What is the historical cause between the discrepancy of evangelical approaches to original sin and Jewish ones?

Judaism has never agreed with the concept of original sin, which is essentially a Western Christian notion, with which the Orthodox Churches also do not agree. According to the Catholic Church, there is an obligation on all Catholics to believe in original sin. Most Protestant denominations follow the Catholic lead in also teaching of original sin, although it is not as central as in the Catholic faith.

In Romans 5:12-13, Paul says that sin entered the world through the sin of one man, but does not say that all future humans share that man's guilt. Prior to Augustine, there was no formalised concept of original sin, but early Church fathers made allusions to a doctrine of an 'original sin'. Tertullian taught when a parent sinned, this physical taint of the soul was passed on to children. Tertullian's concept could eventually be interpreted as allowing Adam's great sin to be passed on from generation to generation, down to the present day. Martin Palmer says, in The Jesus Sutras, pages 175-176, that original sin was unknown as a central theme of Christian thought before the early fifth century. He says The Orthodox Church broke away from the West just in time to avoid the magnificence and the curse of St. Augustine of Hippo, who took the basic notion of original sin and built it into the destructive force it was to become. Even in the West, Pelagius argued against original sin, saying that human nature was basically good but had been corrupted and misguided by human weakness, but of course the theology of Augustine triumphed in the West.

The absence of Jewish support for the concept of original sin does not stem from some contemporary strain of Jewish thought or other influences within Judaism, but has existed from pre-Christian times. It is Christianity that has moved forward with new ideas, at least in the West.


In which language did Pontius Pilate communicate with Jesus?

There is reason to believe that the language Pilate communicated with Jesus was Greek. After all it was the language of commerce at that time throughout the Mediterranean world. Let us not forget that Pilate's inscription on the Title of the Cross was written in Latin, Greek and Hebrew. "This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was near to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin." (John 19:20)

  How do we know what languages people actually spoke in Roman Judaea? We have a lot of written evidence from the region that is contemporary with the era of Jesus: papyri, inscriptions, graffiti, and historical texts. From hundreds of examples surviving from Roman Judaea, we can easily document which languages people understood and used both in official transactions and in their daily lives. The ancient evidence is very clear on this point: the everyday language spoken by the Jewish and Samaritan populations of Palestine in the time of Jesus was Aramaic, while the official language for administrative communication was Greek.

  While Roman soldiers and officials from Rome probably did speak Latin
  among themselves, they would have used Greek to communicate with members of the local ruling class, such as Herod’s family and the Jewish high priests. - Two Archaeologists Comment on The Passion of the Christ

Here is more along this line of thinking.

  In which language did Pilate and Jesus likely converse during Jesus's trial?

  Almost certainly in Greek.

  The first language of almost all Palestinian Jews in the 1st century was Aramaic. However evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jewish pseudepigraphic writings, inscriptions on ossuaries (limestone bone burial boxes), etc. show that Greek was spoken there as well. In the Mediterranean world at that time, most people were bilingual (Greek + their native language) so that they could do business with all the other ethnic groups in the Empire.

  Jesus grew up in tiny Nazareth where everyone spoke Aramaic, but lived just over the ridge from Sephoris, a large, well-to-do city where Greek was the common language. As a small-time carpenter (Gk., “tekton,” actually more like a craftsman) he would need to speak Greek to snag his share of the business there. Barring a miracle, it wouldn’t have been very cultured or even necessarily grammatically correct, but it would be understandable to another Greek speaker.

  Pilate on the other hand, given what we know of him from the Jewish writers Josephus and Philo, most likely would not have put forth the effort to learn Aramaic, the language of a people he had no respect for. Latin was actually not widely spoken at all, being confined mainly to it’s original home Latium. Outside of Rome, it was mainly used for official inscriptions and, occasionally, military orders to fellow Romans.

  But he too would have spoken Greek. So, as the scholar Joseph A. Fitzmeyer wrote:

  “In what language did Jesus and Pilate converse? There is no mention of an interpreter. Since there is little likelihood that Pilate, a Roman, would have been able to speak either Aramaic or Hebrew, the obvious answer is that Jesus spoke Greek at his trial before Pilate.”


As there are no further responses, I will close this question. It seems likely that autograph manuscripts of the NT were in use for 100 years or longer. Refer to "How Long Were Late Antique Books in Use? Possible Implications for New Testament Textual Criticism" by CRAIG A. EVANS Bulletin for Biblical Research Vol. 25, No. 1 (2015), pp. 23-37 See https://www.jstor.org/stable/26371610?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents


The choice of Sunday is traditional, but it is also harmonious with the Biblical account (emphasis added):

  Acts 20:7 NASB
  On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.

  1 Corinthians 16:2 (NASB)
  On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come.

  Revelation 1:10 (NASB)
  I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and ...

There's a strong suggestion1 here that Sunday was day that the church met together. Because it was the day of Jesus' resurrection (Mt 28:1), it seems very sensible for the modern church to do this.

Also, bear in mind that there is no commandment from Jesus or the Biblical authors to worship or meet together on a particular day of the week. If one was not bound by the Law of Moses, why would it matter what day was chosen? Not all protestant groups believe that they are not bound, but of those who do, what compulsion would there be to worship on Saturday except for tradition and honor for the Jewish way?

1 In regards to the relevance and validity of including a passage about "the Lord's Day," I include the passage because is a possible example of Sunday having its own significance. It seems reasonable (though not the only conceivable reading) to understand this as Sunday because John used the word Sabbath nine times, never once referring to it as the Lord's day or giving it any other name. (The particular phrase doesn't appear anywhere else in the NT.) No other NT author referred to the Sabbath in any other way than the name already employed by the Jews. Revelation was presumably written later than his other writings, and so perhaps his understanding was better, or the phrase grew out of what was by that time established tradition (60-70 years after Jesus' death) of whatever day the Christians met together. To choose between the two most likely meanings, it seems to me that Sunday has a stronger case than Saturday.


Is there a study that has been done showing the transformational power of the Holy Spirit in people's lives?

The simple answer to your question is yes, there are many such studies, and here is a good place to start looking for them:

The Nature of Spiritual Transformation - A Review of the Literature, Prepared byArthur J. Schwartz, Ed.D.


Note that this response has been divided into two parts: the first is the original response, and the second tries to elaborate based on a comment from the OP.
Part 1
Great question. This response includes a very brief description of some of the basic points of predestination/election, and some references with in-depth, historic information.

Here are a few main points of predestination/election, which it sounds like you may already be aware of. Again, these points are part of Reformed/"Calvinist" theology, and there are many that would disagree.

Reformed theology emphasizes God's motivation to glorify himself, to "bring glory to his name." Note that, according to reformed theology, this does not make him selfish, because man was designed and created to worship God, so glorifying God is what is best for man. (See John Piper, & what is sometimes called "Christian Hedonism." Resources at DesigingGod.org).
All are considered guilty in Adam, and therefore "deserve" the torment of hell (see the doctrine of "original sin").
Because God is sovereign, he does not "owe" salvation to anyone, and would be justified in sending all of humanity to hell.
God is glorified in the greatness of his mercy by electing some to salvation, which they cannot earn.
God is glorified in the greatness of his wrath, by sending others to hell -- either those who are "not elect" or who are "elected to damnation" (see the doctrine of "double predestination").

Again, from the perspective of reformed theology, it is important to note that those who are predestined for salvation are in no way "deserving" of God's mercy, and there is no way to "earn" or "merit" redemption. (See the doctrines of "monergistic" vs "synergistic" regeneration).
How God has decided specifically which individuals will go to heaven is explained either as "random" or as one of the "mysteries" not revealed to man.

Some brief history and additional reference material. Your question is about the Westminster Confession and what it says about predestination; the Confession was published in 1646, but the question of predestination had been ongoing for sometime. One important document where it is addressed directly is the Canons of Dordt (sometimes "Dort"). Several followers of Arminius published a "Remonstrance" in 1610 in Holland, refuting some elements of reformed doctrine, and the Synod of Dordt was created to respond to their assertions. The Synod published their conclusions in a document called the Canons of Dordt in 1618. It is generally considered the source of the "five points of Calvinism," or "T.U.L.I.P." -- Calvin himself never actually outlined the five points in that form -- and addresses predestination in some detail, with scripture proofs. Here are two links to the Canons of Dordt, with scripture proofs: Reformed.org; CCEL. See here for a quick explanation of the history of the five points of Calvinism.
As to your question about "[w]hy or how would they justify that by using the scriptures,"
the Westminster Assembly included extensive scripture proofs that, in their interpretation, justified all of the statements in the Standards. A full copy of the Confession, with the original proofs, can be found on the Reformed.org page linked in your question.
Note also that you can find an in-depth, detailed discussion of the creation of the Westminster Standards in the History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, published in 1853 by William Maxwell Hetherington.
There is also a very detailed chapter on the Westminster Standards in Philip Schaff's "Creeds of Christendom," published 1876.
Schaff's Creeds is a widely regarded, historically important book, one that is likely to be found on the bookshelves of many historians and theologians. Hetherington's work is new to me, but I see that it is linked alongside other important historical titles by sources I have found to be credible.

Part 2
In the OP's comment on 'Part 1' of this response, he gives an analogy to further clarify the question, which I'll paraphrase here: 'if, for example, 1/3 of the people on earth are predestined for heaven, why are the other 2/3 not predestined?' I've added this "Part 2" in an attempt to better address the question.
As a preface, please note that I don't claim to be an expert on predestination, but I'll try to share what I've learned.
There is what could be described as a 'subtle' difference in two basic forms of the doctrine of predestination, with the variant being described as 'double predestination,' or 'reprobation.' This doctrine says that God has predestined some to go to heaven, and others to go to hell, and that all people are predestined for one or the other. Another version is that God has predestined some to go to heaven, and has simply "passed over" the others, leaving them to be condemned by their own guilt, which they inherited from Adam and compounded through their own actions, since "all have sinned" (Rom 3:23). The end result is the same, from the perspective of the individuals and where they spend eternity; anyone who is not elected to salvation doesn't make it to heaven, according to the doctrine of predestination. Also, note that in neither case is there a "third category." In predestination, every person is either elected to salvation, or "passed over." In double predestination, every person is elected to either salvation or reprobation. Here's a work from John Bunyan that examines the doctrine of reprobation in detail.
I realize that you've stated that your question is not about predestination, but, since these matters are all intertwined, a thorough understanding of it may help to resolve your question. This C.SE post by Caleb does a great job of explaining things, and I think it's relevant to our discussion here. He also does a good job of explaining the role of substitutionary atonement, in a very concise manner -- that is, how God can offer salvation to guilty sinners who are deserving of punishment, without being unjust, although you may already understand all of that.
The question of why God has chosen a certain number of people to be saved is a matter of his sovereign will. Since he doesn't owe salvation to anyone, and no one besides Christ is capable of "earning" salvation, God can choose to have mercy on as many or as few as he chooses -- it's a free gift that he is not required to offer. An interesting reference here is Matthew 7:13-14, which tells us that "many" [ESV] will go to hell, and "few" will go to heaven, although I haven't checked the original languages on that verse. OTOMH, that's the only reference that I know of that suggests the numbers/ratios involved in who will go to heaven and who won't, although I expect there are likely references to be found in Revelation.
You might enjoy a read of Romans 9, esp. v. 19-29, and Romans 8:29.
I suppose God could have chosen to apply Christ's atonement to everyone. (Edit: See 1 Tim 2:3, a verse sometimes seen as complicating defenses of predestination). No doctrinal references that discuss the matter come to mind, and I generally seek to avoid providing my own exposition. I do know that there is nothing that would obligate him to apply Christ's atonement to all people, and that the consistent teaching is that God did not create sin, and that he remains perfectly holy and free of all guilt in choosing to bar unforgiven sinners from his paradise. Christ's atonement is sometimes described as being "sufficient" for all, but "efficient" only for the elect -- so, the infinite merit of Christ's sacrifice means that God could justly elect to salvation as many as he willed, and he chose to save a certain number, which is not disclosed to us.
This might seem to conflict with many people's understanding of God's character. It is important to remember that Reformed theology, in an effort to accurately reflect the teachings of the bible, emphasizes God's sovereignty, as well as his motivation to glorify himself.

I hope this response doesn't seem unnecessarily complicated; your question, as I understand it, seems fairly simple at first, but it actually addresses some very contentious areas of theology that have been debated for centuries. Countless sermons, treatises, and expositions have been written on the matter. I encourage you to consult some of the sources I've linked to, especially those in the second section of part 1; I'm sure they can explain things more clearly than I can, though I suppose I could still try to revise -- and hopefully shorten! -- this answer. Cheers.


Does Roman Catholic doctrine recognize a moral distinction or difference between abortion and birth control?

Yes, there is a difference.

On the matter of abortion, the Catechism and Canon Law is explicit. It is a grave offence with instant excommunication. The penalty applies to everyone involved, including the mother if she consents and any medical personnel.

  Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.
  The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.
  "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"76 "by the very commission of the offense,"77 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.78
  The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy.
  Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

  Catechism of the Catholic Church

However, prophylactic contraception does not attract such a penalty, although any act is intrinsically evil.

  Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.157 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:158

    Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality ... the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle ... involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.159

  CCC

The Church holds that abortion is murder; it is the extinction of an existing life, with a soul. The prevention of life being created, although contrary to the natural order and the purpose of marriage and sex, is not murder.

Because abortion (including abortifacient contraception) brings a latae sententiae excommunication, the penalty can be lifted if the offender sacramentally confesses to a bishop (Canons 1355, 1357). Prophylactic contraception is an evil which can be confessed to and absolved by a priest.

76 CIC (Code of Canon Law), can. 1398.
77 CIC, can. 1314.
78 Cf. CIC, cann. 1323-1324.
157 Humane Vitae 16.
158 HV 14.
159 Familiaris Consortio 32.


Needing help locating a specific verse in the Bible about casting out bad influences?

The advice in James 4:7 to resist the devil is sound.  But first we have to “Submit yourselves, then, to God."  We can't do it in our own strength.

Ephesians 6:12 describes the forces that believers face:

  “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places”.

Ephesians 6:13-18 goes on to describe the spiritual armour that is necessary to overcome the forces of evil and cast out the negative influences that seek to destroy.


In Reformed Theology, what are seen as the implications of Traducianism versus Creationism (of the soul)?

First, let's have some slightly more in-depth definitions.  Charles Hodge describes what traducianists believe as follows:

Traducianists on the one hand deny that the soul is created; and on the other hand, they affirm that it is produced by the law of generation, being as truly derived from the parents as the body.  The whole man, soul and body, is begotten.  The whole man is derived from the substance of his progenitors.

Creationism, on the other hand, holds:

that the soul of the child is not generated or derived from the parents, but that it is created by the immediate agency of God.

Incidentally, and not surprisingly, both sides argue that Scripture is best understood to support their view.  Among the Reformed, creationism is more widely held: Hodge and Louis Berkhof are among its proponents, while defenders of traducianism include William G. T. Shedd and A. H. Strong.
With that said, let's turn to the implications provided by the opponents of each view.
Traducianism
The issues include: (1) implied divisibility of the soul, (2) unorthodox tendencies of traducianists, and (3) a unity of substance between Adam and all mankind, and by extension, sinfulness of Christ's human nature.
(1) The first significant issue with traducianism, offered by both Berkhof and Hodge, is that it implies the divisibility of the soul.  This, they say, contradicts the commonly held doctrine that the soul is a spiritual, immaterial substance.  Hodge writes that "this is so serious a difficulty" that some proponents attempt to deny that division of the soul is implied in the theory, but Hodge sees only one other option, which is that all mankind is a single essence, and individual men are mere modes of existence—a doctrine Berkhof dismisses as "untenable."
Berkhof relates several other attempts to avoid this problem: (a) the child's soul pre-existed, (b) the soul is potentially present in the parents' sperm or egg or both, or (c) the soul is created in some way by the parents themselves.  (A) implies pre-existence of the soul, (b) implies the materialism of the soul, and (c) implies creative power on the part of humans, and Berkhof accepts none of these.
Hodge, appreciative of the moderates who attempt to avoid these problems, writes:

If [traducianist] theologians and philosophers would content themselves with simply denying the creation of the soul ex nihilo, without insisting on the division of the substance of the soul or the identity of essence in all human beings, the evil would not be so great.

(2) Both Berkhof and Hodge express concern that many traducianists go further than necessary in the defense of their doctrine, and enter dangerous ground.  Hodge first rebukes those who claim that the doctrine of original sin absolutely depends on traducianism:

We see theologians, ancient and modern, boldly asserting that if their doctrine of derivation [...] be not admitted, then original sin is impossible.  That is, that nothing can be true, no matter how plainly taught in the word of God, which they cannot explain. [...] No man has a right to hang the millstone of his philosophy around the neck of the truth of God.

Berkhof and Hodge also warn that traducianists tend to assume that God now "operates only through means."  That is, that God's creative work was finished in six days, and now he rests, and so the ongoing creation of souls is inconsistent with his relation to the world.  But this, Hodge notes, sounds like deism, and imperils the doctrine of regeneration, which, Hodge says, "is due to the immediate exercise of the almighty power of God."
(3) Berkhof and Hodge note that traducianism normally implies the "theory of realism," which Hodge describes as follows:

Adam and his race are in such a sense one, that his act of disobedience was literally the act of all mankind.  And consequently that they are as truly personally guilty on account of it, as Adam himself was; and that the inherent corruption flowing from that act, belongs to us in the same sense and in the same way, that it belonged to him.

This, they write, is problematic for several reasons.  Berkhof notes that it implies the "untenable" position that all mankind is a single identical essence, and that it fails to give a satisfactory reason as to why men are held responsible only for Adam's first sin, and not all his subsequent sins.  But, says Hodge, a greater issue exists: its implication on Christ's human nature.
Traducianists insist, Hodge says, that "Christ was in Adam as to the substance of his human nature as truly as we were," and that in order for him to be our redeemer, both his body and soul had to be "derived from the body and soul of his virgin mother."  But this implies, says Hodge, that,

He must, therefore, be as much involved in the guilt and corruption of the apostasy as other men. [...] It is a contradiction to say that we are guilty of Adam's sin because we are partakers of his essence, and that Christ is not guilty of his sin nor involved in its pollution, although He is a partaker of his essence.

Hodge concludes:

As this seems a legitimate conclusion from the traducian doctrine, and as this conclusion is anti-Christian, and false, the doctrine itself cannot be true.

Creationism
Strong and Shedd raise these issues with creationism: (1) human reproduction becomes inferior to animal reproduction, (2) its difficulty in explaining original sin, and (3) it implies that God is the author of evil.
(1) Under creationism, earthly parents beget only the body of their child.  This implies that beasts "possess nobler powers of propagation than man; for the beast multiples himself after his own image." (Strong)  It also fails to take into account the similarities between children and their parents.
(2) Shedd argues that creationism has difficulty when it comes to explaining original sin:

Sin cannot be propagated, unless that physical substance in which sin inheres is also propagated.  Sin cannot be transmitted along absolute non-entity.  Neither can it be transmitted by a merely physical substance.  If each individual soul never had any other than an individual existence, and were created ex nihilo in every instance, nothing mental could pass from Adam to his posterity.

Shedd remarks that "the creationist partially adopts traducianism" in order to explain the transmission of sin with other theories, like the theory of representative union.
(3) Shedd then turns to the universality of sin, and argues that creationists cannot adequately explain it.  In creationism, he says, "the fall is that of the individual only.  Each soul apostatizes from God by itself."
One possible response, that God withdraws grace at the instant in which he creates the new soul, is inconsistent with God's dealing with Adam, says Shedd: God withdrew grace from Adam only after Adam's sin, not before, but here, the "withdrawing of grace occurs not because of apostasy, but in order to produce it."
A second response, says Shedd, is that the withdrawal of grace is due to Adam's transgression.  This being closer to the traducianist position, Shedd finds it more agreeable, but finds fault with its failure to recognize a unity of substance:

From the creationist position, a newly created and innocent soul that never was substantially one with Adam, and did not participate with him in the first transgression, is deprived of certain created gifts by an act of sovereignty.  There is no reason, upon this theory, why by the same sovereignty men might not be deprived of Divine gifts on account of the transgression of Lucifer.  Upon the theory of creationism, the withdrawal of the Holy Spirit from the newly created soul is an arbitrary, not a judicial act.

The new soul's guilt, Shedd says, is the "product of an act of sovereign will which decides that an innocent person shall be liable to penal suffering because of another's sin."  This, Shedd says, destroys all ethics and dangerously implicates God with unrighteousness:

As in the gospel scheme there is a "righteousness of God," that is, a constructive and unmerited righteousness, when the obedience of Christ is gratuitously imputed, so in this scheme there is an "unrighteousness of God," that is, a constructive and unmerited unrighteousness, when the disobedience of Adam is gratuitously imputed.

To those creationists who attempt to respond to this problem by splitting punishment from culpability and saying that Adam's posterity are punishable for his sin, but not culpable for it, Shedd argues that the two are as inseparable as cause and effect, that punishing one who is not guilty is inherently unjust, and that such separation attempts serve to introduce semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism into the Reformed tradition.
Berkhof admits that this is "[t]he most serious objection" to creationism, as Strong summarizes:

[Creationism], if it allows that the soul is originally possessed of depraved tendencies, makes God the direct author of moral evil; if it holds the soul to have been created pure, it makes God indirectly the author of moral evil, by teaching that He put this pure soul into a body which will inevitably corrupt it.

Monism
John Frame rejects both views on the basis of his position that the body and soul are not distinct metaphysical components of the human person:

[T]he soul is not a separable part of a person.  It is rather the person himself, seen from a particular aspect.  So there is no particular period in time when the body exists without a soul, nor any point in time when a soul is added to a soulless body.  The soul exists from conception, for it is an aspect of the total person, who exists from conception.

This view, a form of monism, is not directly addressed by any of the previously quoted authors, though all of them argue that body and soul are distinct.  For example, Berkhof writes:

In Gen. 2:7 a clear distinction is made between the origin of the body and that of the soul. [...] In these simple words the twofold nature of man is clearly asserted, and their teaching is corroborated by other passages of Scripture.

Conclusion
Berkhof concludes his analysis of these views with the following cautionary remarks:

It must be admitted that the arguments on both sides are rather well balanced.  In view of this fact it is not surprising that Augustine found it rather hard to choose between the two. [...] And because we have no clear teaching of Scripture on the point in question, it is necessary to speak with caution on the subject.

References

Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 2.1.1.B.4 and 2.1.2 (p. 183, 195, 197-201)
Frame, Systematic Theology, 801-2
Hodge, Systematic Theology, Volume II, chapter 3 and chapter 5
Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, 29-53
Strong, Systematic Theology, Volume II, 491-93


What's the position of main Christian churches about brothers of Jesus?

Most non-Catholic denominations do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, and fully accept the idea of Jesus having biological half-brothers.  (Only He has God for a Father.)

From a perspective of Sola Scriptura, there's no support for the idea that Mary remained a virgin through life, and there is Biblical evidence that Jesus had brothers.

*Please do not take the following quote as me endorsing a view that rejects or accepts the perpetual virginity of Mary.  I'm including it to support the paragraph above.

From http://www.gotquestions.org/perpetual-virginity-Mary.html

  So, what does the Bible say about the perpetual virginity of Mary?
  Using the New American Bible, which is a Catholic translation, we can
  see that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not taught in the Bible.
  Matthew 1:25 NAB tells us, "He had no relations with her until she
  bore a son, and he named him Jesus." He, Joseph, did not have sexual
  relations with her, Mary, UNTIL after she bore a son, Jesus." The
  meaning of this Scripture is abundantly clear. Joseph and Mary did not
  have sexual relations until after Jesus was born. Matthew 13:55-56 NAB
  declares, "Is He not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother named Mary
  and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not His sisters
  all with us?" Catholics claim, correctly, that the Greek terms for
  "brothers" and "sisters" in these verses could also refer to male and
  female relatives, not necessarily literal brothers and sisters.
  However, the intended meaning is clear, they thought Jesus to be
  Joseph's son, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joseph,
  Simon, and Judas, and the brother of the unnamed and unnumbered
  sisters. Father, mother, brother, sister. It is straining the meaning
  of the text to interpret “brothers” and “sisters” as "cousins" or
  "relatives" with the mentioning of Jesus' mother and father.

However, there are Protestant denominations that still accept the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

The view on whether Jesus had biological brothers is, therefore, varied, and the view hinges on whether or not you accept that doctrine.

For more on Protestant views on the doctrine of perpetual virginity, see What do Protestants say was the source for the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary?


What are the differences between Apostles, Prophets, Peter and Jesus Christ in being the "foundation" whereon the church is built?

There are two main ways that Prophets and Apostles can be considered the foundation of the Church - their role in receiving and transmitting revelation (scripture) and their effectual ministry for Christ (service) - particularly in founding individual congregations.  Christ's role in the foundation is unique - he is the chief cornerstone (cf Ephesians 2:20): ie he sets the pattern that the other 'stones' must follow and adapt to in order to fit correctly into the building.

Simon Peter's identification as 'the' foundation must be taken with a grain of salt - Jesus used this play on words after Simon had declared that Jesus was the Christ; immediately afterwards, Jesus rebukes him after he declares that he would never let Jesus be handed over to be crucified:

  Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” - Matthew 16:23 NIV

If we are too literal about this passage, then we'd have to conclude that Satan is the foundation on which the church would be built! While many Protestants do interpret Peter as being appointed as future leader of the Church in the prior verse (v18), many Evangelicals commonly point out that there is a distinction between the name applied to Simon - Petros (Πέτρος - a stone, pebble, a small rock found along a pathway) - and the word used for rock in the same verse (πέτρα - a mass of connected rock, solid or native rock rising up through the earth) and that it makes more sense that 'the rock' is actually not referring to the man himself, but the revelation given to him by the Father. In any event, there can be no denying that Peter did play a key role in helping to lay the foundation of the early church: his sermon given at Pentecost was actually the first public declaration of what he had privately declared and been commended for previously - Jesus is the Christ.

There is much more that could be said, but I believe this is the essence of the foundation that the Church is built on - Jesus is the Christ. The Prophets (of the Old Testament) prophesied concerning him; The Apostles bore witness to him and declared his gospel; but He himself provided the key, the pattern to what the Prophets of old were talking about and the message that went forth with the Apostles - the message is the foundation, and Jesus himself is that message.


What is the difference between the doctrines of "Perseverance of the Saints" and "Eternal Security?"

Put simply, perseverance of the saints refers to the Calvinistic view that since Christians are chosen (or "elect") by God prior to conception, it is impossible to lose salvation - if we have it, we've always had it, if we "lose it," we never had it to begin with.

Eternal Security (Also known as "Free Grace") is the view that once someone believes in Jesus Christ as the their Lord and savior, they have eternal life.

"Once saved, always saved" is generally attributed to the former view, as it has to do with Calvinistic predestination, whereas the latter view says that once you make the "decision" to believe, you can't lose your promise of eternal life regardless of subsequent actions.


Which was the first Roman Catholic hymnal to include Martin Luther's "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God"?

The Hymnal Worship II, published in 1975 by GIA, and widely used in the Archdiocese of Chicago, includes an English translation of Luther's German paraphrase of Psalm 46 (Vulgate No. 45) in two versions at number 2 and number 3 in the hymnal. That is the earliest attributed publication in a "Catholic" hymnal of which I am aware. I did once see a small hymnal published in an area of the country settled by people of German descent which included the text cited as "Paraphrase of Psalm 45", set to Luther's tune which was not attributed to him. I saw it in a used bookstore, but wasn't able to purchase it when I saw it; when I returned, to buy the book, it had been purchased by another buyer. I didn't take down publication details at the time, so don't know exactly who published it, when, or where.
In my view, Worship II rises to the level of "popular", but the earlier publication, which had a limited press run and distribution, does not warrant that description.


"If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation."  Saved human beings have an old nature and a new nature.  At death, the old nature is removed entirely, and only the new nature remains.  (This is the "glorification" in the salvation trio of justification, sanctification, and glorification.)  You should not think that this new nature is a return to the nature that Adam and Eve had before the Fall.  Whatever that nature was like, it is gone forever.  "Behold, I make all things new."

One other point: angels have another nature altogether, so making comparisons between humans and angels is problematic.  For example, we are told (Hebrews?) that angels don't understand salvation.  They long to look into salvation (so they can understand and worship God better, I suppose), but it escapes them.  We don't know why.  Some hypothesize that they are incapable of repentance, which explains why (apparently) God never redeemed any fallen angels and why (apparently) angels don't fall from time to time.  Once angels choose (goes the theory), they have chosen, and they will never choose otherwise.  It is not a lack of free will; changing their minds is simply not in their nature.


Why is saying Vespers on Holy Thursday and Good Friday discouraged?

The first thought that crossed my mind was that the obligation (at least today) of reciting the Divine Office (including Vespers) was limited to the clergy and Religious. The obligation of reciting Vespers on Holy Thursday and Good Friday has been dispensed with in our day in order to make the burden of fasting and long hours of liturgical prayer less burdensome.

Please keep in mind that there are still many religious communities and individuals who at least try to follow the older practice of fasting for 40 days during Lent.

"This ancient practice is reflected in the rubric of the Breviary of St. Pius V that Vespers are to be said before the principal meal of the day. (By the sixteenth century, the discipline of the ancient Lenten fast had been considerably relaxed, and the custom had become almost universal of anticipating all of the hours, including Vespers, to the morning, and breaking the fast around noon.)
This is also the reason why the Mass of the very last day of Lent, Holy Saturday, traditionally ends with Vespers, which return thereafter to being sung at their normal time. In some rites, such as that of the Premonstratensian Order, this custom was extended to the other days of the Triduum, and Vespers were said as the Postcommunion of the Masses of the Lord’s Supper, and of the Presanctified.

On Holy Thursday, there were originally three Masses, one for the consecration of the Holy Oils, one for the reconciliation of those who had been doing public penance during Lent, and the evening Mass in commemoration of the Lord’s Supper. All three of these Masses were normally to be celebrated by the bishop, to whose office all three of these events especially pertain. As one might imagine, the celebration of three Masses in one day was found to be fairly burdensome."- Compendium of the 1955 Holy Week Revisions Of Pius XII

The liturgical hour for the Mass of the Last Supper was restored to its' proper liturgical hour in 1930 to that of Terce (hora tertia).

The same thing happened with time for the Good Friday commemoration. Instead of being commemorated in the morning, it also got moved to a more befitting time of Terce or sometime after 3:00 PM.

If priests and Religious were to be obliged to recite Vespers after these liturgical functions it would a great burden on them physically because the Lenten fast would not be broken until after the recitation of Vespers!

The rules for fasting have since been revised also.


Were demons afraid of the cross before the crucifixion?

The answer is yes.  The cross was foreshadowed as salvation and they trembled.  The first time was when Israel battled the Amalekites after coming out of Egypt roughly circa 2,000 BCE.  Joshua was sent to battle, while Moses was on the hill overlooking.

  And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand. And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed: and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed.
  Exodus 17:9, 11

  But Moses' hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.  And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword.
  Exodus 17:12-13

There's the sign of the cross.

God commanded Moses to build a memorial.

  And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovahnissi:
  Exodus 17:15

Jehovahnissi means the LORD is my banner, my refuge.

PS. The word translated "rod" is not necessarily a "walking stick or cane", but may also be translated as tribe, as in Moses took his tribe of Aaron and Hur or as staff as in the wooden beam.


What is the way of Cain, the error of Balaam and the gainsaying of Core (Korah)?

This isn't an arbitrary grouping of Old Testament sinners, but instead a group of three men who each had the particular error of trying to corrupt the rightful worship of God. Good intentions are not enough when it comes to worship - we must not go against his instructions.

In the case of Cain, the implication is that God did not accept his sacrifice because he did not offer the best of his crops. (Genesis 4:3-5)

In the case of Balaam, Numbers 34:16 says that he not only had intended to curse the Israelites, but that he had advised the Moabites into seducing the Israelites and getting them to worship Baal, which is told in Numbers 25.

In the case of Korah, Moses and Korah actually had a worship contest! (Numbers 16) Korah was a Levite, but he wasn't one of the priests, and so he wasn't allowed to do all that Aaron was. This made him jealous, but God confirmed that only those he said could present incense at the tabernacle.

We could add to the list Nadab and Abihu, Aaron's sons, who in Leviticus 10 burned "strange fire" at the tabernacle and were burned up by God. Creativity was a dangerous thing when it came to worshipping God at the tabernacle!

Jude 10 says that these people "do whatever their instincts tell them, and so they bring about their own destruction." We must be careful not to follow our instincts blindly, but check them against the revealed word of God.


How did Luther have access to the Masoretic Text?

Wikipedia quote:

Daniel Bomberg (c. 1483 – c. 1549) was one of the most important printers of Hebrew books. A Christian who employed rabbis, scholars and apostates in his Venice publishing house, Bomberg printed the first Mikraot Gdolot (Rabbinic Bible) and the first complete Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds.

This timeline shows that Daniel Bomberg's Rabbinic Bible containing the first printed Hebrew version (Masoretic text) was published in 1517.  Martin Luther translated the New Testament in 1522. Bomberg printed a second edition Masoretic text prepared by Jacob ben Chayim in 1526.
So, printed copies of the MT were available before Luther's translation of the Old Testament in 1536.
This article from the University of Nebraska affirms that Reformers had in their personal possession copies of Blomberg's printed edition of the Biblia Rabbinica, which contained the Masoretic Text, Masoretic notes, Aramaic Targum and Jewish Biblical commentaries.

Bomberg also reprinted the Hebrew text of the 1517 Rabbinic Bible in quarto versions during 1517, in 1521, and in a revised form, reflecting to some extent changes made in the 1525 Rabbinic Bible, in 1525–1528. These smaller Hebrew Bibles were a popular, less expensive alternative to Rabbinic Bibles among Christian customers. Ulrich Zwingli owned a Bomberg quarto Hebrew Bible, as did Wittenbergers Johann Agricola and perhaps Martin Luther.

The above quotation is supported by the footnote

Herbert Migsch, “Noch einmal: Huldreich Zwinglis hebräische Bibel,” Zwingliana, vol. 36, 2009, pp. 41-48. Agricola’s copy is on display in the Luther Halle in Wittenberg. On Luther’s purported copy, see T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule, Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the British and Foreign Bible Society, vol. 2, part 1: Polyglots and languages other than English, Martino, Mansfield Center, CT, 2005, pp. 705, no. 5086.

The article also makes the point that further evidence suggesting that Luther had access to this work is Luther's clear and critical knowledge of Jewish commentaries on the Targum, which was included in Bloomberg's printed Rabbinic Bible.


How do classic Trinitarians answer the implications of Revelation 1:1?

Actually the answer is very simple. The confusion lays in the meaning of the word "revelation". It can be taken as "disclosure of earlier not known truths" which was to John for sure BUT it can by understood as "portion of facts and doctrines" which God the Father decided to reveal to humanity and passed it on through Jesus to John. In that sense it was NOT revelation for Jesus at all; he knew that (He was with His Father in their glory - John 17:5).

In a similar way Jude is using word "faith" to describe a set of doctrines pertaining salvation of man:
Jud 1:3  Having made all haste to write to you about the common salvation, beloved, I had need to write to you to exhort you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.
I hope it helps. Blessings in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit
Stanislaw Sylwestrowicz MATS, Gdansk, Poland


What criteria do Catholics use to determine if an old testament character prefigures Mary?

A few figures come to my mind immediately:

Eve - "mother of all living" (Genesis 3:20)
Sarah - chosen to bear Abraham's special son
Esther - put in a position to strategically influence the king regarding her people
Elizabeth - Mary's cousin and mother of John the Baptist

Of course, no other figure ever had the Holy Spirit overshadow her and conceive the perfect God-man, Christ. However, the parallels between Sarah's and Esther's willingness to do what was called of them (and the miraculous nature of Sarah's old, barren womb being reopened) mimics Mary in some extents.

The similarities between Mary and Elizabeth are more striking - while Elizabeth was obviously not a virgin, there was still a vision of an angel announcing their future offspring (the vision regarding Elizabeth came to her husband - Luke 1).

I can't say for sure if "only women prefigure Mary" - but cannot think of any men who do.


What was the "Sect of Nicolaus" and did elements of it's influence carry down to our day?

Revelation 2:6 and 2:15 refer to an  unidentified group of people called the  Nicolaitanes, commending the church at Ephesus for hating the "deeds" of the Nicolaitanes, and blaming the church of Pergamos for having them who hold their "doctrines".  John of Patmos opposed them for their doctrines, not just their deeds, however the church at Pergamos had been able to reconcile those doctrines to the extent that Nicolaitanes were members of the church.

The existence of a sect called Nicolaitanes in the second century is attested by Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexander.  Eusebius states, in Church History chapter 29, that members of the sect claimed it was named after Nicolaus, saying:

  "At this time the so-called sect of the Nicolaitans made its
  appearance and lasted for a very short time. Mention is made of it in
  the Apocalypse of John. They boasted that the author of their sect was
  Nicolaus, one of the deacons who, with Stephen, were appointed by the
  apostles for the purpose of ministering to the poor. Clement of
  Alexandria, in the third book of his Stromata, relates the following
  things concerning him..."

Another, apparently conflicting theory is based on a Greek analysis of the name, suggesting that Nicolaitanes insisted on separation of the clergy and the laity, resulting in ‘conquest’ or domination of the laity.

John Glyndwr Harris, in Gnosticism, at page 120, says that the Nicolaitanes, founded by Nicolaus (or Nicolas), were said to have lived promiscuously.

It has been suggested that Jude 1:4 is referring to the Nicolaitanes, who were said to lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. If so, there is no evidence of any real elements of their influence down to the present day.

We do not really know that the Nicolaitanes were promiscuous, since Eusebius wrote his Church History so many centuries later. The suggestion that Nicolaitanes insisted on separation of the clergy and the laity could even mean that the author of Revelation was referring to what has now become the mainstream, or orthodox, church, remembering  that there is no evidence that the Book of Revelation was written by the orthodox Christian Church. This scenario, although less likely, would certainly mean that the Nicolaitanes had influence down to the present day.


What was Jerome's defense for translating the Hebrew word קִיקָיוֹן (kikayon) in Jonah 4:6, etc. into Latin as hedera?

This is a famous spat between Jerome and Augustine. You may have seen "The Very Secret Diary of St Augustine" that has been circulating recently:

  Correspondence Jerome continues. Infuriating. Do not understand why he does not see my point! Translation of "gourd" vital to understanding of gospels.

The argument plays out in a series of their letters. The basic point is the divergence between the Hebrew, Greek (both the Septuagint and other versions), and traditional Latin. The Septuagint called it a "gourd" (κολοκύνθῃ) but the alternative translation from Hebrew by Aquila of Sinope uses "ivy" (κισσός). These correspond in Latin to cucurbita and hedera respectively. The "Vetus Latina" traditional Latin versions followed the cucurbita route; the controversy arose when Jerome picked hedera instead. In the lengthy and snippy correspondence between him and Augustine, this was one of the points of debate.

Augustine wrote to Jerome (his letter 71 of 403AD) with concern that the bishop of Oea (now Tripoli) had been confronted by an angry congregation, dismayed at the "very different rendering from that which had been of old familiar to the senses and memory of all the worshippers, and had been chanted for so many generations in the church." He was concerned not just about the specific gourd issue, but with the reliability of the Biblical texts in general, and the danger of public confusion. Jerome replied (letter 75 in the
Augustinian corpus, 404AD):

  I have already given a sufficient answer to this in my commentary on Jonah. At present, I deem it enough to say that in that passage, where the Septuagint has gourd, and Aquila and the others have rendered the word ivy (κίσσος), the Hebrew manuscript has ciceion, which is in the Syriac tongue, as now spoken, ciceia. It is a kind of shrub having large leaves like a vine, and when planted it quickly springs up to the size of a small tree, standing upright by its own stem, without requiring any support of canes or poles, as both gourds and ivy do. If, therefore, in translating word for word, I had put the word ciceia, no one would know what it meant; if I had used the word gourd, I would have said what is not found in the Hebrew. I therefore put down ivy, that I might not differ from all other translators.

In the commentary that Jerome mentions, he had written:

  For gourd or ivy in Hebrew we read qiqaion, which is also written qiqaia in the Syriac and Punic languages. It is a type of shrub or sapling with wide leaves like a vine, and which casts a large shadow and is supported by a trunk and often is found growing in Palestine especially in sandy areas. It is interesting to note that if the seed is cast on the ground it germinates quickly and in a few days it can be seen to have grown from a seedling to a bush. For my part when I was translating the prophets I wanted to just transliterate the Hebrew word seeing that Latin has no word for this kind of tree. But I feared that the men of letters would find in this some argument, imagining those animals of India or the mountains of Boeotia or even other marvels of this type. I have also followed the example of the former translators who translated it as ivy, in Greek chissos, because they had no other word to use.

Basically, then, Jerome wanted to pick some familiar word rather than an exotic/mysterious one, and felt that "ivy" was a better fit than "gourd" for this plant which is a bit like both, but not really much like either. In particular, his commentary points out that the function of the plant in the story is to provide shade, which is more naturally associated with ivy than with a gourd. He goes on to say that rejecting the bad arguments of the "gourd-lovers" shouldn't lead us to ignore the imagery of Isaiah 1:8, where Zion is compared to a hut in a cucumber field.

This did not quite satisfy Augustine, who replied (letter 82 of 405AD):

  My only reason for objecting to the public reading of your translation from the Hebrew in our churches was, lest, bringing forward anything which was, as it were, new and opposed to the authority of the Septuagint version, we should trouble by serious cause of offense the flocks of Christ, whose ears and hearts have become accustomed to listen to that version to which the seal of approbation was given by the apostles themselves. Wherefore, as to that shrub in the book of Jonah, if in the Hebrew it is neither gourd nor ivy, but something else which stands erect, supported by its own stem without other props, I would prefer to call it gourd in all our Latin versions; for I do not think that the Seventy would have rendered it thus at random, had they not known that the plant was something like a gourd.


What was the specific trap being set for Jesus by the Pharisees in John 8?

At this time in history Israel was under the rule of the Romans. The Jewish law required that a woman caught in adultery was to be stoned to death.

  Leviticus 20:10 NIV

  “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of
  his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to
  death.

But under Roman law a person could only be put to death by the judge, otherwise it was murder. Much like our law today. Christ did not have the "authority" as a man under Roman law to sentence anybody to death.

Thus, if Christ had answered that the woman was to be stoned He would have be breaking the Roman law. Not only this, but the act of stoning this woman would have gone against the mercy, grace and forgiveness that He had been preaching about.

But if He answered to let the woman go, then He would not have been upholding the Jewish law. Christ himself had been teaching the people that whoever loves God will obey God. So to not Stone this woman would mean that Christ was not in obedience to God, which is also a sin.


In Protestant faith is one's old self dying on the cross with Jesus symbolic, or the actual assumption of a new Eternal life?

First of all, it's good that you feel "guilty" when you sin, that means your conscience has become much more active upon receiving the Lord. However, there is no need to dwell upon the fact of your sin afterwards, as Christ has died for us already and His blood washes us of all sins

  Heb. 7:27  Who does not have daily need, as the high priests do, to
  offer up sacrifices first for his own sins and then for those of the
  people; for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

  Heb. 9:12  And not through the blood of goats and calves but through
  His own blood, entered once for all into the Holy of Holies,
  obtaining an eternal redemption.

  1 John 1:7  But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have
  fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses
  us from every sin.

  1 John 1:8  If we say that we do not have sin, we are deceiving
  ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

  1 John 1:9  If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to
  forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Note that 1 John is an epistle written to believers, so that implies that though we have been saved, we may still sin from time to time. Therefore just apply the blood of Christ, you are doing it right! :)

However, we can overcome our flesh and sin, and the answer lies in the following verses:

  Rom. 6:6  Knowing this, that our old man has been crucified with Him
  in order that the body of sin might be annulled, that we should no
  longer serve sin as slaves;

  Rom. 6:11  So also you, reckon yourselves to be dead to sin, but
  living to God in Christ Jesus.

  Rom. 6:12  Do not let sin therefore reign in your mortal body so that
  you obey the body’s lusts;

  Rom. 6:13  Neither present your members as weapons of unrighteousness
  to sin, but present yourselves to God as alive from the dead, and your
  members as weapons of righteousness to God.

  Rom. 6:14  For sin will not lord it over you, for you are not under
  the law but under grace.

Here it says that we need to know that our old man has been crucified with Christ (Rom. 6:6) as a divine fact, that is, we reckon by faith that we are dead to sin, which means that in the face of sin, we are dead. That verse mentions that the result of our old man being crucified  is that our body of sin is annulled, literally meaning "unemployed, jobless, inactive". By standing upon this fact in faith, we overcome sin. The way to do it is presented in Romans 8:

  Rom. 8:1  There is now then no condemnation to those who are in Christ
  Jesus.

  Rom. 8:2  For the law of the Spirit of life has freed me in Christ
  Jesus from the law of sin and of death.

  Rom. 8:3  For that which the law could not do, in that it was weak
  through the flesh, God, sending His own Son in the likeness of the
  flesh of sin and concerning sin, condemned sin in the flesh,

  Rom. 8:4  That the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled
  in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the
  spirit.

  Rom. 8:5  For those who are according to the flesh mind the things of
  the flesh; but those who are according to the spirit, the things of
  the Spirit.

  Rom. 8:6  For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on
  the spirit is life and peace.

  Rom. 8:7  Because the mind set on the flesh is enmity against God; for
  it is not subject to the law of God, for neither can it be.

  Rom. 8:8  And those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

  Rom. 8:9  But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if indeed
  the Spirit of God dwells in you. Yet if anyone does not have the
  Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him.

  Rom. 8:10  But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of
  sin, the spirit is life because of righteousness.

  Rom. 8:11  And if the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead
  dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life
  to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you.

  Rom. 8:12  So then, brothers, we are debtors not to the flesh to live
  according to the flesh;

  Rom. 8:13  For if you live according to the flesh, you must die, but
  if by the Spirit you put to death the practices of the body, you will
  live.

Verse 13 is quite clear that the way to put the flesh to death is by the Spirit, and the prior verses in Rom. 8 gives in detail how that works.

From Romans 7 (which you quoted), we see that we still have the flesh, and even Paul himself struggled with his flesh, and that there is a "law" in his members, that is, in his flesh, which works against the law in his soul that wants to follow the righteous law of God. Note that we can interpret the "law" in his flesh and in his soul not as something to be followed, but as like a natural law, such as the law of gravity. Therefore as long as we are in our flesh, we will constantly fail to please God and overcome our sins (Rom. 8:3-8). However, we see that we as believers are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1), and that we have received the "law of the Spirit of life" upon our salvation, which is stronger than the law of sin in our flesh. The way to overcome, then, is to live according to our spirit (Rom. 8:4), set our mind on the spirit (Rom. 8:6). The Spirit of God which dwells in our spirit is the factor that overcomes the sins in our flesh (Rom. 8:9). Practically speaking, when we set our mind on our spirit, we are victorious and will not sin because of the law of the Spirit and life. However, whenever we set our mind to our flesh, we will fail. Therefore to overcome the flesh and sin, we must exercise to set our mind on our spirit (1 Tim. 4:7-8, Acts 24:16).

And finally, we have

  Gal. 2:20  I am crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live,
  but it is Christ who lives in me; and the life which I now live in the
  flesh I live in faith, the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and
  gave Himself up for me.

The result of being in our spirit is that our being crucified with Christ becomes a reality. It is no longer us that try to be good and follow the law, but that Christ in us (in our spirit) would work out all things. We cannot overcome sin, but Christ can. Just allow Him to be the overcoming One in us


Is the concept of theurgy used in bible or any Christian scripture?

And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. [Genesis 32:28 KJV]

I would suggest that prayer is a means of 'persuading' God. And this is one example.


What does being Born Again mean per Catholic teaching?

No 1213 Catechism of the Catholic Church under THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM summarises what baptism is:

  1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the
  gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua) [4 Cf.
  Council Of Florence: DS 1314: vitae spiritualis ianua.], and the
  door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we
  are freed from sin and reborn as sons of
  God;
  we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made
  sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration
  through water in the word." [Roman Catechism II,2,5; Cf. Council
  Of Florence: DS 1314; CIC, cann. 204 § 1; 849; CCEO, can. 675 § 1.]

The answer to the question is in bold.


Biblical basis for "We are the living law"?

Your nemesis(!) is at least partially right. Doctrinally, at least from an Evangelical perspective, he or she is spot on. The person's behavior, on the other hand, is far from Christ-like.

Paul is quite clear in Romans that the Law of God is a good thing (as Martha Stewart is wont to say--except she leaves out the words about God's Law):

  So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good (7:12).

He also is clear about the role God's Law is to play in the lives of believers.

  For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin. He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit
  (Romans 8:2-4, NASB, my italics)

Put differently, this time in Jeremiah's words,

  "The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will plant the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the offspring of men and of animals. Just as I watched over them to uproot and tear down, and to overthrow, destroy and bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant," declares the LORD. "In those days people will no longer say, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.' Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes--his own teeth will be set on edge. "The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them, " declares the LORD. "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people"
  (31:27-33 my italics)

And in Ezekiel's words,

  "For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws"
  (36:26 ff., NIV, my italics)

In this Age of Grace in which we live, the Holy Spirit empowers us to fulfill the Law's just requirements. We are not to be antinomianists (i.e., people who consider themselves free from the Law of God, since we're "saved by Grace"), having the attitude, "Hey, the more I sin, the more gracious God will be!" To that statement, Paul would lend us his emphatic, "By no means!" or "God forbid!" (see Romans 6:1 ff.).

The point Paul and others make in this regard is this: While we cannot earn our salvation by fulfilling the Law of God--for then, our salvation would be of works and not of faith, we have been freed from the curse attached to our disobedience to the Law.

  "Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
  (Ezekiel 18:4)

We have been freed from fulfilling the just requirements of the Law for our salvation. Jesus made this freedom possible through his shed blood. On the other hand, we have not been freed from fulfilling the just requirements of the Law in the power of the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us once we are regenerated. The former has to do with salvation. The latter has to do with sanctification.

In other words, we cannot be saved by obeying the Law, because whoever has committed one sin (or a million sins)--and we all have--"shall die." We can, however, prove to ourselves and others that we are indeed saved by fulfilling the Law's just demands through our way of life as followers of Jesus Christ. For Christ has set us free for this very purpose, since He fulfilled every single one of the Law's just requirements as the sinless and spotless Lamb of God. That is why he could be the perfect sacrifice for sin.

In conclusion, your "friend" is correct, doctrinally. In his obligation to live a life of love, he is sadly lacking. Go to him or her in private, in keeping with Matthew 5:23-24 and Matthew 18:15-18. Best wishes to you!


What is a gospel, and how many gospels are there in the Catholic Bible?

How many gospels are there in the Roman Catholic Bible?

The quantity of gospels are the same in both the Catholic and Protestant Bibles. There are only four, in the same order, at the beginning of the New Testament.

  Are there only gospels in the New Testament?

No, the New Testament contains other books, including:

"Acts of the Apostles" (also known as "Acts," "Book of Acts"), which is a chronicle of the acts and ministry which the apostles and disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ performed after his resurrection and ascension. It is commonly attributed to the physician, Luke.
twenty-one epistles (an epistle is a letter)

thirteen epistles written by the apostle Paul

Epistle to the Romans (also known as "Romans")
First Epistle to the Corinthians (also known as "1 Corinthians")
Second Epistle to the Corinthians (also known as "2 Corinthians")
Epistle to the Galatians (also known as "Galatians")
Epistle to the Ephesians (also known as "Ephesians")
Epistle to the Philippians (also known as "Philippians")
Epistle to the Colossians (also known as "Colossians")
First Epistle to the Thessalonians (also known as "1 Thessalonians")
Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (also known as "2 Thessalonians")
First Epistle to Timothy (also known as "1 Timothy")
Second Epistle to Timothy (also known as "2 Timothy")
Epistle to Titus (also known as "Titus")
Epistle to Philemon (also known as "Philemon")

one epistle written to the Jewish believers in the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e., the Hebrews), sometimes attributed to the apostle Paul, but whose author is otherwise considered to be unknown

Epistle to the Hebrews (also known as "Hebrews")

one epistle written by James, the brother of the Lord Jesus Christ

Epistle of James (also known as "James")

two epistles written by the apostle Peter

First Epistle of Peter (also known as "1 Peter")
Second Epistle of Peter (also known as "2 Peter")

three epistles supposedly written by a John, perhaps the same author as the Gospel of John

First Epistle of John (also known as "1 John")
Second Epistle of John (also known as "2 John")
Third Epistle of John (also known as "3 John")

one epistle written by Jude, another brother of the Lord Jesus Christ

Epistle of Jude (also known as "Jude")

the Book of Revelation (formerly known as "the Apocalypse"; also known as "Revelation")

  What are the names of gospels?

The names of the gospels in order are:

Gospel of Matthew (also known as "Matthew")
Gospel of Mark (also known as "Mark")
Gospel of Luke (also known as "Luke")
Gospel of John (also known as "John")

  Is there a difference between books and gospels?

The smallest division of the Bible is a "verse." A collection of related verses (not necessarily composed by the same author) is a "book." The Protestant Bible contains 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament. The Catholic Bible not only contains those books found in the Protestant Bible but additional books known as deuterocanonical books. (However, if you ask a Catholic, they would probably say that the Protestant Bible is missing these books.)

A gospel is a book of the Bible. It is simply a different genre of literature than the other books of the Bible (e.g., epistles).

  I've read that there are 73 books in the Catholic Bible, but are all of these considered gospels? Or are there just 4 gospels in total, including: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and no others between the Old and New Testament?

The latter. There are only four gospels in both Protestant and Catholic Bibles. There is absolutely no exception to this.


The Knights of Malta also known as the Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem is a Military Order that still exists.

  The most important of all the military orders, both for the extent of its area and for its duration. It is said to have existed before the Crusades and is not extinct at the present time. During this long career it has not always borne the same name. Known as Hospitallers of Jerusalem until 1309, the members were called Knights of Rhodes from 1309 till 1522, and have been called Knights of Malta since 1530.

  In times of war, since 1870, the order has been devoted to ambulance service on the field of battle. Catholic Encyclopedia

A short HISTORY OF THE KNIGHTS OF MALTA is an excellent read.

  Fra’ Giacomo Dalla Torre del Tempio di Sanguinetto, elected Lieutenant of the Grand Master of the Sovereign Order of Malta yesterday, has sworn oath today(April 30, 2017) in the Church of Santa Maria in Aventino, before the Council Complete of State (the elective body of the Order of Malta) and Archbishop Angelo Becciu, the Pope’s Special Delegate.


According to Catholicism, why are some demons more difficult to cast out than others?

It is because there are different levels or hierarchies of angels, demons being fallen angels. If one gets possessed/oppressed by a more malignant demon, its exorcism would be more difficult because such a demon is more disobedient to God.

Listen to the talks here by a Catholic priest who is an expert in demonology and exorcism, e.g. the

ones listed under the heading "Angels and Demons"
"TU Newman Center Conference on Exorcism" talk
"Interview on Exorcism, Reason in Society, Philosophy and Theology"


What is an overview of Lutheran faith-alone systematically taught before Martin Luther?

I have not found any reference which lists precisely the church fathers that Luther read (and was influenced by) other than Augustine. Certainly of the church fathers, Augustine was a strong influence on Luther's development of his theology.

Martin Luther himself said in 1516 (or 1518? He published two editions of the book) in the preface of the Theologia Germanica:

  Next to the Bible and St. Augustine, no book has ever come into my hands from which I have learnt more of God and Christ,
  and man and all things that are.

This would place the author of Theologia Germanica as one of his primary influences.

However, there were several contemporaries of Luther which influenced his theology (and indeed the Reformation didn't occur out of a vacuum; Luther was not the only person thinking along sola fide lines, just perhaps the fastest to come to his conclusion.) This included Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples and Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus, although it is not immediately apparent to me whether their theology specifically affected his development of sola fide or whether it was simply their approaches to hermeneutics and theology generally.

Johann von Staupitz, Luther's supervisor, and Andreas Rudolph Bodenstein von Karlstadt were both also close aquaintances of Luther who had positions on faith and salvation that were moving in similar circles as sola fide, although it appears that they did not fully accept his position. Certainly they affected his development, though.

Much of this is sourced from Luther's Development of the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Only: Preserved Smith. There were presumably other influences, and you have mentioned Victorinus and the neo-Platonists so I shall not repeat them.


Eucharist as a definition of the Church in any early universal councils before the 1054 split?

No.

The general rule of the Councils is that they are created out of a great crisis in the Church. This could be either theological (as in the first seven), or political (the healing of the Great Western Schism). While the identification of the eucharist with the body and blood of Christ can be seen in both the East and the West prior to the split, the first major challenges (there had been a minor challenge while the Church was united, but that never gained real traction) to the doctrine were only felt immediately after the schism (literally, within the same decade).

A couple of related thoughts:

One can only wonder if the anti-eucharistic theology had gotten traction earlier if the resulting Council would have helped prevent the schism.
Vatican II was the only Council which was not created at a definitive time of crisis. Interesting to think about at least.
While the major crises of the East were resolved by Councils, Manichaeism and Donatism really never had a presence in the East. Those two heresies had a profound impact on Western theology. That is one reason why there is a difference between how Catholics and Orthodox view who is appropriate minister of Baptism (Catholic = anyone, clergy preferable; Orthodox = clergyman only).


Is it a good guess that Heaven's joy surpasses even the keenest felt here?

The only person capable of answering your question is someone who has been there, and that person is Jesus. So here is what the Bible says and what Jesus said.

Satan offered Jesus all the Kingdoms of the Earth and all their Glory:

  Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve (Mat 4:8,9,10 KJV).

So if there were more joy in the Earth than in Heaven why would Jesus "pass" on the devil's offer of all the world's kingdoms and choose instead a cruel, torturous death on a Roman cross?

Here are the things he said concerning the subject:

  I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance (Luke 15:7 KJV).
  Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets (Luke 6:23 KJV).

Remember Heaven does not exist for our edification, it is the home of God!

  Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created (Rev 4:11 KJV).


What's the level of the teaching that we can't be sure someone is in Hell?

In Catholicism, we learn the teachings of Christ in the Mass as part of our Liturgy. We pray for all peoples, not just Catholics but all, that they find their way to fullness of the faith. Even at the highest positions of the church, or the lowest depending on your perspective, the authorities, those who watch over our souls (Heb 13:17) have a responsibility not to pronounce judgement, but to guide. There is only one who can pronounce judgement.

Be humbled in the sight of the Lord: and he will exalt you.
11 Detract not one another, my brethren. He that detracteth his brother, or he that judgeth his brother, detracteth the law and judgeth the law. But if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.
12 There is one lawgiver and judge, that is able to destroy and to deliver.
13 But who art thou that judgest thy neighbour?
(James 4:10–13).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines presumption this way.

PRESUMPTION: An act or attitude opposed to the theological virtue of hope. Presumption can take the form of trust in self without recognizing that salvation comes from God, or of an over-confidence in divine mercy. (CCC Glossary)

Paul also makes his position very clear concerning even his own security.

LET a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ and the dispensers of the mysteries of God.
Here now it is required among the dispensers that a man be found faithful.
But to me it is a very small thing to be judged by you or by man’s day. But neither do I judge my own self.
For I am not conscious to myself of anything. Yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. 1 Corinthians 4

This is a far cry from suggesting that he is justified once by the cross, he continues..

Therefore, judge not before the time: until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts. And then shall EVERY man have praise from God.

As for dogma:

God, by His eternal resolve of Will, has predetermined certain men to eternal blessedness.
God, by an eternal resolve of His Will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection.
From the work of Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

Now, it is different to say that if you sin, and continue to sin, you are in danger of being separated from God's love. That is an example of teaching. Stating that a person is in hell or will go to hell, is pronouncing judgement, a thing reserved only to God. A priest can teach you what actions are condemnable and guide you to repentance; he cannot, however, condemn your soul.


Both nakedness (and the awareness of that nakedness) and white garments are symbols (this does not mean we are not talking about real things, just that they are also symbolic).

White is a symbol of purity. For example, Revelations 3:5

  5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment;
  and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will
  confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Here, the saints are given white garments to symbolize that their sins are taken away and that they are pure. Similarly, white garments symbolize purity and holiness when seen on the angels.

Next, the clothes of Adam and Eve. God created them naked, so there can't be anything wrong with that, really.

Genesis 2:25

  25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not
  ashamed.

Note the addition "they were not ashamed".

Next, when they eat the fruit:

Genesis 3:7

  7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they
  were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves
  caprons.

And then they hide themselves. In that moment, they did something wrong and they are

aware of being in sin
aware that they are "naked" before the Lord, in other words, he knows what they did. They try to hide their sins from him. Nakedness could also be a symbol of the sinfulness itself (although that doesn't make sense since they were created naked), but important is that it is only a symbol of something happening in Adam and Eve. Before sinning, they are also naked, but not ashamed, because there is nothing to be ashamed of. After sinning, that nakedness is a problem for them.

Adam hides, is called out and has to take responsibility. And then, God does the following:

  21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of
  skins, and clothed them.

In the end, God covers their nakedness. Much symbolism and promise in that action, if we take nakedness to symbolize sin. A foreshadow of Revelation 3:5, if you are with me. Either way, God makes clothes for them, so we shouldn't say that clothes themselves are something bad, unwanted, or sinful (or symbolizing sin).


What led to Marshal McLuhan's late adult conversion to Catholicism?

The short answer is G. K. Chesterton (amongst others).

Conversion is a deeply personal journey, often taking many years to reach an outcome. But it is certain that G. K. Chesterton started the ball rolling.

  What is often overlooked is that McLuhan was an ardent convert to the Catholic Faith.  Born in Western Canada in 1911, he was raised in a generically Protestant environment.  By the time he attended the University of Winnipeg in 1928 he had no interest in religion. Just prior to going on to England to study at Cambridge, however, he chanced upon the works of an author who changed his whole view of reality: G.K. Chesterton.

  In the common sense, wit, and striking paradoxical expressions of Chesterton, McLuhan discovered the wonder of the real world as created by God and full of meaning.  He was also introduced to the crucial role of the Catholic Church in fostering learning and culture in European history.  By the time he left Cambridge and returned to Canada in 1936, he had an intellectual conviction about the Church.  But he felt no personal need for religion.

  When friends asked him, "Why aren't you Catholic?" he was as puzzled as they were.  Then he realized he couldn't have Catholic faith by looking at the Church "from the outside."  He needed to approach the Church on her own terms, with the realization that faith comes from grace, and in order to receive this gift he had to pray.  So McLuhan began praying, and thereby he entered into the Church's life and felt her maternal embrace.  He also met a priest, Father Gerald Phelan (later his colleague at the University of Toronto) who guided his discernment and baptized him when he finally found faith in 1937. - Great Conversion Stories: Marshall McLuhan

Other articles can be found on the web and most imply the same rationale, more or less:

  His Conversion

  I was reading [G.K.] Chesterton, and [Christopher] Dawson and [Jacques] Maritain and those people. That’s how I came in.

  I had no instruction even from clergy at any time but there was a friend of mine who said, ‘Well, since you don’t believe in Christianity’ – I was an agnostic – he said ‘you could pray to God the Father. So you pray to God the Father and simply ask to be shown.’ And so I did.

  And I didn’t know what I was going to be shown, all I said was, ‘Show me,’ and I didn’t ask to be relieved of any problems. I had no problems. I had no belief and no problems.

  Well I was shown in a quite amazing way and quite unexpected: I was arguing about religion with a whole group of grad students one night at Wisconsin and one of them said to me suddenly, ‘Why aren’t you a Catholic?’ and I shut up because I didn’t know. Up to that moment, it had never occurred to me that I would ever become a Catholic. But I was suddenly caught. I became a Catholic at once within a few days. - Marshall McLuhan’s Catholic Faith


How did the second Vatican council (aka Vatican II) address the concept of limbo?

If you look at this question, you will find references to statements by Benedict XVI regarding Limbo. Specifically he says:

  Limbo was never a defined truth of the faith. Personally - and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as Prefect of the Congregation - I would abandon it since it was only a theological hypothesis. It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for the faith, namely, the importance of baptism. …. One should not hesitate to give up the idea of 'limbo' if need be (and it is worth noting that the very theologians who proposed 'limbo' also said that parents could spare the child limbo by desiring its baptism and through prayer); but the concern behind it must not be surrendered. Baptism has never been a side issue for the faith; it is not now, nor will it ever be." - Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

If Limbo was never a doctrine of the faith, then Vatican II cannot have 'eliminated' it. In short, Limbo was only ever a theory, and is less popular these days than it was.


Did Mary know that her Baby Boy would "soon deliver her"?

Not Heresy

That's a great line from a great song.  It's a play on words, using "deliver" in such completely different ways.  It is saying that Mary would deliver--give birth to--Jesus, the eternal Son of God who became a Man, and then that Jesus would one day deliver Mary, that is redeem her and all mankind from the power, penalty and presence of sin.

So, if it were suggesting that Mary was going to somehow be the savior of Jesus, that would certainly be heretical, but it's not.  It's simply using a nuance of the English language in a very poetic and powerful way.

Did Mary Know?

From a biblical perspective (and admittedly not from Catholic writers specifically), we do know what the angel told Mary.

  And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found
  favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear
  a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will
  be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him
  the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of
  Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

  34 And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a
  virgin?”

  35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
  and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the
  child to be born will be called holy— the Son of God. 36 And
  behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a
  son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. 37
  For nothing will be impossible with God.”   Luke 1:30-37 ESV

So, Mary was specifically told the name of the child would be Jesus.  She no doubt understand that this name meant literally, "The Lord saves".  She was also told that He would be called the Son of the Most High, that He Himself would reign forever (not just His lineage), and that His Kingdom would last forever.  She also knew that He would have no earthly father.

We can also consider the greeting Mary received from Elizabeth:

  And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her
  womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, 42 and she
  exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed
  is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted to me that the
  mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold, when the sound of
  your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45
  And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of
  what was spoken to her from the Lord.”  Luke 1:41-45 ESV

Finally, we have what the angel told Joseph:

  Now the birth of Jesus Christ[e] took place in this way. When his
  mother Mary had been betrothed[f] to Joseph, before they came together
  she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. 19 And her
  husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame,
  resolved to divorce her quietly. 20 But as he considered these things,
  behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying,
  “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that
  which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a
  son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people
  from their sins.”

Joseph was given the specific reason why He would be named Jesus--because He would save His people from their sins.  This was pretty significant, and it is at least likely that Joseph shared this with Mary in explanation as to why he decided to go ahead and take her as his wife.

Mary was also part of a culture that had received the promises of a Deliverer.

So, from a biblical perspective, it is quite likely (at least) that Mary did have an understanding that Jesus would one day "deliver her" and the whole world from the power of sin.


What was the main reason for excluding 35 latest names from the list of recognized saints by ROC?

I think it is important to understand here that the Orthodox custom of canonization is radically different from the Roman Catholic process.  Within the Orthodox Church, veneration of saints occurs spontaneously among the faithful. There is no multi-step process or requirement for a certain number of miracles to have been performed.  "Canonization" by an Orthodox Patriarchate is a process of recognizing persons as saints whom local believers are already venerating.  Thus, the removal of a saint from a calendar does not necessarily equate to the Patriarchate denying that person is a saint.

The "removal" of the names seems to have been due to a general decision taken by the Council of Bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate on how the memories of 20th century martyrs were to be maintained, and not due to any general conspiracy by the Russian Orthodox Church.

On February 2011, the Council adopted the document, "О мерах по сохранению памяти новомучеников, исповедников и всех невинно от богоборцев в годы гонений пострадавших" ("On measures to preserve the memory of martyrs, confessors and all innocents who suffered persecution during the godless years").  Item 9 of the document states:

  The Church urges government and public figures to support its efforts
  to explore and perpetuate the memory of the victims of persecution. In
  particular, it appeals to the heads of institutions and those in
  charge of archival documents to promote the early identification and
  complete information about the victims in the persecution. To this
  end, it is important to improve the methodology of scientific study
  and investigation of cases. It is necessary to continue the dialogue
  with the government about the possibility of legislative or
  administrative means of ensuring access of authorized representatives
  of the Church to the relevant archives, subject to compliance with
  legal requirements of non-disclosure of information about the private
  lives of citizens.

In all Orthodox Churches, a liturgical calendar is made available in all parishes at the beginning of the civil year.  These calendars include, for each day, the Epistle and Gospel readings for the day (which follow an ancient annual Lectionary), the fasting guidelines for the day, and the saints that are commemorated on that particular day.  This is an example of a calendar for a Russian Orthodox parish in the United States:

During 2013, it was noticed that 36 names that had been on the prior year's calendar were not on the 2013 calendar.  Abbot Damascene Orlovsky of the New Martyr committee explained the 2013 calendar corrections:

  In 2011 our committee assignment was to ...develop a comprehensive
  list of martyrs, each with the name, the place of his ministry, the
  place of death, and so on. It is very important for this to be done,
  because before that they were listed in our calendar only by the
  names, leaving the reader to investigate [the details] separately.

  We have prepared this list (and at the same time corrected a lot of
  mistakes in dates and names), and handed it to the Most Holy
  Patriarch. His Holiness the Patriarch reviewed this list and decided
  to submit it to the Publishing Department of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Claims that those previously considered New Martyrs were removed from the list because evidence emerged that they collaborated with the Communists are speculation.  Alexander Nevsorov (shown in the video) is a rabid secularist and atheist who was once expelled from the Moscow Theological Academy. The issue first seemed to surface when a Russian deacon, Andrei Kuraev, published the following on his livejournal page:

  The official church calendar for 2013 is very different from the
  calendar for 2012.

  The most important part of the liturgical calendar is a list of the
  saints whose memory falls on any given day.

  The canonization of a saint necessarily implies its inclusion in the
  calendar.

Although bloggers such as Durayev have speculated that the removal of the names is because they have been "decanonized", to my knowledge this has never been confirmed.  The list of names is public and one would think that in the intervening 4 years proof would have emerged that the people listed were KGB collaborators or whatever else is speculated. It may simply be as Abbot Damascene states - that when examined, key details in the various cases were found to be lacking or inconsistent and did not meet the standard set by the committee.


Who or what is the origin of the Seven Mountain Mandate?

Although the general concepts associated with soft forms of Dominionism like the Seven Mountain Mandate have been around for a long time (arguably since the very beginning - cf. Genesis 1:27-28; Matthew 5:13-16; 28:18-20 etc.), according to the7mountains.com, the particular formulation in question dates back to the 1970s and was first promoted by Loren Cunningham, the founder of YWAM:

God gives Loren Cunningham the 7 Mountain Strategy
In the book Making Jesus Lord by Loren Cunningham (YWAM, 1988, p. 134), Cunningham wrote:
“Sometimes God does something dramatic to get our attention. That’s what happened to me in 1975. My family and I were enjoying the peace and quiet of a borrowed cabin in the Colorado Rockies. I was stretched out on a lounge chair in the midday warmth, praying and thinking. I was considering how we Christians – not just the mission I was part of, but all of us – could turn the world around for Jesus.
A list came to my mind: categories of society which I believed we should focus on in order to turn nations around to God. I wrote them down, and stuck the paper in my pocket.
The next day, I met with a dear brother, the leader of Campus Crusade For Christ, Dr. Bill Bright. He shared with me something God had given him – several areas to concentrate on to turn the nations back to God! They were the same areas, with different wording here and there, that were written on the page in my pocket. I took it out and showed Bill and we shook our heads in amazement.
Here’s a list (refined and clarified a bit over the years) that God gave me that sunny day in Colorado:

The home

The church

Schools

Government and politics

The media

Arts, entertainment, and sports

Commerce, science, and technology

“These seven spheres of influence will help us shape societies for Christ.”


His Wikipedia page lists some people he influenced:

  Pierre Poiret, John Pordage, William Law, Louis Claude de Saint-Martin, William Blake, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, Julius Evola

Going through those it seems like area of influence was mostly Enlightenment philosophers, Theosophists, and liberal mainline Protestants. One that stands out is John Pordage, who founded the Philadelphians.

  The Philadelphians [...] were a Protestant 17th century religious group in England. They were organized around John Pordage (1607–1681), an Anglican priest from Bradfield, Berkshire [...] Pordage was attracted to the ideas of Jakob Böhme, a Lutheran theosophist and Christian mystic.