, truth, grace, wisdom, Zerubbabel, Father, etc. None of these is a 'separate' entity. God gives name to everything and everyone - even changing names to suit new circumstances or roles. The HS has no name. Just as the 'spirit of Christ' or 'wisdom' has no special name either as it is the essence of who they are.
Let's not be misled by the 'him' and 'he' liberally applied by our interpretive translators, where 'which' and 'it' could/should have been applied.
If there is a Holy Spirit entity, Jesus or the apostles never taught this. It wasn’t included in the creeds until centuries after the church started, further confirming that it wasn’t a teaching of the apostles.
While we can certainly read this aspect of God into our theology from a few select verses, what would be the point if it is not a truth God has clearly provided for Jesus’ followers?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lots of times Isaiah 63 gets quoted, 'and they grieved His Holy Spirit'
Perfect example of proof-texting! We could equally say, based on what the apostles have told us, (the Holy Spirit IS the spirit of the Father) He was grieved in His heart! How one justifies a 'person' from this verse is astounding!
Read on same verse.

Therefore He turned Himself to become their enemy, He fought against them.

Who is HE? Not the HS, but God - He fought, He became their enemy. His Spirit was grieved.
The biblical basis against the 'person' of HS is abundant. Anything suggesting otherwise is based on very poor exegesis like the Isaiah 63 proof-texting approach, ignoring context and drawing faulty presumptions.
In short, the biblical basis against a Holy Spirit 'person' is

to read what is provided.
to not draw poor conclusions from a text in isolation.
to not add to the text that which it does not naturally supply.

Excerpt from Why Doesn't the Holy Spirit know who Jesus is?


How non-trinitarians explain Jacob wrestled with God

Nontrinitarians disagree with the mainstream Christian understanding of the Trinity summarized by the Nicean council.

That does not preclude the existance of Jesus before the first century AD.

For example, Jehovah Witnesses believe Jesus was (and is) Michael the Archangel.

And Mormons believe that God the Father exists in the form of a man and that Jesus existed in the form of a man, even before his birth (Ether 3, Book of Mormon).

This is an interesting (confusing) scripture for several reasons, for example, in reconciling it with Exodus 33:20

  Thou canst not see my [God's] face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

but I don't see how Nontrinitarianism would of itself make this story more difficult to explain.

FYI, if you are looking for general interpretations, see

Why did God wrestle with Jacob?
Why did God wrestle with Jacob and why did this appearance not become a "big deal"?


Why is Jesus often depicted with long hair if 1 Corinthians 11:14 says it is disgraceful?

Even if the premise that Christ had longer hair is true, it would not matter as that is not the point of this passage. If it is read in context i.e. read the chapter before and after, it is clear that Paul is talking about how Jewish customs and how even though they are no longer necessary due to Christ's sacrifice, they should still be observed if you are causing your brother to stumble:

  "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all for the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the Church of God"
  - 1 Corinthians 10: 31-32

Then he goes on in the start of Chapter 11 to talk about the custom of women covering their head to worship and men uncovering their head to worship and why that custom was in place: because angels needed to cover their head out of reverence to God. I'm not a Jewish custom expert but I do know that the point of this passage was not to show that it is disgraceful for men to have long hair but to show that you must respect the customs of the people you are around in church. This is shown by the ending phrase of that section:

  "If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice [of head covering], nor do the churches of God. - 1 Corintians 11:16

It is important to always read God's word in context as it was meant or else you run the danger of missing the point.

Hope this helps :)


What must we do if the vast majority of the members of the Catholic Church here on earth profess heresy and are thus excommunicate?

St. Vincent of Lerins, in his Commonitory lib. 1 cap. 2 n. 6-8, says to "follow universality, antiquity, consent."

  “Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold
  that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is
  truly and properly Catholic, as the very force and meaning of the word
  shows, which comprehends everything almost universally. And we shall
  observe this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We
  shall follow universality if we confess that one Faith to be true
  which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we
  in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is plain that
  our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent if in antiquity itself
  we eagerly follow the definitions and beliefs of all, or certainly
  nearly all, priests and doctors alike.”

  “What, then, will the Catholic Christian do if any part of the Church
  has cut itself off from the communion of the Universal Faith? What
  surely but prefer the soundness of the whole body to a pestilent and
  corrupt member?

  “What if some novel contagion seeks to infect the whole Church, and
  not merely a small portion of it? Then he will take care to cling to
  antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any novel deceit.

  “What if in antiquity itself error be detected on the part of two or
  three men, or perhaps of a city, or even of a province? Then he will
  look to it that he prefer the decrees of an ancient General Council,
  if such there be, to the rashness and ignorance of a few.

  “But what if some error spring up concerning which nothing of this
  kind is to be found? Then he must take pains to find out and compare
  the opinions of the ancients, provided, of course, that such remained
  in the communion and faith of the One Catholic Church, although they
  lived in different times and places, conspicuous and approved
  teachers; and whatever he shall find to have been held, written and
  taught, not by one or two only, but by all equally and with one
  consent, openly, frequently and persistently, that he must understand
  is to be believed by himself also without the slightest hesitation.“


Scripture doesn't say.

However, what does it mean to "baptize in someone's name"? It means baptizing, having the authority of that person to do so. If we baptize in the name of Jesus, it is as though Jesus had baptized.

John the baptist was son of a priest, so it is safe to assume that he had priestly authority from God to baptize. Thus he baptized in God's name (no matter what he said when he did it).


Does the Old Testament foretell the time in history in which the Messiah would come (the first time)?

Yes. Daniel, who wrote during the Babylonian Empire prophesied that Messiah would come after four succesive Kingdoms. One which had already existed, the Babylonian, would be taken over by the Persian, then the Persian taken over by the Greek. The Greek then taken over by the Roman, then Messiah overthrowing the Roman. This is not just a Christian re-interpretation but an actual Jewish expectation that Messiah would overturn the Roman Empire.  Of course the common Jewish expectation was that Messiah would lead by sword, not by conversion to an 'invisible' kingdom, but nevertheless, both traditional Jewish and Christian interpretation of Daniel Chapter 7 puts Messiah after the formation of the Roman Empire.

A wiki article on the four beasts of Daniel has it right:

  The following interpretation is a traditional view of Jewish and Christian Historicists, Futurists, Dispensationalists, Partial Preterists, and other futuristic Jewish and Christian hybrids, as well as certain Messianic Jews, who typically believe that the kingdoms in Daniel (with variations) are:

Neo-Babylonian Empire
Medo-Persian Empire
Macedonian Empire of
Alexander and his successors to the Ptolomaic and Seleucid Empires
together, and
Roman Empire, with other implications to come later.

This was the scheme described by Jerome in his Commentary on Daniel.[7] Within this framework there are numerous variations.

Yet this is not all. Many respectable theologians believe that Daniel was more particular in foretelling the time of the coming of Christ than ever any prophet had been before. In Daniel 9 of his prophecy, it is foretold that it should be '70 weeks', i.e. 70 weeks of years, or 70 times 7 years, or 490 years, from the decree to rebuild and restore the state of the Jews till the Messiah should be crucified. There is much calculation by various people to argue that this was the very year that Christ died dated from the commission granted to Ezra by Artaxerxes in Ezra 7. Naturally this is fairly complicated to prove and there would be much debate about the details.

However this exactness to the precise year does not appear to have provided any Rabbinic traditions to expect Messiah at the time of Christ exactly, rather according to the Jewish historian Alfred Edersheim there was many guesses from around 4000 years after the Creation to around 729 A.D. based on an extended view of a five monarchy prediction where after Rome somehow Ishmael was added without any scriptural warrant. Yet even in this confusion and speculation some interesting Rabbinic opinions can be found concerning Daniel. First around the time of Messiah as predicted by Daniel some thought that the second temple would be destroyed which is surprisingly accurate considering.

  Dan. 9:24. In (The Talmudic Tractate Nazir, on the Nasirate. 32 b) it is noted that this referred to the time when the second Temple was to be destroyed. So also in Yalkut vol. ii. p. 79 d, lines 16 &c. from the bottom. (Edersheim, A. (1896). Vol. 2: The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (P734)

Second, a kind of disappearance and reappearance of Messiah was thought of. Although not seen as 3 days in the grave a 45 day disappearance is again a pretty good guess:

  Dan. 12:11, 12. These two verses receive a peculiar Messianic interpretation, and that by the authority of the Rabbis. For it is argued that, as Moses, the first Redeemer, appeared, and was withdrawn for a time, and then reappeared, so would the second Redeemer; and the interval between His disappearance and reappearance is calculated at 45 days, arrived at by deducting the 1,290 days of the cessation of the sacrifice (Dan. 12:11) from the 1,335 days of Dan. 12:12 (Midr. on Ruth 2:14, ed. Warsh. p. 43 b). (Edersheim, A. (1896). Vol. 2: The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (P734).

These predictions are all quite remarkable and they shows us how precise and speculative those were who pondered them, yet somehwat accurate still. Also it should give us pause to consider how miraculous that these prophecies did predict events which arguably occured. Of course after the fact we are able to see the predictions more clearly but that is partly the purpose of prophecy, to prove that events which have occurred were clearly predicted by an omniscient God.


Which Christian denominations believe Jesus is buried in Japan?

The Kakure Kirishitan literally Hidden Christians were a sect of Japanese believers who received the Gospel in the 1600s, but after foreigners were expelled and went underground.  In the 200 years or so following, they developed many peculiar to syncretic to downright heretical ideas about Christianity, mainly based on passed down traditions that had become corrupted over time. What characterized their worship, for example, was a Buddhist sounding chant using Latin-sounding version of the Lord's Prayer and the Hail Mary.

That said, two points are in order:

I could not locate any information about a supposed kakure krishitan burial site for Jesus Christ, one way or another. From the link provided, I see the reference, but no mention of kakure krishitan.  That said, it wouldn't be an unreasonable assumption.
Such a position, that Jesus died and stayed in the grave is as fundamentally heterodox as it gets. C.S. Lewis, for example, stated that the resurrection was the essential distinctive of Christianity, without which the religion was useless.  Paul also stated, "If in Christ we have hope in this life only [i.e. no resurrection], we are of all people most to be pitied." (1st Corinthians 15:19 ESV)  The resurrection and the empty tomb are sine qua nons of the faith.

In short, if Jesus' bones have any resting place, the whole thing falls apart.

As such, its really hard to call any sect that denies the resurrection Christian.*

* I know we're not supposed to answer "are X Christians" or not—I'm not trying to say this of any group—only an essential doctrine that is a clear dividing line between Christian and other.


Why do most Christians eat pork when Deuteronomy says not to?

Why do most Christians eat pork?
Initially, the prohibition against pork was part of the Law giving to Moses as Deuteronomy 14:7, 8 states.

However, you must not eat the following animals that chew the cud or that have split hooves: the camel, the hare, and the rock badger, because they chew the cud but do not have split hooves. They are unclean for you. 8 Also the pig because it has a split hoof but does not chew the cud. It is unclean for you. You must not eat their flesh or touch their carcasses. (NWT)

Interestingly though when here on earth, Jesus was confronted with a situation that dealt with uncleanness in Mark 7:1-8. Jesus later was explaining to his disciples the hypocrisy of the religious leaders of the time. In his explanation, Jesus made a very interesting statement:

So he said to them: “Are you also without understanding like them? Are you not aware that nothing from outside that enters into a man can defile him, 19 since it enters, not into his heart, but into his stomach, and it passes out into the sewer?” Thus he declared all foods clean.-Mark 7:18, 19 (NWT)[italics mine]

In a vision, the apostle Peter saw a large linen sheet with unclean animals. (Acts 10:9-16) In this vision, a voice spoke to him saying:

“Stop calling defiled the things God has cleansed.”-Acts 10:15 (NWT)

While this vision was to indicate the acceptance of Gentiles (non-Jews) into the congregation of God, this also corroborates Jesus's statement at Mark 7:19.
Later, the apostle Paul addressed the issue of some of those within the Christian congregation having a problem with Gentiles eating foods that were purchased in the local markets. Some of these foods were sometimes 'leftovers' of sacrifices made to false gods or idols. In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul talks about the need to not judge our fellow man about what they eat. Paul also counsels Christians to not stumble or cause problems for fellow Christians by doing things that would make them question their faith.
Ultimately, Christians are no longer under the Mosaic Law. The apostle put it plainly:

“The Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith. But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor.”-Galatians 3:24, 25 (NWT)


Does Acts 20:33-34 suggest that a church should not have a paid ministry?

No, it does not.  A common mistake is to take a particular situation or statement by one person and attempt to apply it as a rule to all situations.  All this passage means is that Paul worked to provide for his own living while he lived among the Ephesians.  Paul did accept provision from others in other cities and at other times.  The book of Philippians is in many ways a thank you letter for gifts given.

  Yet it was kind of you to share my trouble. 15 And you Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only. 16 Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again. 17 Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that increases to your credit.  Philippians 4:14-17 ESV

He speaks to this again in his first letter to the church in Corinth:

  Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? 7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?  Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.”  1 Corinthians 9:6-9 ESV

So, no, this is not a universal principle that no one should ever receive his living from those to whom he ministers.  It merely records that a minister does not have to do this, and Paul, in particular, did not do this during one specific place in his ministry, though he did receive compensation elsewhere.


Why did the disciples cast lots when the Holy Spirit was promised

Good question.
First, casting lots is not the same thing as divination.  Divination is one of the forbidden practices mentioned in the Old Testament, and it involved the attempt to foretell future events or discover hidden knowledge by occult or supernatural means.  Diviners were just one class of people forbidden to practice their "arts" in Israel's midst.  Others included wizards, questioners of the dead, witches, sorcerers, people who purge children with fire, augurers, omen readers, and enchanters (though this is not an exhaustive list).
Clearly, the early 11 apostles were not seeking God's guidance by occult, magical, or supernatural-apart-from-God means.  Notice they

"prayed, 'Lord, you know the hearts of all. Show us which one of these two you have chosen to assume the task of this service and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place'" (vv.24,25).

The apostles knew enough to seek God's face first.  This is significant, I feel.  They also considered carefully the qualifications of the two "applicants" (see vv.21-23), much as the early church in Jerusalem did when they appointed deacons (Acts 6:1-7).  Finally, they did not "put it to a vote," with 51 percent of the vote carrying the day.  No, they prayed and then they put out a "fleece," so to speak (see Gideon's experience in Judges 6:39,40).  In short, their hearts were in the right place.
More in answer to your question:  Yes, the apostles were promised the baptism of the Holy Spirit.  Moreover, Jesus gave them a "temporary" endowment of the Holy Spirit to "tide them over," so to speak, prior to Pentecost (see John 20:22,23).
I have two questions:  1) Did the disciples truly know and appreciate fully what Jesus did in John 20 when He breathed on them and told them to receive the Holy Spirit?; and 2) Did they appreciate what being baptized with the Holy Spirit signified (see John 15:5-15 and Acts 1:8)?  To both questions I have to answer no--at least not fully.
As with so many of the things Jesus told them (sometimes over and over again), Jesus' words went right over their heads.  It was not until after His resurrection that they "remembered" His words and were able to make sense of them (see Lk 24:8; Acts 11:16).
The apostles did at the time the best they knew how.  They did not know (which we do today with 20/20 hindsight) that Jesus' "temporary" endowment was probably sufficient for making this important decision, and that they therefore did not need to resort to an Old Testament method such as the Urim and the Thummim to confirm God's will in the matter (see Ex 28:30; Lev 8:8; Ezra 2:63; and Neh 7:65).
Perhaps some even better questions (and I'm surprised you did not ask them) would be:

Why did the apostles feel it was incumbent on them to appoint a twelfth apostle?

Did Jesus reveal His will to them in this matter prior to His death and resurrection, and  His words simply did not find their way into the canon of Scripture?

Furthermore, were the eleven being presumptuous in concluding that a twelfth apostle was indeed God's will for them at that time?

Had God really wanted Paul, who had yet to appear on the scene, to be the twelfth apostle (though I do not personally feel this was the case), and by electing the twelfth apostle themselves they "cheated" Paul of the honor?

Before I close, I'll share a personal anecdote you might find enlightening and constructive.  I had a professor in Bible College who told us of a desire he once had to join with the Wycliffe Bible translators in their translation work among people-groups having no Bible in their heart language.  The day came when his application papers were all ready to be signed and then mailed to the mission's headquarters.
Of course he had prayed about the decision, seeking God's face and will, and he by no means took the decision lightly.  When he reached the dotted line at the bottom of the application form and was just about to sign his name, something unusual happened: he forgot his name!  Yes, he forgot his name completely, and no amount of wracking his brain would bring it to mind so that he could sign the application.  He took his mental block as a "sign" God did not want him to become a Wycliffe Bible translator.
As with Gideon's fleece, the Urim and the Thummim, the occasional casting of lots, and perhaps any other non-biblical way of making an important decision, my professor cautioned us that this type of guidance should be the exception to the rule and not the rule itself.
In conclusion, I have found that prayer and fasting (individually and corporately); the advice, opinions, and confirmation of godly people; and last but not least the witness of the Spirit within us (especially the gift of His peace when making an important decision), are more than sufficient to determine God's will regarding the majority of decisions for which God's Word does not provide clear answers.
When you've exhausted those three avenues of guidance, however, and you still do not have a clear answer, I say pursue other means of guidance (e.g., a "fleece"), and then expect an answer, and possibly a miracle!


Did St. Thomas Aquinas write anything about historiography?

About historiography as a science, I am not aware of any statements from Thomas Aquinas. In the absence of others finding a better treatment, here is the most direct mention I could find.
In ST I, Q. 1, a. 10, "Whether in Holy Scripture a word may have several senses?", he includes a brief account of the literal sense of scripture, under which he includes a brief definition of its three components: history, etiology, and analogy.
The first two certainly belong to the idea of historiography:

illa tria, historia, aetiologia, analogia, ad unum litteralem sensum pertinent. Nam historia est, ut ipse Augustinus exponit, cum simpliciter aliquid proponitur, aetiologia vero, cum causa dicti assignatur, sicut cum dominus assignavit causam quare Moyses permisit licentiam repudiandi uxores, scilicet propter duritiam cordis ipsorum, Matt. XIX, analogia vero est, cum veritas unius Scripturae ostenditur veritati alterius non repugnare.
These three, history, etiology, and analogy, pertain to the one literal sense. For history, as Augustine expounds, occurs when something is presented on its own, while etiology is when the cause of the event is assigned, as when the Lord assigned a cause for why Moses permitted a bill of divorce, namely, because of the hardness of their hearts (Matt 19). It is analogy, on the other hand, when the truth of one scripture passage is shown not to be in conflict with the truth of another.

It is also worth noting that he cites Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History in a few places, so he certainly judged it worth reading.


Is every single minute of the year a mass being celebrated in the Roman Catholic Church? If so, since when?

No. There is no mass celebrated on Good Friday, in any Catholic church, anywhere.

It is an obligation of every Roman Priest to say Mass every day, except for the noted exception for Good Friday, when no mass is celebrated. I once asked a Jesuit Priest of my acquaintance, and now of blessed memory, what happened  in places like some monasteries and large parishes, where there were more Priests than available altars, how this was accommodated, and he told me that in his early years after ordination, he would arise at one in the morning, to day mass to fullfil his obligation, and that there were priests celebrating at nearly every hour of the day.


How does Protestantism explain Matthew 18:20 in this technology age?

In short, yes, Jesus is talking about a physical gathering of two or three people (or in one instance, two or three individuals, one united congregation, and one sinner). In our technological age, NOTHING can fully replace face-to-face meetings between people, especially the Lord's people at the grass roots level of a healthy local church, or an assembly of God's people.

What precedes Matthew 18:20

In context, Matthew 18:20 is preceded by Jesus' teaching on three things: 1) the inevitable occurrence of sin among God's children, and the responsibility of God's children to resist sin;  2) God's outgoing love for one of His children who goes astray (the one lost sheep from a flock of 100); and 3) Jesus' teaching on church discipline, the kind of which is rendered necessary by a sin of one member against another.

Then comes Matthew 18:20

This verse is really a conclusion of the passage on church discipline, a topic addressed in three ways:

  1) the protocol of church discipline

  2) the assurances that what is either bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven, and whatever two believers agree upon in prayer on earth will be done for them by their heavenly Father

  3) the promise of Christ's presence in a gathering of as few as two or three believers who meet in Jesus' name

What follows Matthew 18:20

Jesus' teaching on forgiveness, which comprises an answer to Peter's question about how many times he is to forgive a brother who sins against him. Jesus' teaching includes the famous locution, "seventy times seven." Notice, too, that Peter's question is certainly relevant in light of verse 15, which begins with the words

  "'If your brother sins against you . . ..'"

Contextualizing Matthew 18:20

In summary fashion, this verse simply continues the notion of "two or three" which begins in verse 15, proceeds through verse 18, and then continues in verses 21 and following.

In other words, the repetition of "two or three," whether in the context of church discipline (viz., one-on-one; two or three on one; one singular--the sinned against person--and one plural--the entire congregation--on one--the sinner), or in the context of binding, loosing, agreeing in prayer, and finally, meeting together in Jesus' name, all those repetitions are simply, in context, a continuation of what came before and what comes after. In discursive fashion, then, we have the following themes:

  the inevitability of both sin and sin's punishment, as well as the importance of a radical resistance to sin, whether it comes from without (i.e., an external-to-us stumbling block) or from within (an internal-to-us cause of stumbling, symbolized by our own hand, foot, or eye).
  the Father's heart of love for the one sheep in a flock of 100 who goes astray or is led astray by sin or a sinner
  an instance of sin within a local assembly of believers, and the protocol for dealing with that sin through a three-step process
  the assurance that whatever decision the church makes, whether to bind the accused sinner or to loose the accused sinner, it will also be either bound or loosed in heaven
  the assurance that an agreement by two believers in prayer on earth will result in their request being granted by their Father in heaven
  the assurance that even if church discipline does not reach the "court of final appeals" (viz., the church), Jesus' presence is guaranteed where just two or three are  gathered together in His name in sincerity and simplicity
  the necessity of forgiving others who sin against us, and to do so in the light of the great debt of which we ourselves have been forgiven (basically an application of the part of the Lord's prayer which says, "and forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors"), even if after repenting, they sin against us again

In conclusion, as good as our technological tools are today for communicating around the world at the speed of light, nothing can replace the face-to-face interactions of God's people (whether for church discipline, prayer, or simply fellowship) who desire to

  "walk worthy of the vocation wherewith [they] are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:1b-3).


Obviously this depends on the meaning of "usage". If you're using a statue to clobber an innocent person to death, clearly there is no Catholic argument that justifies this. This is called murder. Catholics think that's bad.

Treating a statue of Jesus as if the statue itself was Jesus or as if it had some sort of "divine element" inside is also bad. This is called idolatry, or the worship of something in place of God. There's no Catholic argument for this either, Catholics think that's bad.

Now think of a mother who shows a friend a photo of her youngest child. Think of a soldier who cherishes a picture of his wife that his youngest child drew. These people aren't worshipping other humans. Think of a barber who talks to the image of his client in the mirror while cutting hair. The barber isn't talking to the mirror. There is no Catholic argument here, and no need for one. Using images and statues in this way is ok, according to both the Bible and common sense.


Does God want things? What are some of the things He wants, and how did we find out?

God wants us to be humble, follow his rules, act right, love mercy, and have faith in him.  That is what pleases God.

  Micah 6:8 (NIV)
  He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
    And what does the LORD require of you?
  To act justly and to love mercy
    and to walk humbly with your God.

  Hebrews 11:6 NIV
  And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

  John 14:21 (NIV)
  Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.


Can obstinacy in sin be forgiven in Catholic teaching?

Obstinacy can be forgiven, like all sin, but only once it ceases.
According to Catholic teaching, the fundamental condition for receiving forgiveness is repentance founded on supernatural love for God, sometimes called perfect contrition. (When repentance is based on something less perfect, such as the fear of punishment, then it is called imperfect contrition.)*
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), reiterating the solemn teachings of the Council of Trent, describes contrition as follows:

Among the penitent's acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is “sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again” (quotation from the Council of Trent, Denzinger-Schönmetzer [DS] 1676).

When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible. (See DS 1677.)

Regarding the question of obstinacy, when a person commits a grave sin (also called a mortal sin), that very action is incompatible with having God’s grace in his soul. One of mortal sin’s effects, therefore, is to destroy our capacity to love God supernaturally—in other words, after sinning gravely, we are incapable of exercising charity. (See CCC 1855.) Such a sin is called “mortal” precisely because it renders the soul spiritually dead.
But as explained above, perfect contrition entails an exercise of charity; therefore, mortal sin would leave us permanently separated from God if He did not intervene in order to rescue us. When a person is moved to repentance, therefore, it is because God moves him to act—the unaided sinner is incapable of true repentance.
It is, however, always within our power to reject God’s action in our soul. It is possible for us to remain attached to our sin, and to refuse to repent. This refusal to cooperate with God, by definition, is what obstinacy consists in.
Without repentance, of course, forgiveness is impossible. God will not force His grace into our souls if we do not want it.
Of course, once the obstinacy ceases, and we are willing at least to take the first steps toward repentance (beginning, usually, with imperfect contrition, which, with the help of God, blossoms into perfect contrition), then forgiveness becomes possible.
(For Catholics, Orthodox, and other churches that retain all seven sacraments, the ordinary way to obtain that forgiveness is through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. In fact, one of the effects of this sacrament is to transform imperfect contrition into perfect contrition, should that be necessary.  See CCC 1453.)

* In some theological writings, one will find the term contrition (without qualification) in opposition to attrition. When used in this way, the two terms are exactly equivalent to perfect contrition and imperfect contrition—it is just a slightly different terminology describing the same reality.


What does the "second coming of Christ" mean?

Read Matthew 24:30(ESV) - "Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory..."
Jesus referred to himself as, and is referred to as, the "Son of Man" many times throughout the New Testament.  In fact the New Testament in general refers to the return of the "Son of Man", rather than the return of Christ.
Also ref. Matthew 24:36-39.
In Revelation 20:4-6, "Christ" is used not as a title but as a proper noun.  While the word Christ is a title, it has now become the name of our savior and is his alone, the name above every name (Philippians 2:9-11).
There is only one savior, one Messiah, which is our Lord Jesus Christ, the true Son of God, and the Son of Man.
Jesus warns us not to believe the false Messiahs who will appear (Matthew 24:23-27).
It is definitely Jesus Christ himself who will return to gather his elect.  I pray to the Lord that you and I will be among them.


Do modern descendants of the Levites need to be ordained with the Aaronic Priesthhood?

D&C 107:16 is part doctrine, part prophesy.
The administration of the Aaronic Priesthood doesn't operate by lineage now, but it will one day.

Although the Aaronic Priesthood is conferred in the Church today without restriction to the lineage of Aaron, the keys of this priesthood rightly belong to the firstborn of the seed of Aaron, and in the restoration of all things the office of bishop (president of the priests) will once again be conferred on one of that lineage, as it is designated by revelation to the president of the Church (D&C 84:14–21; 107:13–17).
Bible Dictionary, Aaronic Priesthood

This is part of the more general "Restoration of the Gospel", following the apostasy of the Original Church.

And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
Acts 3:20-21 (emphasis added)

While this restitution/restoration is often ascribed to events in the 1830s --  like the formation of the LDS Church -- it actually began long before then, and is not yet over.


How do Calvinists go from "X is Sinful" to "X is unable to accept Christ on his own?"

You have it right: "X is sinful" -> "everything X does is sin" -> "X is incapable of believing in Christ without the additional work of the Holy Spirit" --> is the basic belief held by Calvinism. One of the best explanations of the doctrine of original sin is by Jonathan Edwards, entitled ‘without surprise’, ‘The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended; Evidences of its Truth Produced.’ Here he argues, among other things, the imputation of guilt on infants as displayed in the flood and in Sodom and Gomorrah.

In a nutshell I have found many classic authors, including Luther, Owen and Edwards, often start by using this verse to say that anybody born of ‘flesh’ is only ‘flesh’.

  That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (ESV John 3:6)

In other words anyone born in the sinful nature is in ‘entirely sinful.’ This means they can’t do anything good but are totally depraved.

The idea of ‘flesh’ is derogatory as ‘human nature separated from God’. Even as a believer who has ‘both’ good and evil natures, as a result of the new birth, only a sinful disposition remains in that nature they first obtained through Adam.

  For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. (ESV Romans 7:18)

This is understood by all classical Calvinists (as far as I know) as a description of Paul ‘as a Christian’.

Edwards’ book which I referenced argues the case so very well. Unlike Owen who is difficult to read, I challenge anyone to read ‘even just a dozen pages’ of Edwards and they will quickly understand the concepts of original sin as 'originally taught' by the reformers.


When/where did the practice of giving abbreviated names/initialisms to Bible translations begin?

It may be impossible to determine the first time an initialism was first used for a translation, but Google's ngrams can illustrate when it became popular. Consider first the usage of KJV versus King James Version:

The phrase 'King James Version' was in steady use for some time when 'KJV' exploded on to the scene around 1945-7. The American Standard Version was published in 1901. Its ngram is interestingly similar to the KJV. The ASV's title and intialism both appear around 1901, but after an initial period, the full title seems to be more popular. Then around 1945-7, ASV jumps in popularity.

The comparison between Revised Standard Version and RSV shows a similar spike in the use of the initialism RSV around the same (or slightly earlier) 1945 period. Interestingly, this is the time period of the publication of the RSV (1946 for NT, 1952 for OT).

Looking at the three initialisms together there appears to be a fair amount of correlation in the usage of KJV, ASV, and RSV and the publication of the RSV.

The usage of all three continues to increase for about a decade or so before a significant drop around 1960. Perhaps this corresponds to debate (scholarly or otherwise) about these three versions. It would not be surprising if this debate led to a short-hand for referring to each.

Of course, the methodology is open to many criticism, but the correlation between the rise of KJV, ASV, and RSV appears strong enough to at least be investigated further.

For fun, here is the ngram for LXX vs Septuagint.

Both terms were in use before the 1800s, but show a jump in usage around the same 1945-1960 period that the other intialism appear.


Can.  1118 §1. A marriage between Catholics or between a Catholic party and a non-Catholic baptized party is to be celebrated in a parish church. It can be celebrated in another church or oratory with the permission of the local ordinary or pastor.
§2. The local ordinary can permit a marriage to be celebrated in another suitable place.

Thus, according to §2, you would need permission from the "local ordinary" (bishop) to have a wedding somewhere other than in a Catholic church.


Faith Lutheran Church - Symbols and Meaning on Page 12
The Scallop Shell – (at six points around the edge of the
bowl). John is said to have baptized Jesus with water
from a scallop shell and it has been used as a symbol of
baptism since then.
I can find no biblical evidence for the scallop shell to be associated with it but did find sermons where a pastor actually said the following showing that its mostly because the art depicts the shell even though the text shows Paul said Jesus was baptised by immersion.

.  All of the earliest art that I have seen shows Jesus and John standing in knee deep water with John pouring water over Jesus' head from a scallop shell. Did you know that that shell is the Christian symbol for baptism?
I have to admit that the symbolism of baptism by immersion is amazing. In Romans 6:8 we hear Paul tell us that if we died with Christ, we have faith that we will also live with him. When we are baptized by immersion we enter into the world of water where we cannot survive for long. When we are raised from the water and we take that first breath we have a new appreciation for the air we breathe. So dying to Christ and living to Christ have new meaning and significance for us. But that is the symbolism from a human perspective.
The Baptism of Jesus

I find a couple verses that support immersion over pouring as well as the quote by Paul in Romans...

Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. Mar 1:10
As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. Mat 3:16
Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing. Act 8:38-39

These verses lead me to believe that the shell may have originally just been a convienient way to "iconize" or "symbolize" baptism as it would be difficult to create a simple symbol to represent immersion.  Also it would have been common that many baptisms took place in desert regions where standing water or rivers were not common so in those areas baptisms likely were "poured" and scallop shells were preserved by the person performing the baptism for continual use. However, the scripture still supports Jesus being baptised by immersion.


Does "Positive Christianity" still exist?

Positive Christianity was actually a movement that existed prior to the Nazi's rise to power, but it underwent a mass of redefinitions by the Nazi's. Positive Christianity did not die with Hitler and the Nazi regime in 1945, just as Nazism didn't die. The original organization may have dissolved with the fall of the Nazi Party, but it has supposedly been adopted by some modern churches with a white supremacist theology who promote a racist interpretation of Christianity. There is a movement in the United States where a number of these churches have united and are known as Christian Identity Churches. There are less than 50,000 adherents, and the congregations are largely considered extremist hate groups.

Active Christian Identity Groups
Christian Identity Ministries (Australia); Tagline:
"The Anglo-Saxon-Keltic-Germanic-Scandinavian People are Israel"Koehne, Samuel. "Nazism And Religion: The Problem Of 'Positive Christianity'." Australian Journal Of Politics & History 60.1 (2014): 28-42. (link to abstract)


Are adult converts to Eastern Orthodoxy required to use their baptismal names outside of church?

I'm Catholic, not Orthodox but according to this site it is something that should be done but not required
"In placing such great emphasis on this tradition and in expressing our regret that so many converts to the Orthodox Church ignore it"
"It is essential, indeed, that converts take the name of an Orthodox Saint, use it in all circumstances,"
http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/orthname.aspx


Should  we be able fast like the fasts described in Bible?

Strictly medically speaking... Depending on your health, and the amount of stored body fat/muscle mass that you have when beginning to fast, it is physically possible to fast for more than 40 days.

Per this article: http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/death-dying/live-without-food-and-water1.htm

  Medically speaking, most doctors agree that healthy humans can go up
  to eight weeks without food as long as they have water. People have
  gone longer and been fine, and people have starved to death in less
  time. Being strong and in good physical shape can help you survive
  longer, but so does having extra body fat. The body stores energy
  needed to live in the form of fat, carbohydrates and proteins. The
  carbs are the first thing to be used up without more food coming in.
  The fat goes next, which explains why people with more of it can
  survive longer. Then the proteins go. If you get to the point that
  your body is using up proteins, basically the body itself, then you're
  in bad shape.

Eight weeks comes out to 56 days, of course, which is above and beyone even the 40 days you mentioned.

As for going without water for this time period, medical science says no, we can't live nearly that long.

The same article says this on the next page:

  Assuming you're in reasonable shape and in ideal conditions -- that
  is, not in the heat or cold and not exerting, a human can probably
  live for about 3 to 5 days without any water. Healthier humans can
  live another day or so longer.

However, Moses likely had divine intervention.  Of course, that can't be proved outside of the Biblical account, so that would make the question unanswerable using objective criteria.


Does Christianity have any connections to the Hinduism?

Christianity is a monotheistic religion. Christians believe and teach that any other gods are false gods set up by and for Satan himself. This is the reason why a pastor may speak against Shiva, Vishnu etc. As such Christianity has no theological ties as Hinduism is polytheistic while Christianity is not.


Why did Clement and Eusebius believe that Paul was married?

Clement of Alexander likely was referring to Philippians 4:3

  Yes, I ask you also, true companion (σύζυγε), help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life. (ESV)

The word σύζυγε (lexical form σύζυγος) is a hapax legomenon within the New Testament.  Outside the New Testament, it is used as a term of flattery by Julius Caesar and other emperors.  It is also used to describe competing gladiators (the opponent being the σύζυγος).  The phrase ἡ σύζυγος is well attested to mean wife, so it is not hard to see how Clement could have taken the passage to likewise mean wife from the grammar alone.  Additionally, the context of 4:2 where Paul greets two other women and asks (in 4:3) another person to counsel them makes a woman a possible target of "true companion" (the grammar is ambiguous as the word has the same form for masculine and feminine cases).

While the quote of Clement doesn't make his source clear, there is another extant commentary that makes the reference to Phil 4:3 explicit.  In his commentary on Romans, Origen (185-254) writes:

  Paul, then, if certain traditions are true, was called while in possession of a wife, concerning whom he writes in Philippians "I ask you also, my loyal mate, help these women."

Source: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third edition