How does a lamb take a scroll and break its seals? (Revelation 5)

In the bible, dreams, prophecies and visions are almost always symbolic. The only way they can be understood is if the meaning of the symbols is explained.

For example, when Pharaoh had his dream of the sheaves of wheat and the cows, he could not understand it until the interpretation was revealed to Joseph. Likewise King Nebuchadnezzar could not understand his dreams until God revealed the meaning to Daniel.

However, some prophecies employ symbolism that has been used in other parts of the Bible, allowing the diligent to understand at least partially what is meant. Also, the prophet delivering the message sometimes explains part of the symbolism when they deliver the message. Thus in Daniel, beasts represent kingdoms. When we get to Revelation, beasts once again represent kingdoms, not bizarre monsters.

When we get to the lamb that was slain, we look back to other places in the Bible where something has been likened to a lamb. Since John the Baptist called Jesus the lamb that takes away the sins of the world, we have support for the idea that Jesus is the lamb that was slain. Many other parallels - like Jesus' crucifixion and other points of correlation with the Jewish sacrificial system - make this fairly certain.

The eyes and horns also have symbolic meaning. Thankfully the prophet tells us that they are the seven spirits sent out into the world. What the purpose and identity of those spirits is is not immediately disclosed, but it is clear that they are not actual eyes or horns.

It seems to me that these images are mnemonics given to help us to remember the message. Once the believer understands what the symbol stands for, the bizarre and unforgettable image remains as a way to hold onto the meaning. Also, the use of parallel symbolism is a tactic that forces us to revisit other parts of scripture to understand the meaning. It reminds us of what was said before and ties the whole together. To me, what I "see" is the interconnectedness of all God's revelations and the uniformity of his purpose and will across the centuries.

As for breaking the seals, maybe a rams' horn would come in handy...


Is Israel still God's Chosen Nation according to Catholic doctrine?

The apparent 'contradiction' you seem to note needn't be a 'contradiction'. I'll illuminate on that point.

In our 21st century eyes, Israel is the nation located in the Middle East. But in biblical language, 'Israel' is more precisely the people whom God graces and interacts with through covenants. God's promise is to 'Israel'. It should be understood however that throughout the bible we find that the covenants God makes are always upheld solely by God, where 'Israel' forsakes their end of the deal continuously. This point is relevant for it illustrates how God can be truthful to His end of a covenant while we can turn from such. God needn't 'abandon' a people (though He has and does sometimes to satisfy His justice) even if such a people do not satisfy the covenant.

This being said, in Christ God Himself as man fulfilled humanity's 'end of the deal' to the covenant by perfecting mankind in perfect penance. The true and most central covenant of God was one of a perfect relationship with God. The true and most central 'Israel' was always meant to be whoever is justified in the work and deeds of Christ. All other covenants to a specific people in certain covenants were temporary by nature, insofar as such means they were instilled in order to be fulfilled and completed in Christ, who offers salvation to all who believe in Him. The true covenant of God is founded in Christ, and the 'Israel' is all those who are founded in Christ. Christianity was born out of Jewish culture and Jewish understanding; it is not as though the covenant of Christ 'replaced' the old covenants of the Jewish faith. It is rather that Christ 'fulfilled the law' and founded all preparation covenants within His own perfection. Claiming that the Church is the 'New Israel' is not necessarily meant to mean the Church 'replaces the Old Israel' in a 'substitute' way. It is more so meant to mean that the Church is the eternal 'Israel' and that the 'Israel' denoted by its other distinctive covenants was always periphery to the Church, just as all good deeds and justifications earned by all souls prior to Christ were founded and dependent through timeless time upon Christ's sacrifice. In other words, the Church as the New Israel is substitute of the 'Old Israel' only in a way that is understood in a linear sequence, or through the lens of time. Christ's sacrifice did not nullify any promise in a meaningful way to any 'Israel'.


To what degree does the Church of England consider the Genesis creation account to be metaphoric?

The Church of England has not taken a stand on the simplified 'creation versus evolution' debate. Many people investigating this have reported being unable to find a clear positional statement from the CofE, and there are quotes from church leaders stating that they believe there is no official position. This is an example. The church has made pronouncements stating that a belief in evolution is compatible with Christian faith, but that does not mean that those who believe in a literal creation are excluded from the church.

From personal experience, members of the CofE, both laity and clergy, take a wide variety of positions on the matter. The recent Archbishop of Canterbury has stated his personal acceptance of evolution, but does not see the Genesis creation stories in opposition to that.

So to answer the direct question, the Church of England makes no definitive pronouncement on how much of Genesis is 'metaphorical', but the general position of most of its leaders is that at least the timeline of the first three chapters should not be taken as literal history.


Does proclaiming that all non-believers won't be saved count as passing judgement?

There is a difference between condemning and being discerning. One is using the good judgement God gave you, the other is judging in the place of God.

It should be clear that Christians are supposed to be "as wise as serpents but as gentle as lambs. ". Throughout the NT, we are warned to avoid false teachers and cast them out of our midst. We are to encourage and rebuke our brothers

But note the context- in the cases where we are to use discernment, it is in a personal, relating body of believers.  We are not called to be God's policemen, forcing a system of morality on unbelievers. Rather, it is a privilege to be subject to the discipline of God - for after all, he only disciplines those he loves.

If a brother is calling himself a Christian, he invites discipline, rebuke, and encouragement. He sees it as a way to be the person God created him to be. If not, there is no use in casting your pearls before swine.


What is the Biblical basis for sharing the cup at communion?

There are two main reasons:

Most Christians want to think of themselves as continuing the same practices as the early church did and even the very Last Supper itself. Because they shared one cup in the Jewish Passover, so many Christians think it is most appropriate to share one cup now.

There is a passage in 1 Corinthians which describes the emblems of communion as symbols of Christian unity. Though it explicitly only says that the bread is one, it's easy to see how the meaning would also apply to the cup.

1 Corinthians 10:16-17 (NIV): Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.


How can repentance for our everyday sins lead to forgiveness?

Repentance = Changing

Repentance (μετανοεο 3340, a la Acts 2:38) involves a change of mind and heart. There's an implicit sincerity of heart when you do it. One cannot "plan on repenting later" because that's not what repentance is. It involves a rejection of the old way because you know it's wrong.

It doesn't mean that one never commits a sin that has been repented of, but it does mean that it cannot be committed again without incurring real and greater internal guilt.

If I told my friend that I had repented of hitting him and he forgave me, would I be free to hit him later when I got mad? What would he think? Could I punch him and not feel the pangs of guilt because I'm doing something that I know to be wrong and I'm betraying my own word to someone I love.

Jesus' Forgiveness is Continual

  1 John 1:7 (NASB)
  if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.

We have some assurance that Jesus will continually forgive us, but it requires something on our part in which we cannot in good conscience repeatedly commit the same sin and repent over and over.

God is Merciful ≠ We Have License to Sin

Just because God is merciful and is willing to forgive us when we confess and repent, that doesn't mean that a Christian can, in good conscience, continue sinning in the same fashion over and over.

  Romans 6:1 (NASB)
  Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be!

We are called to leave our sins behind.

In theory, I would say that tomorrow's sins ought to be different than today's. If we truly have repented of something, we cannot again do it without the damage to ourselves being greater. If I continue to do the same thing over and over again, I assert that I have not truly repented of it.


According to Pentecostalism, was the Pope biblically justified in saying that an unbelieving man is in heaven?

To have a crying boy ask that question is certainly a hard situation.

However, the entire New Testament is completely clear that without faith in Christ, proven by the way a person chooses to live their lives (repentance and good works based on faith in Jesus), it is impossible to please God.

I discern that the pope gave the boy, and everyone who heard, false hope. Many people baptize their children in the Catholic church "just in case", but neither believe nor live it themselves.

I have many family members who died without faith and repentance. It was hard to accept, but the Bible is clear they will not be in Heaven.

Lies never give God the glory.

*Someone pointed out I should at least give a few verses. They're right. Here you go:

Revelation 21:7-8 "He that overcomes shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. 8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." Comment: the context of "he that overcomes" refers to those who keep their faith in Christ till they die, no matter how hard things get.
John 3:18  "He that believes on him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
John 3:36 "He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him."
John 12:48 "He that rejects me, and receives not my words,3  has one that judges him: the word4  that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."
Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." (Greek here means everyone else besides Jews).


The short answer is that we are not told why. Within the context of the book of Job, God uses Satan's evil for the ultimate good of vindicating Job's faith, multiplying his blessings, and glorifying God's name. God demonstrates intentionality with Satan's presence. Just as Job never is told about the spiritual backstory to his suffering, we are not told about the backstory to Satan's presence. This is an intentional aspect of the book. As a book, one of the main lessons is that God does not always explain suffering and that human explanations are lacking and even exercises in folly when they are not careful to be in line with God's revelation. Likewise, we are not given answers to all the questions that we as the audience have. We have to take what God will give us, and that is a story where Satan is granted the opportunity to present his case before God.

One important distinction also is that there are some who, in their preface to the gospel, will say things like, "God is too holy to be around sin" is the explanation for why people need salvation. This is not exactly true. God is fully able to be in the presence of Satan and the entire fallen creation is in his dominion. His holiness is his separateness and otherliness from creation and especially fallen creation, but not some kind of inability on his part. He is righteously angered by sin and does exact justice, but it is not true that he has some kind of inability to be in Satan's presence. God will ultimately destroy Satan, but within the context of Job, he allows him to present his case, the case that ultimately backfires.


Do any of the Mormon doctrines that cannot be found in the Bible come from the Book of Mormon?

...not clarifications or particular interpretations that Book of Mormon might put on things that are in the Bible, but rather doctrines Mormons believe in that have no Biblical basis

That can be a difficult distinction.
For example, the Book of Mormon adds the belief that Adam and Eve could not have children before the Fall.

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created...
And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.
2 Nephi 2:22-23

This concept (no fertility until after the Fall) is not taught in the Bible.
So is this a "new" doctrine taught in the Book of Mormon and not the Bible, or is it considered only a "clarification" of an existing Biblical doctrine?

In any case, there are many examples, so this list is not exhaustive:

There can (should) be more temples than just the Temple at Jerusalem:

And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon...and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.
2 Nephi 5:16

The temples of the LDS church have similarities with Solomon's temples, e.g. a basin of water on the backs of twelve oxen. This is a striking difference, as other Christian denominations do not have such temples.

Jesus existed in the form of a man even before his birth.

And the Lord said unto him: Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood...
Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.
Ether 3:8-9,16

Parts of the Bible have been altered by men.

And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record...
Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.
...because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble...
1 Nephi 13:24,28-29

A prophet named Joseph, whose father is named Joseph, will (has) come as Moses to convince Israel of God's word.

Yea, Joseph [son of Jacob] truly said: Thus saith the Lord unto me: A choice seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins...
And he shall be great like unto Moses, whom I have said I would raise up unto you, to deliver my people, O house of Israel.
...and not to the bringing forth my word only, saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word, which shall have already gone forth among them.
And his name shall be called after me; and it shall be after the name of his father...
2 Nephi 3:7,9,11,15

This is a reference to Joseph Smith Jr., the first prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

A portion of scattered Israel is in the Americas:

And now, behold, I would speak somewhat unto the remnant of this people who are spared...
Know ye that ye are of the house of Israel.
And ye will also know that ye are a remnant of the seed of Jacob; therefore ye are numbered among the people of the first covenant...
Mormon 7:1-2,10

These people are known in the Book of Mormon as the Lamanites. For this reason, the early LDS Church made efforts to convert the Native Americans (and in modern times, the LDS Church has grown quickly in Central and South America).

God will reveal additional ancient records of the Lost Tribes of Israel, beyond the Bible and Book of Mormon.

For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.
And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews.
2 Nephi 29:12-13

In regards to Kolob, that name is not in the Bible or Book of Mormon. It is only mentioned in the Pearl of Great Price, and in the Doctrine and Covenants. It is the star nearest to God.
And while that particular name is never mentioned in either the Bible or the Book of Mormon, both teach that God's throne is the heavens.

But verily, verily, I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven, for it is God's throne;
3 Nephi 12:34, also Matthew 5:34

which, considering no one knows where Kolob is, is about as specific :)


Did Jesus/God/Jehovah know that Jesus would die on the cross BEFORE coming to Earth?

Upvote for a good question.

I do not agree that an answer to your question involves mere opinion. The answer is yes, and the scriptural basis for that affirmative answer is both broad and deep.

While the assumption that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in their divine nature is not required in order to understand how the Christ knew "well beforehand" of His ultimate death on a Roman cross in the first third of the first century in the Common Era, it is helpful.

First, we need to take the long (really long) view of things. If God exists outside time and space (both of which are His creations), then perhaps we are helped in our understanding of God's perspective regarding His Son by thinking of eternity as God's realm of existence (i.e., God exists in the eternal present). As such, eternity neither looks forward nor backward. A decision God makes in eternity may seem to finite human beings to be "worked out in time," but from God's perspective that "working out" is in a sense a fait accompli. God's plan for the ages is unalterable, and while it becomes evident to finite human beings in space and time, to God it is as good as accomplished.
(The unalterability of God's plan diminishes neither His creatures' accountability nor their responsibility to do the right thing. Doing the wrong thing, however, cannot change the outcome of God's "big picture," since God has no Plan B, only Plan A. According to His plan, therefore, both God and good will triumph in the end. Handel's Messiah expresses this thought very well: "The kingdom of this world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He shall reign forever and ever"--from Revelation 11:15.)

This perspective does not diminish one whit the significance of the great stoop Jesus took in becoming a flesh-and-blood human being (what theologians call His self-emptying, as in the Greek word kenosis, as found in Philippians 2:7), nor does it diminish the significance, not to mention the pain and suffering, of what Jesus accomplished not only through His life of continuous servanthood and obedience to the Father's will, but also through His death on a Roman cross, just outside Jerusalem at a place called Golgotha (Matthew 27:33 NAS; Mark 15:22 NAS; John 19:17 NAS).

A pivotal passage in this regard is 1 Peter 1:17-21, where we read (in excerpts):

  " . . . you were not redeemed [i.e., set free from the penalty of sin, which is death] with perishable things like silver or gold . . . but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you, who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead . . .."

You see, the lamb (or the Lamb of God, who bears away the sin of the world, as in John 1:29 & 36) was offered up in sacrifice from eternity, according to God's

  " . . . purpose, who works all things after the counsel of His will" (Ephesians 1:11).

In other words, the entrance of God's Son, the Messiah, into space and time, as well as His becoming the perfect sacrifice for sin at the cross, was all planned in the eternal counsels of God, but was revealed to us in the "fullness of time" (i.e., at the time of God's appointment; see Galatians 4:4).

And second, throughout the three-plus years of His public ministry, over and over again Jesus predicted His death. At various times He referred to it as His

  baptism (Mark 10:38 & 39; Luke 12:50)
  cup (ditto, plus Matthew 20:22 & 23; 26:39; Luke 22:42; John 18:11)
  being killed (the implication is that He would be killed by crucifixion; Matthew 17:23; Mark 9:31)
  being lifted up as the Son of Man (John 3:14 & 15)

In conclusion, the crucifixion of Jesus was planned by God in eternity "past," and it will become the song of the ages in eternity "future." In the Revelation of Jesus Christ we read:

  "And they sang the song of Moses, the bond-servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, " Great and marvelous are Your works, O Lord God, the Almighty; Righteous and true are Your ways, King of the nations! (Revelation 15:3 NAS)

Notice the two songs: Moses' song and the Lamb's song. The former celebrates God's earlier revelation of His will and word through the Law of Moses (or the Law given to Moses by God), and the latter celebrates the eternally efficacious sacrifice of Christ the Lamb, whose work of redemption at the cross was, in the mind of God,

  ". . . finished from the foundation of the world" (Hebrews 4:3).


According to Evangelicals, who now has the authority to bind and loose (per Matt. 18:18)?

You may possibly misreading the Scriptures. As I read the whole of chapter 18, I come away with a much different impression. Did Jesus give the authority only to the Apostles?

  Matthew 18:16 and 17 KJV  But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17  And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Jesus to my mind gave that authority to the Church (all believers as a group). And his reason for doing so appears to be:

  Matthew 18:20 KJV  For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

This authority appears to be a shared authority there am I in the midst of them presumably any decision made by the group would be influenced by Jesus who is in their midst. And if we consider both verses 18 and 19 together

  Matthew 18:18 KJV  Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19  Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

it appears that those decisions have eternal consequences since it is God himself taking the action.

For those and many other reasons we as members of the Church (not Denominations) must be very careful in our agreed stances since as little as two of us can have eternal effects on another.

This interpretation of these Scriptures is also shared by Peter Guzik.

  Relating to one another in the Kingdom Community.
  1. (15) If you are sinned against, go and confront the guilty party directly.
  "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother."
  a. Go and tell him his fault between you and him alone: It is essential that we go to the offending brother first - not griping and gossiping to others, especially under the guise of "sharing a prayer request" or "seeking counsel." Instead, speak to the party directly.
  i. It would be wrong for anyone to take Jesus' word here as a command to confront your brother with every sin they commit against you. The Bible says we should
  b. If he hears you, you have gained your brother: You have gained him in two ways. First, the problem has been cleared up. Perhaps you realized that he was right in some ways and he realized you were right in some ways, but the problem is resolved. Second, you have gained him because you have not wronged your brother by going to others with gossip and half the side of a dispute.
  2. (16-18) If one among the church is adamantly unrepentant, they are to be removed from fellowship.
  "But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that 'by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.' And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
  a. If he will not hear, take with you one or two more: The circle of people in the situation only becomes wider as the offending party refuses to listen. If the stubborn, unrepentant attitude remains they are to be refused fellowship (let him be to you like a heathen).
  i. This sense of being refused full standing and participation in the body of Christ is what Paul meant when he said to deliver such a one to Satan (1Co. 5:1-8). There is a sense in which the unrepentant one is chastened by their being placed outside of the "protection" of fellowship.
  b. Like a heathen and a tax collector: Even so, the unrepentant one must be treated just as we should treat a heathen and a tax collector - with great love, with the goal of bringing about a full repentance and reconciliation.
  c. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven: If this process is done humbly and according to the Word, this is quite binding in the eyes of God, even if the unrepentant ones just go to another church.
  3. (19-20) The power and blessing in fellowship that is denied the unrepentant.
  "Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them."
  a. If two of you agree on earth: There is real power in agreement in prayer and in the presence of Jesus. This is exactly what the unrepentant ones miss out on.
  i. In the ancient Greek, agree is literally "to symphonize." Jesus wants us to complement each other like a great orchestra.
  b. It will be done for them by My Father in heaven: We must take advantage of the power of agreement, which works on the principle related in Deu. 32:30, where one sets a thousand enemies to flight, but two set ten thousand enemies to flight. There is real power the prayer of agreement.
  c. Where two or three are gathered together in My name: Gathering in the name of Jesus means gathering according to His character and will, and gathering in a manner Jesus would endorse. This is when Jesus is really present (I am there in the midst of them).

Certainly many will look at my answer with a jaundiced eye, but after much study of the Bible this is more in keeping with my impressions of Jesus and his administration of his Church. It seems to me that Jesus would not want this authority to pass away with the Apostles and that seems to be the underlying reason for the Catholic Church having Papal descended. Whether the Catholic Church or my interpretation is correct that authority did not pass away, and depending upon which is correct the answer to who has that authority today appears to be either the Pope or the Church, or maybe both.

Has my answer left you in a more confused state than before?

Hope this helps.


Do any prominent theologians point to Old Testament prophecies of there being two comings of the Messiah?

The second century apologist Justin Martyr discussed the two comings in his Dialogue with the Jew Trypho. I'll give a chapter of it here and list a few chapter titles with a link to the entire text.

''
CHAPTER XXXII -- TRYPHO OBJECTING THAT CHRIST IS DESCRIBED AS GLORIOUS BY DANIEL, JUSTIN DISTINGUISHES TWO ADVENTS.

And when I had ceased, Trypho said, "These and such like Scriptures, sir, compel us to wait for Him who, as Son of man, receives from the Ancient of days the everlasting kingdom. But this so-called Christ of yours was dishonourable and inglorious, so much so that the last curse contained in the law of God fell on him, for he was crucified."

Then I replied to him, "If, sirs, it were not said by the Scriptures which I have already quoted, that His form was inglorious, and His generation not declared, and that for His death the rich would suffer death, and with His stripes we should be healed, and that He would be led away like a sheep; and if I had not explained that there would be two advents of His,--one in which He was pierced by you; a second, when you shall know Him whom you have pierced, and your tribes shall mourn, each tribe by itself, the women apart, and the men apart, --then I must have been speaking dubious and obscure things. But now, by means of the contents of those Scriptures esteemed holy and prophetic amongst you, I attempt to prove all [that I have adduced], in the hope that some one of you may be found to be of that remnant which has been left by the grace of the Lord of Sabaoth for the eternal salvation. In order, therefore, that the matter inquired into may be plainer to you, I will mention to you other words also spoken by the blessed David, from which you will perceive that the Lord is called the Christ by the Holy Spirit of prophecy; and that the Lord, the Father of all, has brought Him again from the earth, setting Him at His own right hand, until He makes His enemies His footstool; which indeed happens from the time that our Lord Jesus Christ ascended to heaven, after He rose again from the dead, the times now running on to their consummation; and he whom Daniel foretells would have dominion for a time, and times, and an half, is even already at the door, about to speak blasphemous and daring things against the Most High. But you, being ignorant of how long he will have dominion, hold another opinion. For you interpret the 'time' as being a hundred years. But if this is so, the man of sin must, at the shortest, reign three hundred and fifty years, in order that we may compute that which is said by the holy Daniel--'and times'--to be two times only. All this I have said to you in digression, in order that you at length may be persuaded of what has been declared against you by God, that you are foolish sons; and of this, 'Therefore, behold, I will proceed to take away this people, and shall take them away; and I will strip the wise of their wisdom, and will hide the understanding of their prudent men;' [Isa. xxix. 14.] and may cease to deceive yourselves and those who hear you, and may learn of us, who have been taught wisdom by the grace of Christ. The words, then, which were spoken by David, are these: 'The [Ps. cx.] Lord said unto My Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool. The Lord shall send the rod of Thy strength out of Sion: rule Thou also in the midst of Thine enemies. With Thee shall be, in the day, the chief of Thy power, in the beauties of Thy saints. From the womb, before the morning star, have I begotten Thee. The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. The Lord is at Thy right hand: He has crushed kings in the day of His wrath: He shall judge among the heathen, He shall fill [with] the dead bodies. He shall drink of the brook in the way; therefore shall He lift up the head.'

CHAPTER XXXIII -- PS, CX. IS NOT SPOKEN OF HEZEKIAH. HE PROVES THAT CHRIST WAS FIRST HUMBLE, THEN SHALL BE GLORIOUS.

CHAPTER XXXIV -- NOR DOES PS. LXXII. APPLY TO SOLOMON, WHOSE FAULTS CHRISTIANS SHUDDER AT.

CHAPTER XLIX -- TO THOSE WHO OBJECT THAT ELIJAH HAS NOT YET COME, HE REPLIES THAT HE IS THE PRECURSOR OF THE FIRST ADVENT.

CHAPTER LII -- JACOB PREDICTED TWO ADVENTS OF CHRIST.

CHAPTER CX -- A PORTION OF THE PROPHECY ALREADY FULFILLED IN THE CHRISTIANS: THE REST SHALL BE FULFILLED AT THE SECOND ADVENT.

CHAPTER CXI -- THE TWO ADVENTS WERE SIGNIFIED BY THE TWO GOATS. OTHER FIGURES OF THE FIRST ADVENT, IN WHICH THE GENTILES ARE FREED BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.''

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html


What was the first Spiritual Gifts Inventory book published or who was the first to use the method?

Spiritual Gifts Inventory (SGI) is a type of material that is associated with the Church Growth Movement (CGM). It combines theology with sociological methodologies, including questionnaires, in this case for identifying Spiritual Gifts. All SGI materials are based on the assumption that gifts are given once and then remain with the bearer for life, a thought championed by Peter Wagner in his books about spiritual gifts. (A contrasting view can be found in the exegesis of James Dunn and Gordon Fee. Both interpret 1 Cor 12:7-11 as manifestations of the Spirit in the moment, based on many details in the text, including the fact that it is using the present tense for all verbs.)

The first SGI material that was published was SGI-McMinn in 1972. In order to avoid controversies it excluded gifts like tongues miracles and healing. Other popular tests that followed were:

SGI-WMHQ (1979).
SGI-L (1984), a modification of SGI-McMinn.
SGI-Gilbert (1986), the material presently being recommended by Church Growth Inc.

Source: Pochek, Robert (2011) Toward An Ecclesiocentric Model of Spiritual Gift Identification. http://digital.library.sbts.edu/handle/10392/3738 (+ Jesus and the Spirit, by James Dunn and God's Empowering Presence by Gordon Fee.)

Pochek has written a critical evaluation of the various SGI materials, and bases many of his arguments on the exegesis of Kenneth Berding. (See Berding, K. (2006). What are spiritual gifts? : rethinking the conventional view. Grand
Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.) But regardless of ones view on the gifts as such, Pochek seem to be a credible source to provide an authoritative answer to my specific question.


What is the difference between original sin and original guilt?

There isn't a Catholic definition of guilt, therefore the Catholic understanding of guilt is how it is often understood:

  "That state of a moral agent which results from his commission of a
  crime or an offense wilfully or by consent" - cf. guilt (n.) | Online
  Etymology Dictionary.

There is a Catholic definition of sin:

  113. What is sin?
  Sin is an offense against God, by any thought, word, deed or omission against the law of God. - cf. re Article 10 of Apostle's Creed | Penny Catechism.

And of Original Sin:

  115. What is original sin?
  Original sin is that guilt and stain of sin which we inherit from Adam, who was the origin and head of all mankind. - cf. re Article 10 of Apostle's Creed | Penny Catechism.

In other words:

Original sin is that state resulting from the sin committed and stain of sin which we inherit from Adam, when he sinned by disobeying God's Commandment. Cf. (CCC 396-409).


Is "Love and Respect" consistent with Eph 5:33

I would look at passages like Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 (where Jesus asked God "why have you forsaken me?") and the many psalms that speak of anguish or being forgotten as examples of situations where someone might not feel loved by God, but they are nonetheless very much loved by God. Psalm 13 expresses this sentiment nicely.

So I agree with you - love and respect don't have to be felt to be real and present, and the Bible seems to back up our view.


God created you, so for sure he knows you! God is also watching each one of us and he loves ❤ us. And yes, there are quotations, to be sure!

Job 28:24

  For he looks to the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens.

1 John 3:19-20

  By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

Hebrews 4:13

  And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Matthew 10:30

  But even the hairs of your head are all numbered.

There are many more, but these are what I could remember!


Has a Pope ever encouraged separated or civilly-divorced spouses to strive toward reunion?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), issued by Pope John Paul II, says that reunion is the ideal that should be sought, if that is possible:

Yet there are some situations in which living together becomes practically impossible for a variety of reasons. In such cases the Church permits the physical separation of the couple and their living apart. The spouses do not cease to be husband and wife before God and so are not free to contract a new union. In this difficult situation, the best solution would be, if possible, reconciliation. The Christian community is called to help these persons live out their situation in a Christian manner and in fidelity to their marriage bond which remains indissoluble (No. 1649).

Moreover the Code of Canon Law (CIC) says

Can.  1151 Spouses have the duty and right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them.

and

Can.  1153 §1. If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too difficult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.
§2. In all cases, when the cause for the separation ceases, conjugal living must be restored unless ecclesiastical authority has established otherwise.

and also

Can.  1155 The innocent spouse laudably can readmit the other spouse to conjugal life; in this case the innocent spouse renounces the right to separate.

Hence, yes, the Church does encourage couples to reconcile, if that is possible. (That does not mean, of course, that the Church encourages victims of abuse to remain in abusive relationships; there are many other reasons why separation might occur.)


Was the Apostle John's exile a major hardship?

John exile to Patmos was a way to get rid of him. They tried killing him by immersing him in boiling oil, but God preserved his life. I think more out of shock and fear, his Roman captors sent him to Patmos to keep his influence away from the populace.

For further reading see the 1883 book Acts of the Apostles by Ellen G. White

EDIT:

Here is a brief description of the conditions on Patmos in White's Book, Acts of the Apostles.

  Patmos, a barren, rocky island in the Aegean Sea, had been chosen by
  the Roman government as a place of banishment for criminals; but to
  the servant of God this gloomy abode became the gate of heaven. Here,
  shut away from the busy scenes of life, and from the active labors of
  former years, he had the companionship of God and Christ and the
  heavenly angels, and from them he received instruction (p.571) for the
  church for all future time.

|

  While his surroundings might (p.572) be desolate and barren, the blue
  heavens that bent above him were as bright and beautiful as the skies
  above his loved Jerusalem. In the wild, rugged rocks, in the mysteries
  of the deep, in the glories of the firmament, he read important
  lessons. All bore the message of God's power and glory.

Though I'm not sure it's relevant, for full disclosure the author was a Seventh Day Adventist Christian.


How do the Pope, Bishops, Priests relate to one another in the Catholic Church's hierarchy?

The hierarchy of the Church

The Church has a very “shallow” hierarchy that consists of the three ranks of ordained ministers: bishops, priests, and deacons. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], 1554.)

Relationships of priests and deacons to their ordinaries

Priests and deacons are always members either of a diocese or of a society such as a religious order or congregation. (In technical terms, they are  incardinated in that diocese or society; see Can. 265 of the Code of Canon Law [CIC].) Thus, priests and deacons always answer directly to their “ordinary,” who is the bishop, in the case of a diocese, or their major superior, in the other cases. (See CIC Can. 134.) Note that the ordinary of most societies of consecrated life is a presbyter (a priest), not a bishop. (There is a similar situation in the “ordinariates” that have been set up for persons with an Anglican background.)

Relationships of dioceses among themselves

In the Western (Latin) Church, there is very little vertical organization of dioceses. Dioceses are grouped into ecclesiastical provinces. One of these dioceses is called the “archdiocese,” and it exercises a primacy of honor over the other dioceses, which are called “suffragans.” The bishop of an archdiocese has the title of “archbishop” and “metropolitan,” but he exercises no authority outside his own diocese, except in certain very limited cases. (See CIC Can. 435-436.)

The Eastern Churches have an autonomous hierarchy headed by either a patriarch or a major archbishop. (See the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches 56 and 151.) Unlike in the Western Church, the patriarch or major archbishop enjoys ordinary (not delegated) authority over his entire church.

Relationships of dioceses to the Diocese of Rome

All bishops in the Western Church, and all patriarchs and major archbishops, in turn, answer directly to the Bishop of Rome (the pope). All bishops, whatever their rank, form a kind of “college” or assembly, which, however, has no authority except when it is in union with its head the Bishop of Rome. (See CCC 881-882.)

(The same holds true for the ordinaries of the Anglican-use ordinariates; even though they are presbyters, they answer only to the Bishop of Rome. For societies of consecrated life, the situation is more complex: some answer directly to the pope; others, to a local bishop.)

The pope is not, therefore, a “super bishop,” but simply the Bishop of Rome; however, the Bishop of Rome enjoys “full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered” (CCC 882).

It should be noted that the college of cardinals does not enter into the hierarchy as such. The title of “cardinal” technically makes the cardinals members of the clergy of the Diocese of Rome and hence gives them an advisory role to the pope. They are also responsible for electing the Bishop of Rome when the Apostolic See is vacant. (See CIC Can. 349.) Although by law, cardinals must be bishops, or must be ordained bishops (Can. 315), the rank of cardinal as such is strictly honorific.

Conferences of bishops are also of an advisory and cooperative nature, and do not enter strictly speaking into the hierarchy. (See CIC Can. 447.)

Is the Pope a CEO?

Decentralized nature of the Church

So, more à propos to the original poster’s question, if one must make a comparison of the Catholic Church to political realities, it should be thought of as a loose confederation of local churches (dioceses and patriarchates), which, however, find their unity in the Church of Rome.

Hence, although the Bishop of Rome does have both doctrinal and disciplinary authority over the entire Catholic Church, it is not his function to run the day-to-day affairs of any diocese but the Diocese of Rome (and, in fact, even the day-to-day affairs of the Diocese of Rome are managed by a vicar, or delegate). Each diocese is expected to manage its own affairs, and only cases that require some kind of special intervention are dealt with in the Holy See.

Scale of the Church

If anyone is imagining the pope as a sort of CEO of the Catholic Church, he is perhaps not aware of the sheer size of the Church: there are currently no less than 3,126 dioceses (including Eastern Rite dioceses, as well as personal and military ordinariates) and 5,309 living bishops (including coadjutor, auxiliary, and retired bishops). Worldwide, as of 2014, there are 414,313 active priests. All of these serve a Catholic population of 1,228,621,000 (according to the 2014 Annuario Pontificio).

Both the scale and the decentralized nature of the Church make it impossible for the pope to be aware of what is happening in a local diocese, unless someone informs him. (It would be similar to asking the President of the United States to oversee the affairs of the city of San Francisco; the sheer number of cities in the United States makes that level of centralization impossible.)

Delegated vs. ordinary authority

Moreover, most companies have a specific goal or objective (some product or service to provide, or perhaps many of them), and so they require a centralized and multi-tiered structure. The Church’s mission, on the other hand, is pastoral and spiritual, and so it is better for it to be run by persons who are “on the ground.” In addition, for most companies the authority structure is delegated by the owner or the board of directors; in the Catholic Church, the authority of bishops over their dioceses is “ordinary,” not delegated.


What was St Paul's age at the time of his conversion and what was his age when he died?

It is somewhat impossible to know for sure how old St Paul was at the time of his conversion and death.

The Apostle Paul according to Wikipedia was born between the years of 5 BC and 5 AD. Most websites place his birth between the years 3-5 AD.

As for the Apostle's conversion, it seems to have occurred between the years 33-36 AD. Most websites favor the year 33 AD.

And finally, St Paul died as a martyr between the years 62-67 AD.

Thus St Paul was around 30 years of age at the moment of his conversion and 60 years of age at his death.

Sources:

Paul the Apostle (Wikipedia)

How old was the apostle Paul when he died?

Saint Paul the Apostle (Catholic Saints Info.)

St. Paul (Catholic Online)


Did George Muller have a Biblical basis for not accepting illegitimate orphans?

According to The Life of Trust: Being a Narrative of the Lord's Dealings With George Müller, his autobiography:

  I began the service of caring for children who are bereaved of both parents, by death, born in wedlock, and are in destitute circumstances, on Dec. 9, 1835. —Chapter XVII, "Reaping Bountifully", p. 294.

That, it seems, confirms the criteria he used.  Later he explains his primary purpose in establishing a house for orphans:

  This, then, was the primary reason for establishing the orphan house. I certainly did from my heart desire to be used by God to benefit the bodies of poor children, bereaved of both parents, and seek in other respects, with the help of God, to do them good for this life. I also particularly longed to be used by God in getting the dear orphans trained up in the fear of God; but still, the first and primary object of the work was, and still is, that God might be magnified by the fact that the orphans under my care are provided with all they need, only by prayer and faith, without any one being asked by me or my fellow-laborers, whereby it may be seen that God is faithful still, and hears prayer still. That I was not mistaken, has been abundantly proved since November, 1835, both by the conversion of many sinners who have read the accounts which have been published in connection with this work, and also by the abundance of fruit that has followed in the hearts of the saints, for which, from my inmost soul, I desire to be grateful to God, and the honor and glory of which not only is due to him alone, but which I, by his help, am enabled to ascribe to him.—Chapter VII. "Home for Destitute Orphans", p. 115.

In other words, his goals were in order:

Show that God answers prayers,
Do good for orphans in this life, and
Bring orphans to faith.

He further explains when considering the possibility of opening another house:

  The many distressing cases of children, bereaved of both parents, who have no helper. I have received two hundred and seven orphans within the last sixteen months, and have now seventy-eight waiting for admission, without having vacancies for any. I had about sixty children waiting for admission about sixteen months since, so about two hundred and thirty children have been applied for within these sixteen months. But, humanly speaking, for the next sixteen months the number of applications will be far greater, as the work is now so much more widely known; except it be that persons may hear that the new Orphan House is quite full, and on that account may consider it useless to apply.—Chapter XX, "A New Victory of Faith", p. 366.

He goes further to explain the difficulty orphans who don't have influential sponsors have getting help from other charitable institutions for orphans. Because of this, Müller seems to have been willing to make certain exceptions:

  I feel myself particularly called upon to be the friend of the orphan, by making an easy way for admission, provided it is really a destitute case.—Chapter XX, "A New Victory of Faith", p. 365.

Whether admitting a child born out of wedlock was one possible exception, I don't know.

Summary

Without further information, we can only speculate what his reasons were.  Certainly the general attitude toward marriage and legitimacy played a part.  But limited space and an abundance of applicants likely had a role as well.


Are the powers and authorities in Ephesians brought under Christ's rule - the same as every nation bowing in Revelation?

In Ephesians 3:10, heavenly beings in general are meant -- angels and demons. Through the church, God "teaches" heavenly beings something of God's grace and love that they never saw before.

In Ephesians 6:12, it speaks of the evil beings in the spiritual realm, demonic. It specifically distinguishes between earthly and heavenly spheres of influence, telling us that the physical battles against our faith are ultimately spiritual in origin, that satanic forces are against us, operating through earthly powers and means. Satan used the seductions of the world and the flesh in his attempt to draw Jesus from the faith in the wilderness episode in Matthew 4:1-11.

In Revelation 15:4, it's referring to earthly governments. Jesus will come again to earth, depose all earthly kingdoms and set up His own government with members of the church ruling. See Matthew 19:27-28, Revelation 2:26-27 and 20:4-6.


How often are books quoted outside of their own book?

If you are interested in an exhaustive listing of every verse quoted from the Old Testament in the New Testament (OT books quoted outside of their pages - in the NT), then I recommend looking here:

Parallel Passages in New Testament Quoted from Old Testament

The list contains not only the direct or indirect citations, but also the allusions which are particularly worthy of attention: and the passages are given in the order of the Books of the New Testament. (The list has been divided up into five parts to decrease the download time.)

There is also the: Analytical Table and Harmony of the Mosaic Law, Prophecies in the Pentateuch and Historical Books (vvs. prophecy was given & vvs. it was fulfilled), and Probable Occasion When Each Psalm Was Composed that are of notable interest.

If you are asking about scriptures quoted that don't appear anywhere else in the Bible, see the listing below.

Lost books

The so-called lost books of the Bible are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they were considered authentic and valuable but that are not found in the Bible today. Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following:

book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14)
book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18)
book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41)
book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29)
book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29)
book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29)
prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29)
visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22)
book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15)
book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34)
sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19)
an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9)
possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3)
an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16)
and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14)

To these rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible may be added another list that has allusions to writings that may or may not be contained within our present text but may perhaps be known by a different title; for example,

the book of the covenant (Ex. 24:7) which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus.
the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:25)
the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26:22)

More at www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/lost-booksBlue Letter Bible Study Resources: Charts and Outlines


Is celibacy essential to the Catholic priesthood?

Essence of priestly celibacy

Celibacy = unmarried, although in this context it can also mean perpetual continence, as priests can be married (and unmarried priests have never been permitted to marry).

Besides the practical reasons (which can apply to non-priests, too) of

being freed from the solicitudes of married life, not being so tied to worldly matters, or having a heart divided between wife/husband/family and pastoral duties (1 Cor. 7:33-34*);

*"But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband."

or

the spiritual reasons of being able to attain a higher degree of charity/holiness/perfection (Trent sess. 24 can. 10; Mt. 19:29*; Apoc. 14:4†) by following the evangelical counsels and not just the precepts;

*"And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting."
†"These are they who were not defiled with women: for they are virgins. These follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were purchased from among men, the firstfruits to God and to the Lamb"

ritual purity is probably the strongest argument for priestly celibacy because it pertains to the essence of the priesthood, which is to offer sacrifice (sacerdos = "giver of the sacred"; sacer = "sacred", dare = "to give").

Ritual purity

On ritual purity in the Old and New Testaments, see Priestly Celibacy: Theological Foundations by Fr. Gary Selin, pp. 139-144.

Ch. 3 goes over the threefold dimension of priestly celibacy: christological (conforming to Christ), ecclesiastical (under which he classes ritual purity), and eschatological (because celibacy points to the life to come, where "they shall neither marry nor be married", Mt. 22:30).

Separation/distinction honors the sacred.

Magisterial Teaching

Pope Pius XII, 1954 encyclical Sacra Virginitas §23:

  Consider again that sacred ministers do not renounce marriage solely on account of their apostolic ministry, but also by reason of their service at the altar. For, if even the priests of the Old Testament had to abstain from the use of marriage during the period of their service in the Temple, for fear of being declared impure by the Law just as other men,42 is it not much more fitting that the ministers of Jesus Christ, who offer every day the Eucharistic Sacrifice, possess perfect chastity? St. Peter Damian, exhorting priests to perfect continence, asks: "If Our Redeemer so loved the flower of unimpaired modesty that not only was He born from a virginal womb, but was also cared for by a virgin nurse even when He was still an infant crying in the cradle, by whom, I ask, does He wish His body to be handled now that He reigns, limitless, in heaven?"43

  42. Cf. Lev. XV, 16-17 XXII, 4; I Sam. XXI, 5-7; cf. S. Siric. Papa, Ep. ad Himer. 7; PL LVI, 558-559.43. S. Petrus Dam., De coelibatu sacerdotum, c. 3; PL CXLV, 384 [English transl.].

Old Testament

Ibid. ch. 3 §"Ritual Purity in the Judaic Law", pp. 139-141:

  tahor (clean, pure) or tame (unclean, impure). […] Separation  is the concrete, visible expression of the exalted holiness of God, and the ritual purity laws maintained this protective system of separation. […] To come into contact with blood was to come into contact with the divine and thus one contracted a ritual impurity, “a holy contamination,” rather than a moral impurity. […] In certain rabbinic texts, the liturgical objects themselves were understood to “pollute,” for example, the handling of a sacred scroll would soil the hands of the rabbi, and he was required to wash his hands after reading it. [fn. 103: "[…] Even today, the liturgical vessels used at Mass are said to be purified when elements of the sacred species are removed."]

New Testament

Ibid. ch. 3 §"Ritual Purity in the Patristic Tradition" p. 144 quotes Ambrosiaster's Questiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti, 127, in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 50, 415:

  Compared to the stars, the light of a lamp is but fog; while compared to the sun, the stars are obscure; and compared to the radiance of God, the sun is but night. Thus are the things which, in relationship to us, are licit and pure, and are as if illicit and impure with respect to the dignity of God; indeed, no matter how good they are, they are not appropriate to the person of God.

This is the same reason for why women and other are sacred vessels are veiled in church.

Abstaining from conjugal relations

before sacrificing

So as not to confuse two different sacreds, similar reasons are given for abstaining from conjugal relations before offering sacrifice.

1 Samuel 21:2-6:

  And David said to Achimelech, the priest: The king hath commanded me a business, and said: Let no man know the thing for which thou art sent by me, and what manner of commands I have given thee: and I have appointed my servants to such and such a place. Now therefore if thou have any thing at hand, though it were but five loaves, give me, or whatsoever thou canst find. And the priest answered David, saying: I have no common bread at hand, but only holy bread [for sacrifice], if the young men be clean, especially from women? And David answered the priest, and said to him: Truly, as to what concerneth women, we have refrained ourselves from yesterday and the day before, when we came out, and the vessels of the young men were holy. Now this way is defiled, but it shall also be sanctified this day in the vessels. The priest therefore gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there, but only the loaves of proposition, which had been taken away from before the face of the Lord, that hot loaves might be set up.

Daniel G. Van Slyke, “Abstinence from Conjugal Relations Before Reception of the Body of Christ: A Brief History,” Antiphon 20, no. 2 (2016): 151–72.:

  This passage indicates two situations in which men and presumably their wives abstained from sexual relations during David's time. First, David's soldiers abstained in order to be consecrated at arms or prepared for battle. Second, the priests abstained when serving before the Lord in the Tabernacle and partaking of the holy shew-bread. On this exceptional instance in which non-priests partook of the holy bread, those non-priests could do so only upon affirming that they had abstained from sexual relations.

before receiving Holy Communion

Innocent XI's Cum ad aures (February 12, 1679) on frequent communion (DZ 1147):

  In the case of married persons, however, let them seriously consider this, since the blessed Apostle does not wish them to "defraud one another, except perhaps by consent for a time, that they may give themselves to prayer" [cf. 1 Cor. 7:5], let them advise these seriously that they should give themselves more to continence, because of reverence for the most holy Eucharist, and that they should come together for communion in the heavenly banquet with a purer mind.

  In coniugatis autem hoc amplius animadvertant, cum beatus Apostolus nolit eos ‘invicem fraudari, nisi forte ex consensu ad tempus, ut vacent orationi’ (cf. 1 cor 7, 5), eos serio admoneant, tanto magis ob sacratissimae Eucharistiae reverentiam continentiae vacandum purioreque mente ad caelestium epularum communionem esse conveniendum.

(Pope St. Pius X cited (but did not quote) this in his Sacra Tridentina on daily Communion.)


What is the difference between these versions of the KJV?

The American King James Version seems to be a fairly new revision of the King James to update the spelling and vocabulary of the KJV to match modern usage and remove archaisms. In that sense, it's similar to the more popular NKJV (New King James Version). The AKJV looks to be the hobby project of a single person of unknown qualifications, so it's reliability is questionable.

(source: http://www.crosswire.org/sword/modules/ModInfo.jsp?modName=AKJV)

The other two are far less substantial revisions of the original 1611 text, mainly fixing spelling, grammar, and glaring errors. Virtually nobody uses the 1611 text anymore, most KJV bibles you find are using one of the later editions. The 1769 version you have there is the Benjamin Blayney's edition, which was the standard text for quite some time. In 1873 the Cambridge Paragraph Bible came out, edited by F. H. A. Scrivener. Scrivener reformatted the text into paragraphs (and formatted poetry to look like poetry), and he meticulously corrected errors in the text and noted changes from the 1611 version in an appendix. Unlike Blayney, Scrivener made changes that affected the meaning of the text when he thought the original translators were in error.

It seems that most KJVs published today are based on the 1900 Pure Cambridge edition, but I can't find much information about its origins. Most sources online are from KJV-only apologist websites, which are about as far from reliable sources as they come.

Sources:

http://www.crosswire.org/sword/modules/ModInfo.jsp?modName=AKJV

https://bible.org/article/changes-kjv-1611-illustration

http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/religion/biblical-studies-new-testament/textual-history-king-james-bible-and-new-cambridge-paragraph-bible

http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/religion/biblical-studies-new-testament/king-james-bible-short-history-tyndale-today


What does "proceeds" mean to Eastern Orthodox?

Our Church teaches that these are the attributes of the persons of the Holy Trinity (fatherhood, begotten, procession),  and that we should not try to associate human concepts to them.
After all, what does "begotten" mean? Can it be humanly explained?
From my point of view, one can understand these just through revelation and not through ration.

[editing to reply to the first comment]
According to the dictionary, "born" means to "start to exist". But the Word has not start, there is no time notion within the Holy Trinity. According to the teaching of the Church, we cannot say that the Father was before the Son or the Spirit. There is no "before". This is what I mean that "born" should not be interpreted in human terms.
You can use "proceeds" to describe the relationship between the Father and the Holy Spirit and the fact that, somehow, there is a sort of movement (Gen 1,2 "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.") but we should not try to attach the human understanding in order to describe God. The Holy Trinity cannot be truly described in human terms. One can understand God inasmuch as one is in communion with God.


What statistics are there on the age of conversions?

By conversion to Christianity, I take that to mean when a person turns to Christ after repenting before God of their sins.  I do not take that to mean baptism.  The difficulty here is that although Christian denominations (including Evangelical denominations) record baptisms, I am unaware that they record the age of the baptismal candidate.  As for when a person converted to Christianity, I am unaware of any Christian denomination recording statistics on the age of conversion.
In my own experience, although I know the date of my conversion and my age then (47), that statistic has never been recorded anywhere.  The only source of information on the age of conversion would probably come from polls.  I found one conducted by the National Association of Evangelicals (in spring 2015) on the age of conversion:
63% up to age 14
34% 15-29
2% 30 plus
There was no specific information on the sample size of the poll or anything to confirm its authenticity.
Although the American Pew Research Center conducts numerous surveys and studies into Christian statistics/demographics, the one below says absolutely nothing about the age of people when they converted to Christianity.  However, is does mention factors that affect the age of conversion:

Size of youth population. “In 2010, more than a quarter of the world’s total population (27%) was under the age of 15.” Christian youth under 15 were the same as the 27% global average. But an even higher percentage of Muslims (34%) were younger than 15. This higher youth population is one of the reasons that from 2010-2050 Muslims are projected to grow faster than Christians.
Size of old population. In 2010, “11% of the world’s population was at least 60 years old,” 14% of the Christian population was over 60 years old, but only 7% of Muslims were over 60. This is another reason that Muslims are projected to grow faster than Christians.
Switching. A loss of 66 million Christians is projected to come through switching. Most of the loss is projected to come from Christians “joining the ranks of the religiously unaffiliated.”

Religious Self-Identification of the U.S. Adult Population: 1990, 2001, 2008  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_population_growth#Conversion
The World Christian Encyclopedia suggests that approximately 2.7 million people convert to Christianity annually from another religion, with Christianity ranking first in net gains through religious conversion.  However, it does not mention the age of converts.
The older a person becomes, the less likely it is that they would convert from one religion to another.  I doubt there are any statistics on how many people age 70 plus convert.
Edit: Here is the link to the National Association of Evangelicals (thanks to disciple): https://www.nae.net/when-americans-become-christians/


In Christian mortalism, what sets apart people who have lived from people who didn't live?

My answer comes with a caveat:
I have struggled to grasp the meaning of this question, and have been confused by that Wikipedia article on what it calls “Christian Mortalism”.  I have therefore decided to put that to one side and simply address the following questions:
What sets apart people who have lived from people who didn't live?
My understanding is that people who have lived were born of a woman and received the “breath of life”.  On the other hand, “people who have not lived” were never born with a human body.  Perhaps that would apply to a foetus that died while in the womb – a still-birth – and therefore never received “the breath of life”.
This is the only difference I can think of that would set apart a person who lived from one who did not live.  From the moment fertilization takes place, the child’s genetic makeup is already complete. The only thing the embryo needs to become a fully-functioning human being is the time to grow and develop.  Human life begins at conception and the unborn child is already known by God:

My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place [the womb].  When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:15-16; Jeremiah 1:5).

The foreknowledge of God is far more than His ability to “see the future”; His foreknowledge is a true “knowing” of what will come to pass, based on His free choice.  He decrees what will come to pass.  In other words, foreknowledge is not just intellectual; it is personal and relational. Foreknowledge is equivalent to foreordination in that God ordains, or orders, all that will be.  https://www.gotquestions.org/foreknowledge.html

How could God not grant resurrection to a person never having existed?
Working on the basis that you are enquiring about an unborn child that never had an opportunity to draw its first breath, are you really asking whether an unborn child will be resurrected by God?  The Bible does not say, but we know that God is merciful as well as just; He is a God of goodness and mercy; He is gracious in all His works.  While the Bible does not teach universal salvation, we know that Jesus died “for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2).
Will the body/soul of an unborn child be resurrected?
Only God knows, but we can be confident that His steadfast love endures forever (Psalm136) and He is righteous in all His ways (Psalm 145:17).
For all Christians who understand that the soul continues to exist after the body dies, they can draw comfort from knowing that the soul will be clothed in a resurrection body at God’s appointed time.  Our God knows the beginning from the end – He is Alpha and Omega – He is the Sovereign Ruler.
P.S. If I have misunderstood your question, please forgive me.


When did Martin Luther lose his Apostolic succession according to Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churchеs?

According to the Catholic Church, the short answer is that he never lost it. In fact, in the strict sense, Martin Luther never participated in apostolic succession to begin with.

Apostolic succession refers to the fact that all bishops can trace their holy orders all the way back to the Apostles. That is, the Apostles ordained certain men bishops (or what we would call bishops today) by the laying on of hands, and these, in turn, ordained other bishops, and so forth. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 77-79, as well as 1 Timothy 5:22, which is an example in the Scripture of where this kind of succession occurred.) Thus, at least in the strict sense, apostolic succession does not apply to presbyters (i.e., priests).

Since Martin Luther was only a presbyter, not a bishop, he did not (at least in the strict sense) participate an apostolic succession. For example, he never had the capacity to ordain another man bishop. (Only a bishop can confer the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Hence, Luther could not ordain deacons or priests either; see CCC 1576.)

What the O.P. may have been thinking of was the status of Martin Luther’s holy orders.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Sacrament of Holy Orders confers a permanent “mark,” called a character, on the soul of the person who is ordained. (See CCC 1582; it is a “mark” in a metaphorical sense, of course: the character consists in the capacity of the ordained minister to perform the ministry that he is called to, especially the capacity to confer certain sacraments.) This character is permanent, and no power on earth can remove it.

As a consequence, Martin Luther remained a validly ordained priest to the end of his life. His status in the Church became irregular when he was excommunicated in 1521, but that in no way affected his holy orders.

The reason that Lutherans (as opposed to Luther himself) do not maintain Apostolic succession is that they did not attempt to continue it. Luther himself, as I mentioned, was only a presbyter, so he could not ordain new bishops, priests, or deacons.

Doctrinally, Luther largely disavowed the concept of the ministerial priesthood, so he did not seek to continue it. In any event, in order to do so, he would have had to have the cooperation of a Catholic bishop (or at any rate, a validly ordained bishop, such as an Orthodox bishop), which was not likely during his lifetime. Consequently, although many first-generation Lutherans were priests, their holy orders died with them.


Why do some people get healed, and others don't?

There are many recorded instances in the Bible of healing, from Old Testament stories of Naaman having to dip seven times into the muddy Jordan river, to the New Testament story of the woman with an issue of blood who was healed only by reaching out her hand to touch Jesus's garment. In the book of Acts, the people are healed as they merely lay in the shadow of Peter (Acts 5:15), or touched a garment of clothing taken from Paul's body (Acts 19:12). So healing is pervasive to both the Old and New Testament, and testimonies continue well into the ministries of such venerated saints as Columba, Patrick, Irenaeus, Martin of Tours, Martin Luther, John Wesley, and on to recent men of faith like Billy Sunday, Jack Coe and Oral Roberts.

So how does healing work, and how can we ratify not being healed in the face of such scriptures as:

Mark 9:23
Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

James 5:15-16
And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Mark 16:18
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

John 5 records the story of Jesus healing a man at the pool of Bethesda, which is remarkable story of healing and mercy, but also raises some interesting questions, namely: why did Jesus not heal any the others who were waiting to step into the water as soon as it was stirred? Why was no one else healed?

To find an answer we turn to other places in scripture where healing could not occur. The first is in Matthew 17 as the disciples question why they could not cast out an evil spirit.

Matthew 17:19-20
Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?
And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Again in Matthew 13 we find that in Jesus' home country, surrounded by those who had grown up with him and supposedly knew him the best, he found himself hindered by their unbelief.

Matthew 13:58
And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

In F F Bosworth's book Christ the Healer, he notes that one of many obstacles that we must overcome to claim our healing is 'does Christ want me to be healed?'. Many times that is the greatest obstacle to our faith, and we can begin to believe that God somehow wants us to endure sickness to give him glory. What I find interesting is that not once in scripture do we have evidence of Christ ever turning someone away who came to him for healing. It was only in the face of unbelief that he could not work.

To receive healing:

In the same way that I must believe salvation is for me, I must also believe that healing is for me, and that it was part of the atonement (Isaiah 53:5).  In Numbers 21, those that did not look upon the brass serpent could not receive their healing.
I must believe God wants to heal us.
I must believe healing is part of my purchased possession.

This is an extremely broad topic, perhaps even too broad to discuss in less than several chapters of text, but hopefully this will be found helpful. There are many other points to consider in claiming healing, for example how confessing your faults to one another as James instructs plays a role.

I believe our unbelief is the chiefest obstacle to receiving healing, however I do not mean to imply in any sense that because someone does not receive their healing they are any less of a Christian. Sometimes, we are simply too close to our sickness to hold on in the way that we should, and in those most extreme cases that is why scripture implores us to pray for one another.

Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
James 5:16


What books did Calvin consider canonical?

We have several pieces of evidence to say that Calvin affirmed the 66-book canon that has become known as the Protestant canon and rejected all other books as canonical.

The first piece of evidence is the 1559 French Confession of Faith, which he co-authored with De Chandieu. In article 3 of the confession, the 66 books are all named as "canonical" books of "the Holy Scriptures." In article 4 it says that "we can not found any articles of faith" upon "other ecclesiastical books."

Calvin names these "ecclesiastical books" in his 1547 Antidote to the Council of Trent:

  It is well known what Jerome states as the common opinion of earlier times. And Ruffinus, speaking of the matter as not at all controverted, declares with Jerome that Ecclesiasticus, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, and the history of the Maccabees, were called by the Fathers not canonical but ecclesiastical books, which might indeed be read to the people, but were not entitled to establish doctrine.

You may note that he mentions here every deuterocanonical book other than Baruch.

The next piece of evidence is the Geneva Bible, a 1560 English translation. David Hall makes the case that Calvin approved of the Geneva Bible:

  Several things illustrate Calvin's imprimatur on this version. First, he used it in his own preaching; secondly, some of his closest disciples were involved in its translation; thirdly, publishings in Geneva at the time were approved by a committee of the Genevan Consistory, heavily populated by Calvin adherents; and fourthly, just prior to its publication, the church of Geneva requested that Calvin and Theodore Beza confirm William Whttingham’s NT translation. Without a doubt, Calvin approved of this 1560 translation.

In the table of contents of the 1560 edition, the deuterocanon (including Baruch) is in an "Apocrypha" section, and the Old and New Testaments include only the 66 books that Calvin affirmed in the 1559 French Confession (though the Prayer of Manasseh is listed with the Old Testament books with a note that it is apocryphal.)

Similarly, article 4 of the Belgic Confession lists the 66-book canon of Scripture, and article 6 enumerates the Apocrypha, including Baruch. Calvin wrote in a letter that he and the brothers of Geneva "heartily approve" of the Belgic Confession, which was written by a student of his, but wish it didn't attribute Hebrews to Paul. (A discussion of this letter is found in pages 67-70 of Nicolaas Gootjes' book The Belgic Confession, and the full text of the original is found in an appendix to the same.)

So to sum up, the evidence is as follows: Calvin's own French Confession of Faith, along with the Belgic Confession which his student wrote and he accepted, and the Geneva Bible which he also approved, names only the 66-book Protestant canon as canonical. And the Belgic Confession and Geneva Bible both explicitly regard each deuterocanonical book as non-canonical.

As for Baruch in particular, the webpage linked in the question gives examples of citations that are all from the 1530s -- though Calvin also calls Baruch a prophet in his 1546 commentary on 1 Corinthians -- which means he may have changed his mind between then and 1559 (possibly after 1547, since he doesn't mention Baruch in the Antidote to Trent). But an alternative would be that he's simply calling Baruch a prophet to give a common attribution that would be recognizable to his readers. This view makes more sense to me, given that a few of the passages mentioned by that webpage have Calvin saying, "Or whoever was the author." It seems he was simply adding weight to his arguments by quoting from an ancient Jewish writer.


Jonathan Edwards' Ontological Argument

In his "Essay on the Trinity" (and private notebooks and public sermons), Jonathan Edwards suggested a form of ontological argument for each of the three persons of the Trinity.  Anselm's argument starts from a definition of a hypothetical God who perfects all excellences and proceeds to show God must actually exist since existence is an excellence that God must have perfected.  Edwards argues along the same lines for each Person of the Trinity:

  And this I suppose to be that blessed Trinity that we read of in the Holy Scriptures. The Father is the Deity subsisting in the prime, un-originated and most absolute manner, or the Deity in its direct existence. The Son is the Deity generated by God's understanding, or having an idea of Himself and subsisting in that idea. The Holy Ghost is the Deity subsisting in act, or the Divine essence flowing out and breathed forth in God's Infinite love to and delight in Himself. And I believe the whole Divine essence does truly and distinctly subsist both in the Divine idea and Divine love, and that each of them are properly distinct Persons.

The Father perfects existence

Edwards did not seem to make the ontological argument with respect to the Father (though it is that Person normally called simply "God").  Instead, he follows Aristotle in considering the Father to be the prime mover or cause (in all senses) of all that exists.  If you've ever played the "why" game with a toddler (Q: "Why does the sun shine in the morning?" A: "Because the Earth rotates." Q: "Why does the Earth rotate?", etc.), you know that the ultimate answer is always God.  (If you don't happen to believe in some prime being such as God, the ultimate answer must be "Because that's the way things are.")  Even the Son, who is conceived by the Father, and the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, depend on the Father for existence.

The Son perfects understanding

Edwards assumes that the Father's end is to enjoy Himself and that in order to accomplish that, He must have an "image" or idea of Himself.  The image must be distinct from the Father; it must be the object of God's affection.  If the image is worthy of God's infinite enjoyment, it must also be perfect in representing God.  Fundamentally, the Father's imagination is so powerful that He creates the Son.  In fact, Proverbs 8 describes how God fathered Wisdom, which is just another way to represent the understanding of God, before the Creation.

The idea is not that different from what we mean by "a gleam in your father's eye".  God contemplates Himself and the Son is that image.  Unlike our imaginations, which remain safely in our minds without some sort of effort, God's understanding of Himself is made manifest.  The Son existed before He was incarnated as Jesus because God has always been delighting in Himself.  Edwards argues that a duplicity is necessary for God to be the object of His own delight.

The Spirit perfects action

Finally, the Spirit is the manifestation of God's own affection for Himself. Now it must be admitted that this is certainly a strange Person.  But Edwards argues that this is exactly the sort of Person we see in the Bible.  He concludes from 1 John 4:8, which states that God is love, that the embodiment of the love between the Father and the Son is the Spirit.  We note, in passing, that Edwards affirms the filioque because the love, delight, honor, glory, and so on between the First and Second Persons is mutual.

According to Edwards, these are not feelings, but actions.  The interaction between Father and Son is also perfect, so like God's understanding of Himself, it too is manifest as the Third Person.  The essay notes that Paul passes on grace, peace, and mercy from the Father and Son, but never the Spirit.  In addition, the Father and Son express their affection for each other, but never for the Spirit.  One solution to these puzzles is to conclude that the Spirit is God's love.

Perichoresis

In order to explain why at least two Persons must exist, Edwards notes the (then) common notion that "God is infinitely happy in the enjoyment of Himself".  From that idea, he deduces:

  However, if God beholds Himself so as thence to have delight and joy in Himself He must become his own object. There must be a duplicity. There is God and the idea of God.

The argument is philosophical, by the way, not grammatical, as it marries the ontological argument with the conception of God's self-enjoyment.  Edwards was not the first to extrapolate that the Spirit is the action of love between the Father and the Son:

  If, as is properly understood, the Father is he who kisses, the Son he who is kissed, then it cannot be wrong to see in the kiss the Holy Spirit, for he is the imperturbable peace of the Father and the Son, their unshakable bond, their undivided love, their indivisible unity.—St. Bernard of Clairvaux, in Sermon 8, Sermons on the Song of Songs

Of course, these are mere illustrations of the intimacy (perichoresis) that the members of the Trinity enjoy.  Going back to Paul himself, Christians have wrestled with this great mystery.

Conclusion

Jonathan Edwards was the first to point out that he did not propose to make the mystery of the Trinity unmysterious.  The degree you accept that ideas perfected become "real" is the degree you are likely to accept this formulation.  However, it does insist on exactly three Persons since it requires God to be object, subject, and verb of the sentence:

  God delights in Himself.


Early church writers opposed to the baptism of infants?

110-165 AD Martyr

  As many as are persuaded and believe that what we
  teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly,
  are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the
  remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with
  them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are
  regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated.
  For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of
  our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the
  washing with water. For Christ also said, 'Except ye be born again, ye
  shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' Now, that it is
  impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their
  mothers' wombs, is manifest to all... And for this we have learned
  from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without
  our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were
  brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not
  remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the
  children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the
  remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who
  chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of
  God the Father and Lord of the universe.

  (Justin Martyr, "First Apology," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pg. 183)

115-188 THEOPHILUS

  On the fifth day the living creatures which proceed from the waters
  were produced, through which also is revealed the manifold wisdom of
  God in these things; for who could count their multitude and various
  kinds? Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by
  God, that this also might be a sign of men's being destined to receive
  repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of
  regeneration, as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and
  receive blessing from God.

  (Theophilus, "To Autolycus,", Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, pg. 101)

140-230 AD TERTULLIAN

  But they roll back an objection from that apostle himself, in that he
  said, 'For Christ sent me not to baptize;' as if by this argument
  baptism were done away! For if so, why did he baptize Gaius, and
  Crispus, and the house of Stephanas? However, even if Christ had not
  sent him to baptize, yet He had given other apostles the precept to
  baptize. But these words were written to the Corinthians in regard of
  the circumstances of that particular time; seeing that schisms and
  dissensions were agitated among them, while one attributes everything
  to Paul, another to Apollos. For which reason the 'peacemaking'
  apostle, for fear he should seem to claim all gifts for himself, says
  that he had been sent 'not to baptize, but to preach.' For preaching
  is the prior thing, baptizing the posterior. Therefore the preaching
  came first: but I think baptizing withal was lawful to him to whom
  preaching was.

  (Tertullian, "On Baptism," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, pg. 676)

181 AD Theophilus of Antioch

  Moreover, those things which were created from the waters were blessed
  by God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future
  time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the
  bath of regeneration all who proceed to the truth and are born again
  and receive a blessing from God

  (To Autolycus 12:16).

There are probably a few more.


Is it possible to achieve a life without sin on earth?

Only Jesus was perfect. The notion that one has become sinless can only be thought from a heart blinded by wicked pride.

  The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? (NIV Jeremiah 17:9)

The bible makes the model prayer to be a daily confession of our daily sins. The moment any man thinks they have gone a day without sinning is the moment this prayer becomes insincere hypocrisy of the self-righteous.

  Give us today our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. ’ (NIV Matthew 6:11-13)

Even the most holy men that have ever lived never thought for a moment were were free from sin but bitterly complained about the sinfulness.

  So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. (NIV Romans 7:21-23)

Of course John Calvin, Luther and all the reformers understood these verses by Paul was a description of his 'Christian' experience.

Sufficient to say there is no biblical warrant to suppose we can for a moment be without sin. If I ever met a person who loved God with all their heart, which is the greatest command, I would ask them to sign my bible and I would sell everything I have and follow that person.

Of course we know that would not happen as only Jesus was perfect.


Is white underwear necessary while being baptized in The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints?

No. White is usually recommended, though. It is more practical, since the jumpsuits are also white.


Can or should a consecrated Host be adored by way of a live Eucharistic televised broadcast?

This is the obligation for the people:

  On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass. (Code of Canon Law 1247)

And the requirements of the elderly/home bound:

  If participation in the eucharistic celebration becomes impossible because of the absence of a sacred minister or for another grave cause, it is strongly recommended that the faithful take part in a liturgy of the word if such a liturgy is celebrated in a parish church or other sacred place according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop or that they devote themselves to prayer for a suitable time alone, as a family, or, as the occasion permits, in groups of families. (Code of Canon Law 1248 §2)

So the standard is, "participate unless it is impossible", and "participate", as it is used in Canon Law, would necessitate actual attendance. Televised broadcasts would certainly fulfill the recommendation in 1248 §2, but that is clearly on a subservient level and can be readily exchanged for other forms of prayer.

As to "how are we to reverence the image of the Eucharist in a televised broadcast?" well, it would seem that this would be less than the amount of reverence would be due as if you were walking by a Church and saw the elevation of the Host through an open door. It is a good thing to acknowledge that you are looking at Jesus, but you are not required to fall on your knees, or do anything at all, really. (Personally, I do the sign of the cross when passing in front of Churches)

So the long and the short: the Eucharist, as a televised image, is worthy of reverence and it is a good thing to watch Mass when you can, but it is never necessary and nothing compares to the real thing.


Italian Version of St. Maxilmian Kolbe writings

I can't help you with the digital version; the closest things seem to be the selections of texts that can be found in some websites (for example, visit the site of the Missionarie dell'Immacolata).

However, you might find some hard copies in specialized bookstores like this one, which defines its availability as "usually available for shipping in 2 weeks" ("normalmente disponibile per la spedizione in 2 settimane").

God bless you as well.