Where did our spirit come from? (Overview)

The discussion of the origin of the human soul/spirit (on this topic they are generally spoken of as one immaterial part) is a very old one in Christian history. There are many serious implications which the debate has commonly hinged on, particularly regarding the transmission of Adam's original sin and guilt. However varied those theories may be, a basic summary shows that most variations of views on this topic fall within a few categories:

Creationism

Creationism (of the soul) believes that God creates a soul for each body that is generated organically. [1][2]

History

Historically, Creationism has been the default explanation of the early church and is now still maintained by the Roman Catholic Church.

Jerome was clear in his support of it while opposing Traducianism (below). He is joined by Augustine, though he expressed doubts to Jerome later in his life as he debated with Pelagius on the topics of original sin, guilt and the human condition. 2

By the 13th century, creationism was solidified in the Roman Catholic Church by notables such as Thomas Aquinas.[3]

Scriptural Support

Creationism has many verses that would seem to support it:

Ecclesiastes 12:7 (ESV)

  and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

Isaiah 42:5 (ESV)

  Thus says God, the Lord,
  who created the heavens and stretched them out,
  who spread out the earth and what comes from it,
  who gives breath to the people on it.

Zechariah 12:1 (ESV)

  The oracle of the word of the Lord concerning Israel: Thus declares the Lord, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit of man within him.

Common Criticisms

Means God may be creating a sinful or "dead" soul.
Makes the transmission of Original Sin and Federal Headship more difficult to explain.

Traducianism& Generationism

Traducianism posits that the immaterial and the material are generated through the organic process of generation, or conception. Though very similar, Generationism is sometimes distinguished from Traducianism in that it would say that the parents' souls are involved in the generation of the child's immaterial part while their bodies generate the organic, rather than the organic process being responsible for both. [3]

In both cases, neither of the two explanations traditionally maintains that God is not involved at all, which is a common criticism and misconception. Both explanations, however, insist the parents provide the substance while God provides the spark. [7]

History

Tertullian is one of the earliest theologians (ad 160?-230?) to argue strongly for Traducianism. Soon after the rise of the Pelagian heresy, many church fathers, such as Augustine, began to question this topic and Traducianism became a popular alternative. Gregory of Nyssa is another major early proponent of Traducianism.

Eastern Orthodoxy held to Traducianism, and it was popular with Lutherans after the Protestant Reformation.[3]

Scriptural Support

Psalm 51:3 (ESV)

  Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
  and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Hebrews 7:9-10

  9 One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham,
  10 for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.

Common Criticisms

If the parents are regenerate believers, how can Original Sin be transmitted?
Man cannot determine his spiritual existence. If he can kill the body but not the soul, how then can he create it?
Seems to bind the material and immaterial, and some theologies have difficulty separating the two.

Pre-Existence

Others believe that God created souls either before he created Adam and Eve or along with the souls of Adam and Eve on the 6th day, and the souls are then breathed into their new bodies, as Creationism says, at conception.

There are some, however, who would not necessarily agree the soul was created at all but is already eternal, is waiting to be placed in a body, and the body and soul will one day be reunited in eternity.[6]

Christian Mortalism/Monism

Another solution is to avoid the question entirely. Christian Mortalism (Monism or Materialism), regardless of differing eschatological beliefs, would say the soul (or spirit) and the body are not separate but are united.
Accordingly, Christian Mortalism is similar to Traducianism in that a person's soul is created in the union of the parents without an immaterial part to create, but only one whole person.

However, that is not to say that all materialistic or monistic theologies hold to this belief. The 7th Day Adventists, for example, are primarily Creationists (either declared or undeclared) with strongly monist tendencies. [5]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism_%28soul%29
[2] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04475a.htm
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traducianism
[4] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15014a.htm
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anthropology#One_part_.28Monism.29
[6] http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-origin-of-the-human-soul-part-2-of-4
[7] http://www.str.org/blog/how-did-you-get-a-soul-creationism-versus-traducianism#.VoBKUlKYDeI


Why do Roman Catholics consider eating fish on Friday a good work?

The "good work" that one can do by eating fish on Fridays is penance. Perhaps it's hard to understand if you love fish and abhor meat, but that's not the case for most people. The following lines contain an excerpt of Keeping Friday, from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops:

Jesus invited to carry the Cross and do penance for the good of the Church and the world. He died on Good Friday and, from that moment on, we share in the Lord’s Cross each Friday, learning to obey with Him, joining in His death to sin and evil. Every Friday is a promise from God that we who are baptized will rise again with Christ. We suffer and carry our crosses now, but we will share in Jesus’ glory if we are faithful by his grace.

How can we do this penance on Fridays? We may do it through these actions:

Abstinence from meat or some other form of food, drink or entertainment [Note 1: this is where the "eating fish" custom comes from; you exchange one for the other].
Prayer: take part in a service of worship with others, or pray with our family, or spend some extra time in personal prayer.
Good works [Note 2: meaning concrete exercises of charity, because abstinence and prayer are also "good" works]: do good to others by visiting the sick or aged, helping those in any need, or by contributing time or money to a work of charity.


On what basis do some denominations prohibit Christians from drinking alcohol?

My denomination is one that is very strongly in the "Christians shouldn't drink - at all" camp.  Very strongly.  And my Pastor, whom I love and respect, is very strongly in that camp as well.  Yet even he, in his sermons, will tell you that nowhere in the Bible is drinking explicitly called a sin.

However, in many places, drunkenness and even alcohol consumption is called foolish.  And to him, and every other Baptist Pastor I've heard preach on the subject (and that's quite a few), the problem isn't so much that drinking alcohol is a sin, it's that drinking alcohol lowers our inhibitions, and sinful behavior often follows.  It's really easy to give into temptation if you're under the influence of alcohol.

That said, there are other theories about the prohibition against drinking.

From http://www.brucesabin.com/alcohol.html

  In the history of Christianity, alcoholic prohibition is a relatively
  new idea. In fact, alcohol was a normal part of life. In Colonial
  America, the Puritans expected Christians to drink (Hearn, 1943). In
  the 1700s, a Baptist minister created the formula for bourbon whiskey
  (Hailey, 1992). During the 1800s, many Southern ministers operated
  stills, and sold alcohol (Hearn, 1943). Parishioners who owned stills
  would tithe their alcohol; and preachers' salaries often included
  whiskey. All this began to change, however, as the Temperance movement
  took shape (Hailey, 1992).

So even in Baptist Churches, it hasn't always been that big a deal.

However, the article does go on to echo some of the reasons for abstaining altogether.

One that I've heard from the pulpit, and that I personally can't argue with is echoed here:

  For some Christians, a sense of love and justice leads them to abstain
  from alcohol. Seeing alcohol's devastating effects on society, these
  Christians feel compelled to act. Taking a strong stand against
  alcohol and its consequences is a tangible way that they can
  demonstrate their faith. These Christians believe that abstaining from
  alcohol is the best, possibly the only, solution to this societal
  problem. In addition, abstaining from alcohol guarantees that one will
  never fall prey to alcoholism (Hancock, 1999).

Quite frankly, even though most people never have a problem with alcohol, it can ruin lives.  And in the spirit of 1 Corinthians 8:9 (King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.))

  But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a
  stumblingblock to them that are weak

It's just considered a good idea to set a good example. As my Pastor often says: "People are always watching you.  The lost are always looking for an excuse to say, 'He's not a real Christian - I see him down at the bar all the time  Who is he to try to act all holier-than-thou?'".  In the interest of maintaining a good witness, and staying credible, it's simply more constructive to abstain.

As an added list of reasons some Christians believe that it's wrong, I'll include this link: http://www.scionofzion.com/drinking.htm

I am not saying I agree or disagree with any point on the list.  I'm also not debating what my Church preaches is Truth. I'm just presenting it, like the rest of this answer to address why some believe drinking is wrong, not addressing whether drinking is wrong. My own views aside, this isn't the place to determine such things.


3 Nep 20:24 - Why does Jesus Christ mention Samuel specifically?

Do you know of a prophet in the Old Testament between Moses and Samuel?

Joshua is the only one from whom we have much of a prophetic record, and in that record he seems to pretty much limit himself to what Moses taught. So Jesus, having explained that Moses testified about His coming and His teaching, moves on to Samuel, I would guess.

Elsewhere, such as in Jacob 7: 11, we are told that everyone from Adam down prophesied about Jesus. You can read some of those prophecies in the Pearl of Great Price.

If you are wondering, a significant part of the early Book of Mormon narrative concerns Lehi obtaining an early copy of what would be close to the Hebrew scriptures extant ca. 600 BC. So we see a bit of discussion of Moses and Isaiah and others of the Old Testament prophets in the Book of Mormon.

It is interesting that Jesus chose to teach a principle that Peter taught (See Acts 3: 22 - 26.), and that Joseph Smith's translation of Jesus' words here seems to follow Peter's words really closely.

Some people worry about this, thinking it must be evidence of plagiarism or something. If we assume that Joseph Smith was a charlatan, we might think so.

On the other hand, God doesn't seem to worry about His prophets plagiarizing each other. Prophets quote each other quite liberally.

So it can really only confirm the assumptions you start with, for Joseph Smith to have Jesus apparently quoting Peter. He was teaching the same principle Peter was teaching in Jerusalem about the same time.

For the reasons it so closely parallels the King James version of the Bible, Joseph Smith's formal education was limited to three years of what we now call elementary school. Beyond that, the Bible formed the basis of the bulk of his education in English and philosophy, at minimum.

Having done some translation myself, between English and Japanese, I know that, when I go out of my way to use vocabulary and phrasing I'm not familiar with, not only is it hard, but I tend to produce things that don't match existing idiom -- they sound strange, and they tend not to make much sense.

So I find myself both consciously and subconsciously resorting to idioms I have heard, and that means I often quote scriptures near verbatim when what I am translating is material that is scriptural and it happens to be scriptures that I remember.

For these reasons, among others, it does not surprise me that the Book of Mormon quotations from the Bible so closely parallel the KJT.

(afterthought)

PyRulez brings it to my attention that I let the overall focus of my response shift too much.

Here is a discussion on the Church website of the concept that all the prophets from the beginning have testified about Jesus Christ's coming and the work He would do:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/01/all-the-prophets-prophesied-of-christ?lang=eng

From that article, I would particularly note 1st Nephi chs. 8, 11-14, the prophetic dreams which Lehi and Nephi saw.

Also, Samuel the Lamanite, mentioned by PyRulez and others, is recorded in Helaman 8, ca. verses 16 and 18, to have talked about a number of prophets from Abraham down who prophesied of Jesus and of the redemption. If this is the Samuel that the Savior was mentioning, per your question and JBH's and PyRulz's comments, I would say that it is not just because Samuel taught the concept that all the prophets testified of Him, but because Samuel testified in great detail about the Savior's coming. Very definitely worth reading.

And, as I mentioned, many verses in the Pearl of Great Price, esp. the Book of Moses, two of which may be of particular interest:

Moses being told his ministry would symbolize the ministry of Jesus in Moses 1: 6.

And Enoch prophesying of Jesus Christ before the flood in (among other places) Moses 6: 51, 52. In this particular scripture, Enoch is explaining that Adam himself was taught, not only of the coming of a Savior who would redeem men from their sins, but of the name of the Savior.

(end afterthought)


Is the choice of a new Pope inspired by the Holy Spirit?

The Holy Spirit should be invoked and should guide the election of the Pope.
From Bl. John Paul II's Apostolic Constitution:

[Cardinals over the age of eighty] in particular should lead the People of God assembled in the Patriarchal Basilicas of Rome and in other churches in the Dioceses throughout the world, supporting the work of the electors with fervent prayers and supplications to the Holy Spirit and imploring for them the light needed to make their choice before God alone and with concern only for the "salvation of souls, which in the Church must always be the supreme law"
In view of the sacredness of the act of election and thus the need for it to be carried out in an appropriate setting where, on the one hand, liturgical actions can be readily combined with juridical formalities, and where, on the other, the electors can more easily dispose themselves to accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit, I decree that the election will continue to take place in the Sistine Chapel.
From the Pauline Chapel of the Apostolic Palace, where they will assemble at a suitable hour in the afternoon, the Cardinal electors, in choir dress, and invoking the assistance of the Holy Spirit with the chant of the Veni Creator, will solemnly process to the Sistine Chapel of the Apostolic Palace, where the election will be held.

That said, there remains the possibility that the cardinals will fail to discern the will of the Spirit. However, that can no more be determined by the faithful than it can be by the cardinals themselves. So yes, we must believe that the right person has been chosen.
DJClayworth is correct that, even if the wrong person is elected, his ministry is not invalidated. God will find a way of making everything good.


Where is the text of Pope Pius IX, "To the Easterners"?

The document that @depperm located at archive.org IS the one you're looking for, pdf here.  As Andrew Leach said, the Vatican website doesn't list this document.
The 44 page PDF document contains:

One page of context, from the Orthocath Nov 3, 2010 blog article Pope & Patriacts: The 1848 Letters of Pope Pius IX and the Orthodox Patriachs about the origin of the English translation of the Pope's letter (i.e. from the French journal Irenikon in 1929).
Pope Pius IX letter, dated 6 January 1848 (pages 2-13)
Orthodox Bishops's reply, dated May 1848 (pages 14-44)

In the English translation, the title says

On the Supreme Throne of Peter the Apostle
Apostolic Letter of Pope Pius IX, dated 6 January 1848

But in the French language Irenikon version (pdf here), the title says

Lettre de N. S. P. le Pape Pie IX aux chrétiens de l'Orient.
Le Pape Pie IX aux Orientaux

Google translated:

Letter from N. S. P. Pope Pius IX to the Christians of the East.
Pope Pius IX to the Orientals

which is close enough to either the Wikipedia title Epistle to the Easterners or the title of the English translation of the reply A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns".
When I compare the French text and the English text using Google translate of the first and last paragraphs, they are the same.


What major discrepancies exist between "versions" of the Bible?

There are none.

Translation Choices aren't Biblical Version issues

I categorically have to rule out translation choices as different "versions" because by definition, languages that change will change their wording to make things clear. Whether one translates the term "cell phone" into German as Mobil Telefon or Handy, for instance, is completely arbitrary, although the act of translating does introduce different connotations. By the same token, should one literally translate Ich habe die Schnatuze voll damit! literally as "I have the nose full with it!" or idiomatically translate the meaning to "I'm sick of it" or "I'm fed up with it!"  Of course those expressions mean nothing until the language catches up with it, proving the point that language changes.

Unlike the Qu'ran, the Bible has no problem with itself being translated.  If you want to quibble over a translation, you are quibbling over language, not the "Bible."  As such, I would confine any "discrepancies" to the original Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic parts of Daniel).

There are some very bad translations out there (see Was Jesus a Separate God?), but again, those are not the fault of the manuscripts, but rather translation choices that lacked scholarship.

Manuscripts are pretty consistent

There are admittedly, minor textual variations amongst the various manuscripts, but are there any that have any impact on theology?  Most are the grammatical equivalent of a transposed comma or a changed preposition. In a few cases (e.g. the Woman caught in adultery in John 8), there are sections that are missing in older manuscripts, but no textual variations once the story is added to the corpus.

In his book, The Text of the New Testament, It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Bruce Metzger analyzes thousands of manuscripts, and points out every miniscule variation amongst the miniscules, codices, papyri, and manuscripts.  Glancing through the linked table of contents, it will become obvious how minor the variations are.

When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the 1947, after having been buried for nearly two milennia, there were no significant discrepancies.

When Tischendorff uncovered (stole?) the Codex Sinaiticus in the 1800s, there were no significant discrepancies.

In short, this book is way less fluid than modern edits to Charles Dickens or William Shakespeare.

An examination of claims that manuscripts have significant theological variation
This is detail, but I think its worthwhile.  If you like the short answer, stop reading - but I think in trying to make the case that there is "significant theologcal variation, this text indavertently shows how little disagreement there really is

I'd like to show some examples that one commentator says are "significant", from @CwallenPoole's excellent answer:

Here is the case -

  This statement is clearly false. It is not true to the evidence. Dr. Sumner wrote: "The rare parts about which there is still uncertainty do not effect [sic] in any way any doctrine." This is false! Doctrine IS affected. Dr. Robert L. Thomas, John MacArthur's professor in his California Seminary, wrote: "No major doctrine of scripture is affected by a variant reading." False, again. Dr. H.S. Miller wrote: "No doctrine is affected." False again. Dr. Stanley Gundry stated: "Only a few outstanding problems remain, and these do not affect doctrine or divine command to us." False again. Dr. Ernest Pickering wrote: "Important differences of textual readings are relatively few and almost none would affect any major Christian doctrine." False again!

N.B. That's a fair number of good scholars to disagree with.  (Kurt Aland is also mentioned, the same Aland of Nestle-Aland - probably the best Greek NT out there.)  So, we have a lot of scholars making the claim I'm making.  Let's give the author a chance to debunk them.

  John 3:15. "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

  Do you know what the "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) manuscripts do to the three words, "should not perish"? They REMOVE them. So, in the two false Greek texts, there's no hell in Jn. 3:15. What versions follow these corrupted Greek texts? The NIV follows them, the NASV follows them, and the NKJV in the footnotes, follows them. So do the other modern versions and perversions. For them, there is no hell in Jn. 3:15. Is this not a major doctrine?

So, the claims is "should not perish" is not supported by the manuscript evidence.  Okay, let's assume its true.  The doctrine of annihilationism is not predicated solely on this Scripture, and in any case, isn't accepted by most Christians.  In either case, the significant theological point is "Believe in Jesus, Have eternal life."  Hell has other scripture to make the case one way or the other.

  Mark 9:44 and 9:46. Another example is Mark 9:44 and 46. Both verses are gone: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched".

  Because "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) remove both verses, so does the NKJV in the footnotes; so does the NASV (by putting them in brackets); and so does the NIV. So do the other modern versions and perversions. In so doing, they take away the fires of hell. Is this not a major doctrine? ... Now these false Egyptian Greek texts and the false English perversions will assist them in their heresy of a "fireless hell"!

Again, neither a widespread position, nor the exclusive basis of the claim.

  John 6:47. Let me see if you can accurately lead a soul to Christ using exclusively Jn. 6:47 as rendered in the new versions. Note John 6:47 in the KJV, where the Lord Jesus declared: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."

  That verse is as clear as a bell, on how to receive "everlasting life." But, the Westcott and Hort Greek text, following the "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) manuscripts, takes out those two vital and precious words, "on me." Because of their reliance on these false Egyptian Greek texts, the NIV also removes "on me." So does the NASV. So does the NKJV in the footnotes. So do the other modern versions and perversions. If you're trying to lead a soul to Christ with those new versions and perversions, using Jn. 6:47 exclusively, you'll never lead them to Christ, because "on me" (Christ) is gone from that verse in their perversions! All they say is something like this: "Whoever believes has everlasting life." Believes what? Their verse doesn't say. Their verse merely says "believes." According to these perversions of John 6:47, if I were to believe in atheism, Christ promises me everlasting life. The same if I believe in humanism, or in the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy, or in Santa Claus, or in Rudloph the Red-Nose Reindeer, or in Bugs Bunny, or in Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, Modernism, or in anything else! That's major false doctrine in my judgement, and it stems directly from false Greek texts and false English perversions!

Okay, so we're missing the words "on me" from believes "on me".  From the whole of Scripture, does anybody really think John 6:47 allows belief in Santa Claus to get you into heaven?

  Romans 1:16. Here's what it says in the accurate KJV: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."

  The heretical Greek texts of "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) remove the two words, "of Christ" in this verse. Because of this, the NIV also removes these words. So does the NASV. So does the NKJV in the footnotes. So do the other modern versions and perversions. This certainly is doctrine. "Gospel" means "good news" or a "good announcement." What "gospel" could be inserted there instead of the "gospel of Christ"? Was it the good news about a pay raise? Was it the good news about a new car, a new hat, or a new house? No! It's the gospel or good news about Christ. That's doctrine! That's theology!

So, is the "Gospel" so radically different from the "Gospel of Christ"?  Don't think its major.

  John 7:8. Was the Lord Jesus Christ a liar? If you believe the false Greek text, "Aleph" (Sinai), and some of the versions, He was. Note Jn. 7:8: "Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come."

  According to the Greek text "Aleph" (Sinai), the word "yet" must be removed. The NASV omits it also. So does the NKJV in the footnotes. So do some other modern versions and perversions. Why do I say this removal of "yet" makes the Lord Jesus Christ out to be a liar? Because He went up to the feast in question. If He told his brethren that He was NOT going up to the feast, and then later went up to that feast, He would have told a lie, would He not? This certainly is a major theological doctrine. As in all of the other 356 doctrinal passages, the KJV has superior theology here. The perversions are inferior in their theology and doctrine! Stay away from them!

Is it just me, or is this a stretech?

Here's the point - a scholar doing his best to present "theological differences" between manuscript versions fails to make a compelling case that theology is fundamentally altered by manuscript evidence.  I still challenge someone to show me a case where Bible "versions" really change theology dramatically.


Theistic evolution allows that God used evolution as tool prior to the creation of Man, but that this part of his plan is now completed, and he will no longer allow one "kind" to evolve into another "kind". A new species? Sure. A new genus? Maybe, if it's really similar to a prior one. After all, the classification system is an invention of man and therefore imperfect. A new family or phylum? Probably not gonna happen, except maybe among bugs or microbes. Note that theistic evolution doesn't demand this interpretation, but it allows it.
The book of Jasher isn't exactly canon to most Christians.


Do any trinitarian Protestant traditions teach that anyone who denies the Trinity is necessarily unsaved?

It's easy to find individuals who deny salvation to non-Trinitarians:

    Are Non-Trinitarians saved?

    I always wondered this since they deny the true nature of God. Jehovahs witnesses and Mormons do not have the same Christ as the Bible but only God can judge.

  No.

  Anyone denying The Creator as He has revealed Himself, Triune, will suffer the second death. source

  So how can you be a non-Trinitarian and a Christian? In short, you can't. source

I have also found rhetoric by Unitarians who claim that Trinitarians deny them salvation:

  According to orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, if a person claims to be a Christian but does not believe in the Trinity, he is not saved. source

Christian Research Institute president, Hank Hanegraaff, has made statements to the effect that non-Trinitarians are "non-Christians" (and therefore unsaved):

  It would be inappropriate to argue that Jehovah’s Witnesses or various other groups are non-Christian because they deny the doctrine of the Trinity, but that the United Pentecostal Church can reject the Trinity and still be considered Christian. source

While neither CRI nor Hank Hanegraaff represent any official denomination, they are both very popular among Evangelical Christians (Hank hosts a popular call-in radio program where callers can ask questions about Christianity, and is the author of several popular books).

TLDR I have yet to find an official denominational view that non-Trinitarians are unsaved, but there is clearly deep sentiment among many Christians that non-Trinitarians are unsaved.

And if I may add my own observation: Among Evangelicals who would not take a hard-line stance that non-Trinitarians are not saved, likely a significant number would at least say that non-Trinitarians are unlikely to be saved. That is to say, that in theory, a non-Trinitarian could be saved, but any honest non-Trinitarian who is saved would soon realize the "truth" and become a Trinitarian.


According to Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians and all who deny that Jesus is the Almighty God, how can He be in you and live in you?

The New World Translation does away with any need for Jehovah’s Witnesses to answer the question you raise by employing the simple expedience of altering the words in these Bible verses:

Colossians 1:26-28 NWT: “the sacred secret that was hidden from the past system of things and from the past generations.  But now it has been made manifest to his holy ones, to whom God has been pleased to make known what are the glorious riches of this sacred secret in union with you, the hope of his glory.  He is the one we are publicizing, admonishing every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man complete in union with Christ.”

It is worth noting that the New World Translation has changed virtually every verse that says “in me” or “in us” or “in them” to say “in union with me” or “in union with us” or “in union with them” (John 14:10, 11, 20; John 17:21, 22, 23).
However, there is no basis for translating the Greek text to read "in union with".  I refer you to this question and the two answers that relate to this: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/59807/what-is-the-basis-for-translating-colossians-127-28-to-in-union-with-christ-a
In other words, the New World Translation does not say that Jesus dwells IN the believer, only that the believer is IN UNION WITH Christ.  This is not physical but is a spiritual relationship.

Romans 5:5 NWT: “the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the holy spirit, which was given us.”

Likewise, the holy spirit is not a “who” but is a “which”.  Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the holy spirit is God’s power in action, his active force. That is why they never show holy spirit as Holy Spirit.
John 14:23 NWT: In answer Jesus said to him: “If anyone loves me, he will observe my word, and my Father will love him, and we shall come to him and make our abode with him.”  This is taken to mean that those who love and obey Jesus will enjoy a close spiritual relationship with Jehovah and with Jesus.  It is not a literal, physical abode within the believer.

Question: What precious relationships are open to the anointed and to the “other sheep”?
10 Later that night, in answer to a question put to him by the faithful apostle Judas (Thaddaeus), Jesus said: “If anyone loves me, he will observe my word, and my Father will love him, and we shall come to him and make our abode with him.” (John 14:22, 23) Even while still on earth, anointed Christians, called to reign with Christ in heaven, have a particularly close relationship with Jehovah and with his Son. (John 15:15; 16:27; 17:22; Hebrews 3:1; 1 John 3:2, 24) But their “other sheep” companions, whose hope is to live forever on earth, also have a precious relationship with their “one shepherd,” Jesus Christ, and with their God, Jehovah, provided they prove to be obedient.  Source: https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20020201/Are-You-Among-Those-Loved-by-God/

The New World Translation agrees that it is Jehovah speaking in Jeremiah 17:10 and it is the Son of God speaking in Revelation 2:23.  However, they do not understand this to mean that Jehovah and Jesus are one and the same being.  Jesus (a created being and so perceived as a little god) is subordinate to Jehovah (the only big God) according to John 1:1 in the New World Translation. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus imitates his Father and is given authority by his Father to act.

John 5:19-24 NWT: The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing...  For the Father judges no one at all, but he has committed all the judging to the Son.”

According to Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus can only ever do anything THROUGH the Father who created him.


Are there eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ written during (or closely after) his lifetime?

Are there eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ written during his lifetime?

The short answer is no.

The entire New Testament was written well after the crucifixion of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Even the first-century Romano-Jewish scholar, historian and hagiographer Titus Flavius Josephus, commonly known as Josephus references Jesus in the year 93 A.D. Again, this is well after Jesus died.

  About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.  For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had  first come to love him did not cease.  He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him.  And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. -  Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63


Baptism by total immersion is permitted in all Rites of the Catholic Church.

Some diocese still offer the option of full immersion baptisms.

Before going on, I would like to make a distinction in the term Catholic. I believe that this question deals with Catholics of the Roman (Latin) Rite and not Eastern Rite Catholics.

  Actually, immersion is a very Catholic way of baptizing, even though it has not been broadly practiced in the Roman Rite. Eastern Catholic Churches have been baptizing by immersion for centuries. It is one of two methods for baptizing that have long been permitted for use even within the Roman Catholic Church.

  The increasing popularity for baptizing by immersion is probably related to a liturgical principal favored by the Second Vatican Council: the expressive use of signs. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal says that good signs “will more effectively foster active and full participation and more properly respond to the spiritual needs of the faithful” (20). This
  is why we promote such ideas as wearing noble vestments, reading from a beautiful Book of the Gospels, and receiving communion under both kinds. All these signs, when used richly, respond to the spiritual needs of the community. Baptism by Immersion

That said, some dioceses do offer baptism by immersion.

Check out this article: Many Catholics Choose Baptism by Immersion.

For more information see these:

Can Catholics choose to be baptized by immersion?

Holy Mysteries of Initiation

Why do Catholics usually baptize by pouring?

It is not clear when the Roman Catholic Church started pouring water as a method of baptism, nor is it clear why they started using this method. But it is important to understand that the Roman Catholic Church believes baptism saves us regardless of the method employed..

It is hard to get a definite answer on this, but it there may be several factors involved. One being how to baptism the infirm. Another being that Catholic baptisms usually occur near the entrance of the church as a sign of welcoming the newly baptized into the life of the church.

  Cyprian advised that no one should be "disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace" (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69:12 [A.D. 255]). Tertullian described baptism by saying that it is done "with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, and finally, without cost, a man is baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner" (On Baptism, 2 [A.D. 203]). Obviously, Tertullian did not consider baptism by immersion the only valid form, since he says one is only sprinkled and thus comes up from the water "not much (or not at all) the cleaner." - Baptism: Immersion Only?

If you have ever visited a Catholic Church, you will notice that there is a baptismal font near the entrance. However in centuries gone by the Catholic Churches, baptism by immersion was held in high esteem. In the Early Church, places of worship sometimes had what they call  baptisteries and were used for total immersion. Somewhere down the line, the Church moved away from having elaborate pools attached to cathedrals for baptisms to more modest baptismal fonts for baptism by pouring water over the candidates head. The reason for the change may have been a practical one, as a baptismal font can be easily placed in a church.

Baptistery in Pisa, Italy

More information on this subject can be found here: Theological Reasons for Baptistry Shapes.


According to YEC, did all plants and trees survive the Great Flood? If so, how?

You are falling into a linguistic trap because of translation issues. The core of the problem is your statement "Now, even if the Jews did not consider plants to be living creatures, God knew that they are (because, well, they are)." The actual meaning of the passage is that all the living animals died, but not necessarily the plants.
You are assuming that when the Jews did not include plants in the term "living things" that was a mistake due to ignorance. That's not the case - instead it's about definitions.
Interestingly the KJV makes the meaning clearer than modern translations, saying that the flood will destroy "all flesh" rather than all living things.
The Jews used a specific word to describe animal life. It's defined in their language to include animal life, but not to include plant life. We translate it as 'living', because that's the closest word we have, but it doesn't change the meaning that the Jews assigned to it. The word is theirs, and just because our definition of 'living' doesn't quite match their definition of their word does not mean they are 'wrong', or cause a theological problem. The context makes it clear what the meaning of the original word is.
You might also note that the definition of 'living' is not as clear cut as you might think, even in our times. The question of whether viruses (for example) are 'living' is not definitely decided.


Committing a sin by eating animal's flesh

Paul deals with exactly this matter in his first epistle to the young minister, Timothy :

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

[I Timothy 4:4 KJV]

I think there is no need for me to add any further words.
I have simply highlighted what is most relevant to the question.


Which, according to Catholic Church, is the writing in Old Testament that Jesus is referring to in Jn 7:38?

The Catholic Bible on NewAdvent.org says that there is no exact match in known scripture.
HOLY BIBLE: John 7 says this:

On the last and greatest day of the feast Jesus stood there and cried aloud, If any man is thirsty, let him come to me, and drink;
yes, if a man believes in me, as the scripture says, Fountains of living water shall flow from his bosom.[5]
He was speaking here of the Spirit, which was to be received by those who learned to believe in him; the Spirit which had not yet been given to men, because Jesus had not yet been raised to glory.
…
[5] ‘His bosom’; it is not clear whether this refers to the believer, or to our Lord himself; the old commentators are not agreed. In either case, it is impossible to trace these exact words in any passage of scripture as we have it; cf. however Is. 44.3, Zach. 13.1. Some would punctuate differently, with a full stop, instead of a comma, after ‘believes in me’.

That Jesus was paraphrasing the scriptural imagery is a reasonable conclusion, regardless of one's denomination.


By way of answer, I refer you to this article on the history of Christian meetings. I'll summarize some sections.

In the first century, Christians generally met in homes, especially the homes of more prominent members.

  The Acts of the Apostles portrays the first Christian community in Jerusalem as gathering in the temple colonnades and “breaking bread in their homes.” As the Christian message gained a wider hearing in eastern Mediterranean cities, early believers commonly met in the homes of the community’s more prominent members. Though houses came in various styles and sizes, an atrium in a Roman villa (or a spacious dining room of a Greek house) would accommodate the needs of the small Christian communities.

By AD 150, even though the church had grown significantly, the pattern had not changed much:

  Justin’s defense before Rusticus also suggests that although the Christians in Rome were becoming fairly numerous, they did not abandon meeting in homes, even if that meant the Christian community could no longer assemble in one place. Thus, the house-church pattern, first articulated in the New Testament, continued for the first generations of the church’s expansion in the Roman world.

However it does not appear that this was done for theological reasons.

  Then the prefect, Rusticus, demanded: “Where do you meet?” “Wherever it is each one’s preference or opportunity,” said Justin. “In any case, do you suppose we can all meet in the same place?”

100 years later, around 250AD, Christians were meeting in buildings converted specially for the purpose. One example was unearthed from the siege of Dura-Europos in 256AD.

  [One of these houses] had been altered to become a Christian church. The private residence was modified by removing one interior wall in the dining area, creating a larger room for Christian services. A small dais at the eastern end of the hall probably served as the worship center. Benches were installed around the walls of an interior courtyard, perhaps to mark off a place of instruction. In yet another room, a canopied baptismal font was erected, flanked by frescoes of Adam and Eve, and the Good Shepherd—perhaps signifying the Fall and Redemption.Though it began as a private house, after renovation all domestic use ceased, and the building became property of the church.

Very shortly after that, churches were being purpose-built.

  Unlike the house churches, which looked outwardly like private dwellings, the churches erected [around 260AD] were large structures. They were designed to accommodate the throngs of new believers who swelled the church’s ranks. In some cases, Christian communities acquired property adjacent to the renovated house churches, tore down or modified their properties, and built spacious new prayer halls.

Another fifty years and church building were becoming highly visible.

  Church buildings attracted the ire of Diocletian and his colleagues during the last and greatest persecution of early Christianity (303–311). It was left to the patronage of Constantine (312–337) to rebuild these churches in an even more splendid manner.

To answer the question specifically, by 400AD church buildings were commonplace, and had been around for at least 150 years. Some examples of these buildings still exist today.


What is the difference between the Ebionites and Nazarenes?

According to some notes provided by Eastern Orthodox monk Seraphim Rose to the English translation of Protopresbyter Michael Pomazanski's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, the Ebionites and Nazarites were both groups of heretical Judaizers.

The Ebionites, he wrote, "considered Jesus Christ to be a prophet like Moses; they demanded of all Christians the strict fulfillment of the law of Moses; they looked on the Christian teaching as a supplement to the law of Moses."

The Nazarites "believed in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, but insisted on the fulfillment of the law of Moses by Christians who were Jews, without demanding this of the non-Jewish Christians (moderate Ebionites)."

[I noticed that you use the term "Nazarene".  I assume "Nazarite" refers to the same group.]

In addition, there was another group of Ebionites that Fr. Seraphim refers to as "Ebionite-Gnostics", whose teaching was composed of the teaching of the Jewish sect of the Essenes, who lived on the Dead Sea (Qumran excavations, the “Dead Sea Scrolls”), joined to the elements of Christianity and Gnosticism."  "The Essenes," he further wrote,

  considered themselves the preservers of the pure religion revealed to
  Adam but later obscured in Judaism. The Ebionite-Gnostics recognized
  the restoration of this religion by Christ, as the bearer of the
  Divine Spirit; the Gnostic element was expressed in their view on
  matter as being an evil principle, and in the preaching of severe
  asceticism.

Irenaeus of Lyon wrote of the Ebionites in the 2nd century:

  Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God;
  but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of
  Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew
  only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an
  apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour
  to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise
  circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are
  enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that
  they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God (Against Heresies, I.XXVI.2)

Eusebius of Caesarea also wrote of the Ebionites and the Nazarenes in his 4th century Church History:

  The evil demon, however, being unable to tear certain others from
  their allegiance to the Christ of God, yet found them susceptible in a
  different direction, and so brought them over to his own purposes. The
  ancients quite properly called these men Ebionites, because they held
  poor and mean opinions concerning Christ.  For they considered
  him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his
  superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man
  with Mary. In their opinion the observance of the ceremonial law was
  altogether necessary, on the ground that they could not be saved by
  faith in Christ alone and by a corresponding life.  There were
  others, however, besides them, that were of the same name, but avoided
  the strange and absurd beliefs of the former, and did not deny that
  the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit. But
  nevertheless, inasmuch as they also refused to acknowledge that he
  pre-existed, being God, Word, and Wisdom, they turned aside into the
  impiety of the former, especially when they, like them, endeavored to
  observe strictly the bodily worship of the law [Eusebius seems to be
  referring to the Nazarenes here].  These men, moreover,
  thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the
  apostle, whom they called an apostate from the law; and they used only
  the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews and made small account
  of the rest [Scholars disagree whether Eusebius is referring here to
  the Gospel according to Matthew, as did Irenaeus, or some other
  spurious Gospel].  The Sabbath and the rest of the discipline
  of the Jews they observed just like them, but at the same time, like
  us, they celebrated the Lord’s days as a memorial of the resurrection
  of the Saviour.  Wherefore, in consequence of such a course
  they received the name of Ebionites, which signified the poverty of
  their understanding. For this is the name by which a poor man is
  called among the Hebrews.


Understanding Jesus counter argument against the Pharisees (Luke 11:19 )

The NET Bible makes an interesting point at footnote 54:

Most read your sons as a reference to Jewish exorcists (cf. “your followers,” L&N 9.4; for various views see D. L. Bock, Luke [BECNT], 2:1077-78), but more likely this is a reference to the disciples of Jesus themselves, who are also Jewish and have been healing as well (R. J. Shirock, “Whose Exorcists are they? The Referents of οἱ υἱοὶ ὑμῶν at Matthew 12:27/Luke 11:19,” JSNT 46 [1992]: 41-51). If this is a reference to the disciples, then Jesus’ point is that it is not only him, but those associated with him whose power the hearers must assess. The following reference to judging also favors this reading.

(L&N refers to Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1988. JSNT refers to Journal for the Study of the New Testament)
In short, if Shirock (in JSNT) is correct about Jesus' your sons referring to his disciples and not the Pharisees' disciples (see Matthew 12:27 for the identification of Jesus' accusers as Pharisees), then Jesus' argument--to me--makes more sense. Jesus' disciples, after all, were chronologically the Pharisees' disciples (i.e., "sons") before they were Jesus' disciples (i.e., "sons"). That would not mean that Jesus' disciples were also Pharisees; it would mean that his disciples (and Jesus, for that matter!) were brought up in Judaism and under the umbrella of Jewish rabbis, teachers, and leaders within the Jewish faith, regardless of their "party" affiliation.
Jesus' reasoning in both Matthew and Luke can be summarized as follows:

If I in fact am casting out demons by the power of their prince, Beelzebub [viz., Satan], that must mean Satan is working against himself, and that does not make sense.

Moreover, if I have given your sons who were brought up under your tutelage but are now my sons the power to cast out demons--and they have done so successfully, then by whose power do they do so: mine or Satan's?

If the Pharisees were to have answered Jesus' question at this point, they would have been caught on the horns of a dilemma! If they said, "Our disciples (i.e., our sons) also cast out demons by the power of Beelzebub," then they (the Pharisees) would be guilty of bad teaching and are just as much to blame as Jesus!
If, however, the Pharisees' former disciples (i.e., their sons) who are now under the authority of Jesus and like Jesus are casting out demons by the finger of God (Luke 11:20), then they will wind up judging the Pharisees.
Moreover, if that be the case, then the kingdom of God which Jesus preaches has not only arrived on the scene but has also surpassed the kingdom with which the Pharisees are aligned. In other words, Jesus turned the Pharisees' argument back onto them, with the implication that they were aligned with the wrong kingdom!
Jesus was therefore accusing the Pharisees of being aligned with Satan's purposes, just as Pharaoh's magicians were in Moses' day, since by their admission only the finger of the one true God could perform the miracle of the gnats (Exodus 8:19).


Sources for baptismal exorcism of infants?

Post from Aquinas' Summa Theologica, where he quotes Pope Celestine circa 422 AD:

Article 2. Whether exorcism should precede Baptism?
Objection 1. It seems that exorcism should not precede Baptism. For exorcism is ordained against energumens or those who are possessed. But not all are such like. Therefore exorcism should not precede Baptism.

Objection 2. Further, so long as man is a subject of sin, the devil has power over him, according to John 8:34: "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin." But sin is taken away by Baptism. Therefore men should not be exorcized before Baptism.

Objection 3. Further, Holy water was introduced in order to ward off the power of the demons. Therefore exorcism was not needed as a further remedy.

On the contrary, Pope Celestine says (Epist. ad Episcop. Galliae): "Whether children or young people approach the sacrament of regeneration, they should not come to the fount of life before the unclean spirit has been expelled from them by the exorcisms and breathings of the clerics."

I answer that, Whoever purposes to do a work wisely, first removes the obstacles to his work; hence it is written (Jeremiah 4:3): "Break up anew your fallow ground and sow not upon thorns." Now the devil is the enemy of man's salvation, which man acquires by Baptism; and he has a certain power over man from the very fact that the latter is subject to original, or even actual, sin. Consequently it is fitting that before Baptism the demons should be cast out by exorcisms, lest they impede man's salvation. Which expulsion is signified by the (priest) breathing (upon the person to be baptized); while the blessing, with the imposition of hands, bars the way against the return of him who was cast out. Then the salt which is put in the mouth, and the anointing of the nose and ears with spittle, signify the receiving of doctrine, as to the ears; consent thereto as to the nose; and confession thereof, as to the mouth. And the anointing with oil signifies man's ability to fight against the demons.

Reply to Objection 1. The energumens are so-called from "laboring inwardly" under the outward operation of the devil. And though not all that approach Baptism are troubled by him in their bodies, yet all who are not baptized are subject to the power of the demons, at least on account of the guilt of original sin.

Reply to Objection 2. The power of the devil in so far as he hinders man from obtaining glory, is expelled from man by the baptismal ablution; but in so far as he hinders man from receiving the sacrament, his power is cast out by the exorcisms.

Reply to Objection 3. Holy water is used against the assaults of demons from without. But exorcisms are directed against those assaults of the demons which are from within. hence those who are exorcized are called energumens, as it were "laboring inwardly."

Or we may say that just as Penance is given as a further remedy against sin, because Baptism is not repeated; so Holy Water is given as a further remedy against the assaults of demons, because the baptismal exorcisms are not given a second time.


Reason for the choice of new 12th Apostle?

I know the answer will be extremely unsatisfying, but the answer is right there in the question.  Verses 24-26.  They didn't know which to pick, so they prayed and asked God to show them by directing the outcome of casting lots, then they trusted Him to do so.  There's really nothing more said, and really no reason to say more.

In essence, they threw up their hands and said "We don't know who to choose, God.  We're just going to cast lots and trust you to pick the right man."

Casting lots, if you're not familiar with the term, is similar to drawing straws, or flipping a coin.  It's mentioned elsewhere in Scripture as well.  There's an article here about it:  http://www.biblestudy.org/question/what-is-casting-lots.html


Which are the sins that will not be forgiven in the age to come?

Actually our sermon was on just that topic.  Father said the unforgiveable sin is the one that denies Jesus for in denying Jesus you deny the Father.
Thus you believe that God is not loving nor generous and can do all things.
No there is no other sin greater than that.. all sins can be forgiven but once you denied God there is really is nothing left for you. People that deny God also deny there is any hope, it all leads to despair which is where Satan wants you to be so he take your soul as his own.


Why has God punished every human for one person's sin?

There is an assumption in this question that is actually the very problem that the question addresses.

This question assumes that in the exact same situation you would act differently than Adam and Eve would. However, why would you? Would a loving God not have placed the people in the garden that gave humanity the best chance at continuing at sinless existence? Adam and Eve were representatives of all of humanity. Do you think that if a better representative existed God would not have chosen them?

Yes Adam and Eve sinned, but the basic reason is that any human being placed in that situation would have done exactly the same thing. The temptation was very strong and they fell.

This was God's plan. He intended for Adam and Eve to sin so that he could work out his plan and glorify himself all the more. The story of Adam and Eve points to Christ.

Romans 5:17

  17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

If sin entered through one man so salvation has also entered by way of one man. If we cannot acknowledge sin came through Adam then we cannot acknowledge the the sacrifice of Christ was sufficient.


How many 'Books' never made it to the Bible (Old and New Testament)?

The "books" of the Bible are just that- they are separate works by separate authors in separate contexts. Yes, Luke wrote 2, Moses wrote 5, and Paul wrote somewhere between 7 and 13, but Stephen King has written more than one book, too :)

Matthew, for example, was written by the Apostle Matthew. Luke, by Paul's traveling companion. Mark was written by Peter's close friend. The point is, these are different books by different authors that are just assembled into a library of what, by consensus, has been agreed to be the best of the best.

To ask, "what books dind't make it in?" is answered by a simple statement: everything else.

There were all sorts of Gnostic Gospels at the time, but, of course, the main stream of Christianity rejected that. As such, there was never a "conspiracy" to keep out, say, the 115 proverbs that are the Gospel of Thomas, or the Epistle of Barnabas, or the Gospel of Peter, or Judas, or any of the lot. There was simply a general agreement that all of these books had no more place in the Christian canon than Mitt Romney would in the Democratic Convention.

Additionally, there were several fictional works, in the same way that today people write historical fiction. Google "New Testament Apocrypha" for details.

Finally, one accepted criteria for canonicity was an apostolic claim. As such, important Christian works such as 1 Clement, the martyrdom of Polycarp, The Shepherd of Hermas, or the Didache are highly important and good theology in them. They are worthy of study by Christians, but never made the criteria of canonicity.

In short, the Bible is really a lot like, say, the New York Times best seller list. It is a compilation of what's "best". What's not included isn't trash- its just not in the same league. The same is true of the canon. C.S. Lewis is amazing, but he isn't the agreed upon historical consensus.


Is abortion okay if it is medically necessary?

This is a difficult topic. Some biblical references would help to understand how God views an unborn child:

God views the life of a child as precious even during the very early stages of development after conception:

Psalms 139:13-16

  For you created my inmost being;    you knit me together in my
  mother’s womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully
  made;    your works are wonderful,    I know that full well. 15 My
  frame was not hidden from you    when I was made in the secret place,
  when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. 16 Your eyes saw
  my unformed body;    all the days ordained for me were written in your
  book    before one of them came to be.

God stated that a person would be called to account for injury to an unborn child:

Exodus 21:22,23

  If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth
  prematurely[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be
  fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.

It's a very serious sin to willfully take a human life for any reason not authorized by God:

Genesis 9:6

  Whoever sheds human blood,    by humans shall their blood be shed; for
  in the image of God    has God made mankind.

Exodus 20:13

  “You must not murder.”

So the life of a child is very valuable in God's eyes. If a medical decision must be taken between mother's or child's life, this is up to the couple. If the doctors inform the parents that the child will be born with medical problems, this is no reason to murder the child.


Why are Protestants from the Church of England allowed to divorce?

I think there are two basic answers to your question.  The first, and simple answer is:

Many Protestant churches do not allow divorce.  Some congregations deny membership rights to people who are divorced.

The more direct, and also more complex, answer to your question is:

Many protestant churches permit divorce because there is simply nothing they can do about it.

Divorce is a legal right in most places, regardless of whether the church allows it.  Many Catholics get divorced, too.  Although in the eyes of the Catholic church, such a divorce (and possible remarriage) is not recognized.

The consequences of divorce within the church are usually rather minimal.  A divorced person cannot remarry in a Catholic ceremony, for instance. Many protestant churches and pastors will have similar restrictions, refusing to allow a ceremony of a divorced couple in their facilities, or refusing to officiate the ceremony for a divorced person.

However, beyond refusing to allow or officiate marriages, and possibly refusing membership rights to divorcees, there's very little any church can do to prevent divorce.

The same is true of practically any practice that is considered sinful in the eyes of the church.  A church can only do so much in "discipline."

A second issue, beside the fact that churches are essentially powerless, is the concept of forgiveness.

Many churches are willing to forgive pass transgressions such as divorce, especially if they happened prior to conversion.


What is the significance of Jesus saying "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending"?

This is a powerful assertion of Deity by Jesus.  You are correct that it is, in fact, Jesus Himself who is speaking here and not the Father.  That is made clear in this passage, as Jesus was the One who "was dead" and is now "alive forevermore".

  17 When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18 and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.  Revelation 1:17-18 NASB

Jesus is, indeed, the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, the Almighty.

Paul's letter to the Colossians is also simliar:

  He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.   Colossians 1:15 NASB

It is noteworthy to reference the passage in Isaiah where God states something very similar:

  “Who has performed and accomplished it, Calling forth the generations from the beginning?
  ‘I, the Lord, am the first, and with the last. I am He.’”  Isaiah 41:4 NASB

So, it was God (the LORD) in the Old Testament who claimed to be the First and the Last, and it is Jesus Himself who makes that very same claim in the New Testament.  God alone is the First and the Last, and Jesus claims to be God Almighty in an unmistakable manner.


According to the LDS Church (Mormons), what role do secret handshakes and passwords play into a person's entrance into heaven?

I will risk an answer, though I too hold these things to be very sacred.  I will also offer this disclaimer:  This is my understanding, having been a life-long member of the LDS church.  If a lack of references and citations means this answer needs to be deleted, I fully understand.

  My question is, according to LDS teaching, when does a person have to use the secret handshakes and passwords? Are there different levels for different handshakes? What if a person forgets them?

Even though I am a devout member of the Latter-Day Saint church and fully believe its teachings and doctrines, I must admit that I have a difficult time understanding why an omnipotent God needs to have "angels who stand as sentinels" as if someone could sneak in. So my current level of understanding is less literal, and this is based on what I have been taught about the temple and in the temple.

Specifically (and here I might be digressing from your question.  I apologize), in the temple the ceremonies are highly symbolic.  The things we see, hear, say, and do are intended to help us learn by the Spirit what the Lord would have us know.  On the surface, each person in attendance has the same experience.  But the amazing thing about symbols is that each person will understand them differently.  The more we attend the temple and become familiar with the symbols used, the more easily we can quietly listen to the Spirit who brings into our minds and hearts different connections, insights, and understandings.  Sometimes these are in direct answers to prayers and concerns we've brought before the Lord.  Sometimes these are things we are now ready to learn.

Do we need to worry about remembering specific actions and words?  Maybe.  But I think it is much more likely that these things are symbols through which we can be taught and prepared for what the Lord has in store for us.

  Do wives have to wait to enter heaven until their husbands die?

As mentioned above, we believe that entrance to Heaven happens after the resurrection.  So wives and husbands get to go together.  If the symbolism in the temple is a literal precursor of future events, there is one point at which the husband goes first, but it is very much (in my mind) on the order of a husband carrying his bride across the threshold.  Another way to think of it is, in my culture, men will sometimes go first for the privilege of then extending a helping or loving hand to his beloved.  We hold the door for them, or we climb up the rock, and then offer a hand to her.  It is loving, kind and thoughtful.  How wonderful to enter Heaven together, being in love, holding hands.

Thanks for giving me the chance to express myself. I've never put down in words how I felt about these things.


Do the Jehovah's Witnesses believe the new covenant is for gentiles?

Yes, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the New Covenant is open to Gentiles.  However, they believe that only 144,000 persons since the time of Jesus can be sealed and anointed by Jehovah’s spirit, enter into the New Covenant and have Christ Jesus as their mediator.  They believe that since 1919, when they were chosen as Jehovah’s earthly representatives, the “anointed remnant” of the 144,000 have replaced Israel as Jehovah’s chosen people.  They see this small number of anointed Jehovah’s Witnesses as being “spiritual Israel.”

Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1 Great Crowd: On the other hand, the view that here Christians of Jewish stock are being distinguished from Gentile Christians runs counter to the apostle Paul’s inspired statement that fleshly distinctions are of no consideration in the Christian congregation, its members being all one in union with Christ Jesus. (Ro 10:12; Ga 3:28)...  It thus seems clear that the 144,000 sealed ones are of spiritual Israel, not fleshly Israel—hence include both Jewish and Gentile Christians.—Galatians 6:16.  Source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001762

Prior to 1919 they acknowledge that the first Christians (mainly Jews) were members of the New Covenant, who belonged to the 144,000 who will rule, in heaven, alongside Christ Jesus.  After the first century, apostasy set in and it wasn’t until the start of the 20th century that “true worship” was restored.  That means most of the “anointed remnant” of the 144,000 who are in the New Covenant must now be Gentile Jehovah’s Witnesses.  They alone can partake of the bread at wine at the annual memorial of Christ’s death.  That’s because they alone have a heavenly hope and they alone are in the New Covenant.  The other Jehovah’s Witnesses (8 million or so) are not in the New Covenant, they do not have Christ Jesus as their mediator, and they do not have a heavenly hope. They come under the category of “the other sheep”:

Watchtower 1998 2/1 pp. 18-23 The Other Sheep and the New Covenant: 3 For the 144,000, the blessing of the Abrahamic covenant is administered through the new covenant. As participants in this covenant, they come “under undeserved kindness” and “under law toward Christ.” (Romans 6:15; 1 Corinthians 9:21) Hence, only the 144,000 members of the Israel of God have properly partaken of the emblems during the Memorial of Jesus’ death, and only with them did Jesus make his covenant for a Kingdom. (Luke 22:19, 20, 29) Members of the great crowd are not participants in the new covenant. However, they associate with the Israel of God and live with them in their “land.” (Isaiah 66:8) So it is reasonable to say that they too come under Jehovah’s undeserved kindness and under the law toward Christ. While not participants in the new covenant, they are beneficiaries of it. Source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1998085?q=beneficiaries+new+covenant&p=par
Watchtower 2010 3/15 pp. 24-28 One Flock, One Shepherd: 13 Jesus referred to this new covenant on the night before his death when he said: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in your behalf.” (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25) Are all Christians included in this new covenant? No. Some, like the apostles who drank of that cup that evening, are participants in the new covenant.* Jesus made another covenant with them to rule together with him in his Kingdom. (Luke 22:28-30) They will share with Jesus in his Kingdom.—Luke 22:15, 16.  Source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2010202?q=beneficiaries+new+covenant&p=par

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the New Covenant is still in force today for Jews and for Gentiles who are part of ‘spiritual Israel’, not ‘fleshly Israel’.  However, they say the new covenant is now only open to Jehovah’s Witnesses who are part of the “anointed remnant” of the 144,000.


Meaning of the expression "I cling to cross of Christ"

The type of clinging referred to is one in which the subject does not trust their footing to bear their own weight, but depends on the object to which they cleave to support it. It is a metaphor for trusting in the atoning work of the cross for salvation and standing with God, and completing repudiating any sense of merit in one's own character or works. It is an expression of sola fide which Protestants believe to be consistent with the views of early Christians in general and Pauline soteriology in particular. Although this particular phrase was most likely popularized post-Reformation, there is a sense of it's meaning in St Thomas a' Kempis's De Imitatione Christi:

In cruce salus, in cruce vita.
tr: In the cross is salvation, in the cross is life.


The Bible doesn't ever use the term Science because it didn't exist at the time.  However the Bible has a lot to say about gaining knowledge and wisdom.

  It is the glory of God to conceal things,but the glory of kings is to search things out.
  Proverbs 25:2

  The LORD said to Moses, "See, I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with ability and intelligence, with knowledge and all craftsmanship, to devise artistic designs, to work in gold, silver, and bronze, in cutting stones for setting, and in carving wood, to work in every craft.
  Exodus 31:1-5 Emphasis mine

The Bible often highly regards knowledge of the physical world and commends it's study.

  Go to the ant, O sluggard;  consider her ways, and be wise.
  Proverbs 6:6

We can infer that the Bible encourages us to study and learn about the world, and such would be approving of science (in its purest form).


What was the earliest reference to the 3 States of the Church?

ALL TOGETHER NOW

  The mediaeval schoolmen distinguished three stages in the catholic church as to its locality,—the militant church on earth (ecclesia militans), the church of the departed or the sleeping church in purgatory (ecclesia dormiens), and the triumphant church in heaven (ecclesia triumphans). This classification was retained by Wiclif [1330-1384], Hus [1369-1415], and other forerunners of Protestantism; but the Reformers rejected the intervening purgatorial church, together with prayers for the departed, and included all the pious dead in the church triumphant. History of the Christian Church, Volume VII. Modern Christianity. The German Reformation

TERMS USED ALONE or PARTLY TOGETHER PREVIOUSLY

MILITANT

Cyprian [210-258] to Cornelius

  Think you, brother, that their wickednesses against God are trifling, their sins small and moderate—since by their means the majesty of an angry God is not besought, since the anger and the fire and the day of the Lord is not feared—since, when Antichrist is at hand the faith of the militant people is disarmed by the taking away of the power of Christ and His fear? - Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian - Epistle LIV

PENITENT

Canons of the African Church [about 400 CE plus or minus 20 years]

  Canon XLIII.  (Greek xlvi.)

Concerning penitents.

That to penitents the times of their penance shall be assigned by the will of the bishop according to the difference of their sins; and that a presbyter shall not reconcile a penitent without consulting the bishop, unless the absence of the bishop urges him necessarily thereto.  But when of any penitent the offence has been public and commonly known, so as to have scandalized the whole Church, he shall receive imposition of the hand before the altar (Lat. “before the apse”). - The Seven Ecumenical Councils -Canon XLII

TRIUMPHANT

Aquinas [1225-1274]

  Objection 4: Again, it would seem that the greatest aureole is due to doctors. Because the Church militant is modelled after the Church triumphant. Now in the Church militant the greatest honor is due to doctors (1 Tim. 5:17): "Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine." Therefore a greater aureole is due to them in the Church triumphant. - Summa Theologica


What are the differences between Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Nestorianism?

As pointed out in that question, the differences were originally in Christology. Generally the fourth-century Christological debates were about how the relationship between the nature(s) of Christ and the person of Christ.

The "Nestorian" party held that there were two natures in Christ, the divine and the human, with very little relationship between them. Essentially there were two hypostases ("persons"), the human and the divine.

The "monophysite" party (which became the Oriental Orthodox) held that there was one nature in Jesus Christ, in which the human and the divine were brought together. Monophysitism was essentially a reaction against Nestorianism.

The remaining party is best known as the "Chalcedonian" party after the Council of Chalcedon: the Eastern Orthodox and all Western churches derive from this party. It held a view between the two: there were two natures in Christ and one person. The famous definition is the Chalcedonian definition:

  in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ

It is frequently argued that there is no substantial difference between the Chalcedonian and Monophysite positions. (It's worth noting, BTW, that the Oriental Orthodox prefer the term "Miaphysite", which essentially means the same but lacks the connotations of heresy.)

As to other theological and liturgical differences? Well, they have been divided for 1700 years or thereabouts and they grew up separately, often regarding the others as heretical. It should be no surprise, then, that they have substantial differences in liturgy and theology. All three traditions are very tradition-centred and give a special place in their theology to great theologians of the past. So the Eastern Orthodox will quote Maximus the Confessor, while the Oriental Orthodox might quote Gregory the Illuminator. But again, it's not so simple: the Armenian Orthodox (an Oriental Orthodox church) are very different from the Coptic Church (another Oriental Orthodox church) and are not in communion with one another.

The differences are complex and very old: too many to mention in this context. But if I may give an opinion as an ecumenist: the Christological differences started the divisions and dominate in ecumenical dialogue between the churches, yet they are not the reason for the modern-day division. The Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox agreed a common statement on Christology a few years ago, but they are not in full communion because the cultural and theological divisions are too great to bridge in so short a period of time.


Does God predetermine all things according to His prescience?

St. John of Damascus is in some ways just repeating St. Augustine’s reflection made a couple hundred years before. If your interested in the subject from ancient Father’s this is really the place to go.

  Chapter 47.— Predestination is Sometimes Signified Under the Name of Foreknowledge. Consequently sometimes the same predestination is signified also under the name of foreknowledge; as says the apostle, “God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.” Romans 11:2 Here, when he says, “He foreknew,” the sense is not rightly understood except as “He predestinated,” as is shown by the context of the passage itself. For he was speaking of the remnant of the Jews which were saved, while the rest perished. For above he had said that the prophet had declared to Israel, “All day long I have stretched forth my hands to an unbelieving and a gainsaying people.” And as if it were answered, What, then, has become of the promises of God to Israel? He added in continuation, “I say, then, has God cast away His people? God forbid! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.” Then he added the words which I am now treating: “God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew.” And in order to show that the remnant had been left by God's grace, not by any merits of their works, he went on to add, “Do you not know what the Scripture says in Elias, in what way he makes intercession with God against Israel?” and the rest. “But what,” says he, “says the answer of God unto him? 'I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee before Baal.'” Romans 11:5 For He says not, “There are left to me,” or “They have reserved themselves to me,” but, “I have reserved to myself.” “Even so, then, at this present time also there is made a remnant by the election of grace. And if of grace, then it is no more by works; otherwise grace is no more grace.” And connecting this with what I have above quoted, “What then?” Romans 11:7 and in answer to this inquiry, he says, “Israel has not obtained that which he was seeking for, but the election has obtained it, and the rest were blinded.” Therefore, in the election, and in this remnant which were made so by the election of grace, he wished to be understood the people which God did not reject, because He foreknew them. This is that election by which He elected those, whom He willed, in Christ before the foundation of the world, that they should be holy and without spot in His sight, in love, predestinating them unto the adoption of sons. No one, therefore, who understands these things is permitted to doubt that, when the apostle says, “God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew,” He intended to signify predestination. For He foreknew the remnant which He should make so according to the election of grace. That is, therefore, He predestinated them; for without doubt He foreknew if He predestinated; but to have predestinated is to have foreknown that which He should do (On the Predestination of the Saints (Book II).

The key point of St. Augustine’s view (later picked up by Luther and Calvin) is that but to have predestinated is to have foreknown that which 'He should do'. In other words it includes 'what we will do', but principally includes what 'God would do'. Foreknowledge can’t exclude man’s choices or God's purposes, or anything else in time! However, as everything is done 'according to God’s purposes' (at least is defining un-moveable boundaries) God's choice is the overall guide and determination governing the whole, otherwise he is no God at all.

The idea of God’s relation to time is what forms the basis of St. Augustine’s views of predestination:

  Chapter 21.— Of God's Eternal and Unchangeable Knowledge and Will, Whereby All He Has Made Pleased Him in the Eternal Design as Well as in the Actual Result.
  Neither is there any growth from thought to thought in the conceptions of Him in whose spiritual vision all things which He knows are at once embraced. For as without any movement that time can measure, He Himself moves all temporal things, so He knows all times with a knowledge that time cannot measure. And therefore He saw that what He had made was good, when He saw that it was good to make it. And when He saw it made, He had not on that account a twofold nor any way increased knowledge of it; as if He had less knowledge before He made what He saw. For certainly He would not be the perfect worker He is, unless His knowledge were so perfect as to receive no addition from His finished works. (City of God, Chapter 21.— Of God's Eternal and Unchangeable Knowledge and Will, Whereby All He Has Made Pleased Him in the Eternal Design as Well as in the Actual Result.)

Having this principle view of a God outside time, God can’t learn or change in any way. It means he decided everything before time was created. This includes the idea of creating time itself based on the fact that the creature is 'subject to change'. Time is just a duration of one thing to the next which has no meaning if everything was unchangeable like God.  God alone is outside of time being unchangeable. Now the obvious tension this produces is how predestination of those ‘elect’ to damnation and those ‘elect’ to salvation is to be understood in terms of God’s love and justice.

St. Augustine himself struggled with this and after modifying his ideas later in life eventually concluded the same ideas as Calvin. However, this is only possible by simply saying it can’t be understood in its real analysis but is hidden in God.

  That owing to one man all pass into condemnation who are born of Adam unless they are born again in Christ, even as He has appointed them to be regenerated, before they die in the body, whom He predestinated to everlasting life, as the most merciful bestower of grace; while to those whom He has predestinated to eternal death, He is also the most righteous awarder of punishment not only on account of the sins which they add in the indulgence of their own will, but also because of their original sin, even if, as in the case of infants, they add nothing thereto. Now this is my definite view on that question, so that the hidden things of God may keep their secret, without impairing my own faith. (On the Soul and its Origin (Book IV) )

Note the phrase the hidden things of God. The idea here is that to try to understand God foreknowing and electing 'some to grace' and 'some to damnation' is not to be understood by man. If we try it will seem that God is mean and not just at all. No, those who ponder the subject for a great length of time commonly give up and just have faith knowing he is love and just. The eternity of God and his foreknowledge as well as his determination of what happens in time under the boundaries of providence are believed as a hidden mystery, without impairing my own faith. This subject has always caused perplexity for the church from its earliest days and the positions that one takes of the subject (in agreement with St. Augustine or not) was already defined by the time of Augustine. Naturally, not everybody views this mystery the same way, otherwise it would not be hidden.


If Orthodox Christians must repent of any act of violence, how does this not entail pacifism?

First, I would say that your premise:

  ... true repentance includes a genuine belief that facing the same
  situation again, one would act differently

does not accurately represent the Orthodox Christian understanding of "repentance".  This notion of repentance accords with the conventional dictionary definition of feeling remorse or regret (e.g. Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 6th ed.), but it does not agree with how repentance is viewed by Orthodox.

The Greek word in Scripture for "repentance" is metanoia.  Metanoia, explains Metropolitian Kallistos Ware, "means literally 'change of mind'."

  In approaching God, we are to change our mind, stripping ourselves of
  all our habitual ways of thinking. We are to be converted not only in
  our will but in our intellect. We need to reverse our interior
  perspective, to stand the pyramid on its head.

  The Orthodox Way (Kindle Locations 167-169)

As Metropolitan Kallistos further explains,

  Correctly understood, repentance is not negative but positive. It
  means not self-pity or remorse but conversion, the re-centering of our
  whole life upon the Trinity. It is to look not backward with regret
  but forward with hope—not downwards at our own shortcomings but
  upwards at God's love. It is to see, not what we have failed to be,
  but what by divine grace we can now become; and it is to act upon what
  we see. To repent is to open our eyes to the light. In this sense,
  repentance is not just a single act, an initial step, but a continuing
  state, an attitude of heart and will that needs to be ceaselessly
  renewed up to the end of life. In the words of St Isaias of Sketis,
  “God requires us to go on repenting until our last breath.” “This life
  has been given you for repentance”, says St Isaac the Syrian. “Do not
  waste it on other things.”

  Ibid., Kindle Locations 2053-2060

Thus, the Orthodox understanding of repentance lies not in the context of physical acts that one may or may not commit, but rather in the disposition of the heart.  Military service - especially in combat - is a great spiritual burden for Orthodox Christians because it invites spiritual warfare and calls for a passionlessness that is almost impossible to attain.  This is perhaps one reason that almost every single Orthodox service includes prayers for the country's armed forces.

There is, however, a great number of soldiers who are included in the Synaxaria of the Orthodox Church, including St. George the Victory-bearer, who served in the Roman Army under the emperor Diocletian, and Theodore the Recruit.  Among latter day saints, we might include the recent Russian martyr Yevgeny Rodionov and the recently-reposed Archimandrite Kyrill, a decorated Red Army veteran who fought at Stalingrad.

Nonetheless, your point is taken.  Basil the Great advocated for Christians to abstain from communion for a time after participating in a war:  "Our fathers did not think that killing in war was murder; yet I think it advisable for such as have been guilty of it to forbear communion three years" (First Canonical Epistle, Canon XIII).  A Question & Answer dialog on the Orthodox Church of America website suggests that pacifism is preferred, but perhaps impractical:

  But still, if a man will be perfect and give his life totally to
  Christ, he will of necessity renounce military service as well as any
  political service which always and of necessity is involved with
  relativistic values and greater and lesser evils and goods. Such a man
  will also renounce his possessions and follow Christ totally and in
  everything.

  Thus total pacifism is not only possible, it is the sign of greatest
  perfection, the perfection of the Kingdom of God. According to the
  Orthodox understanding, however, pacifism can never be a social or
  political philosophy for this world; although once again, a
  non-violent means to an end is always to be preferred in every case to
  a violent means.

  When violence must be used as a lesser evil to prevent greater evils,
  it can never be blessed as such, it must always be repented of, and it
  must never be identified with perfect Christian morality.

  Also, one final point of great importance is that Christians who are
  involved in the relativistic life of this world must resist military
  conscription when the state is evil. But when doing so they must not
  yield to anarchy, but must submit to whatever punishment is given so
  that their witness will be fruitful.

(This is offered as an opinion and not dogma by the OCA, but I thought I would include it as an item of interest)


To what do the seven churches of Revelation refer?

The seven churches are described in Revelation 2 and 3.  My opinion is that the seven churches not only refer to churches that existed then, but are representative of churches that have existed in different places since then.
Here's what Revelation Commentary says about the seven churches:

With two thousand years separating the seven churches of Asia and the modern churches of the world, the question of relevance is critical. What is the relationship between the seven churches mentioned in Revelation and modern churches? Some commentators have tried to make the case that the seven churches of Revelation depict seven periods of church history. This view is woefully inadequate. First, there is no explicit scriptural support for this view. Second, the seven periods of church history must be subjectively determined, which undermines credibility and fosters date setting. Third, such an approach deprives the first century churches of any application for their time.
However, the messages, themselves, yield the necessary clues to answer the question of relevancy. For believers of all ages the issue is the same in connection with the Son of Man: forgiveness or judgment. The Lord instructs six of the seven churches that there are both immediate and long-term consequences to their deeds. The threat of immediate discipline for a lack of repentance is given to the churches of Ephesus, Pergamum, Thyatira, and Laodicea. Equally, each church is also warned about the possible rewards and punishments to be experienced at the Lord’s coming (parousia). This indicates that the messages to the seven churches have both a "near" application and a "far" application--both a temporal and an eternal application. The fact that each message ends with the same trademark: "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches," is compelling. That the term church is plural extends the message and application to the church universal. Believers in two thousand AD can claim the same promises and fear the same warnings.

Here's a link to the contributors of Revelation Commentary.


St. Thomas Aquinas' contingency proof and LDS cosmology

The comments are quite right about an LDS viewpoint being that it hasn't been revealed yet as doctrine.

However your question is asking how God exists or when the beginning of everything was.

The problem is you are asking an infinite question with only the capability of a finite mind. Joseph Smith attempted to help our finite minds understand that of eternal or infinite aspects.

  "I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man-the
  immortal part, because it has no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two;
  then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it
  continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man." - Joseph
  Smith, Teachings of Joseph Smith.

Another way to think of it is that there are levels of science that we don't understand, elements of physics yet to be discovered that is above our physical capabilities in this current state. I know that doesn't give you a concrete answer but hopefully it helps.


Were the indulgences in the Catholic Church always to be followed by Confession?

Without going to confession, one could not gain an plenary indulgence. However that is not required for gaining a partial indulgence.

  To gain indulgences, whether plenary or partial, it is necessary that the faithful be in the state of grace at least at the time the indulgenced work is completed. - THE GIFT OF THE INDULGENCE

Indulgences are not feats of magic and in order to gain any indulgence certain rules must be met. It has been the constant teaching of the Church that mortal sins must be confessed in the Sacrament of Penance. Indulgences have never nor could not ever substitute this fact.

  A plenary indulgence means that by the merits of Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, the full remission of the temporal punishment due to sacramentally forgiven sins is obtained. The person becomes as if just baptized and would fly immediately to heaven if he died in that instant. A partial indulgence means that a portion of the temporal punishment due to forgiven sin is remitted. Partial indulgences are received either by doing some act to which a partial indulgence is attached (e.g. praying a partially indulgenced prayer), or by the incomplete fulfillment of the conditions attached to a plenary indulgence. - What is an Indulgence?

An indulgence does not forgive the guilt of sin, nor does it provide release from the eternal punishment associated with unforgiven mortal sins. The Catholic Church teaches that indulgences relieve only the temporal punishment resulting from the effect of sin (the effect of rejecting God the source of good), and that a person is still required to have his grave sins absolved, ordinarily through the sacrament of Confession, to receive salvation. Similarly, an indulgence is not a permit to commit sin, a pardon of future sin, nor a guarantee of salvation for oneself or for another. Ordinarily, forgiveness of mortal sins is obtained through Confession (i.e., penance or reconciliation).

It seems that from the very conception of indulgence, the Sacrament of Reconciliation was an integral part of the gaining of an indulgence. Only valid sacramentally confessed mortal sins can be forgiven by a confessor. No works (no matter how holy) can take the place of the need to confess one's sins to a priest.

  The earliest record of a plenary indulgence was Pope Urban II's declaration at the Council of Clermont (1095) that he remitted all penance incurred by crusaders who had confessed their sins in the Sacrament of Penance, considering participation in the crusade equivalent to a complete penance.

The actual act of going to confession does not have to be on the same day as the day in which one has completed the indulgenced act. Contemporary norms say that it should be carried out 20 days before or after the indulgenced act is done. In days of old, it was 8 days (before or after).

  It is appropriate, but not necessary, that the sacramental Confession and especially Holy Communion and the prayer for the Pope's intentions take place on the same day that the indulgenced work is performed; but it is sufficient that these sacred rites and prayers be carried out within several days (about 20) before or after the indulgenced act. - THE GIFT OF THE INDULGENCE


Complementarianism - What are the roles of men and women in the church?

There are two principal kinds of church that have 'complementarian' doctrines.

In the first case there are churches with ordained clergy that reserve the office of Priest for men. Chief among these is the Roman Catholic church, but there are others. The priestly role includes celebrating the Eucharist (Mass), and church leadership.

Not all churches with ordained clergy reserve the office of Priest for men. Those that do also reserve higher offices such as Bishop. Some churches are in transition, allowing women to be Priests but not Bishops, for example.

The second kind of complementarians are generally Evangelical Protestants. They can have very varied doctrines, but they almost invariably also reserve certain church roles for men, and those roles are centred around leadership, authority and teaching.

Example restrictions might be any or all of:

not allowing women to take the role of pastor
not allowing women to take the role of elder (which is often associated with certain leadership positions)
not allowing women to teach (except exclusively to other women or children)
not allowing women to teach on spiritual matters, or preach in church
not allowing women to be the overall leader of a congregation

Here are some references to specific examples: 1 2

Again, not all Evangelical Protestant churches reserve some roles to men.

I know of no church which reserves any roles for women as a matter of doctrine.