Did early church fathers understand the doctrine of trinity?

The Apostles Creed, referenced as early as 390 A.D., quite clearly articulates an understanding of our faith revolving around the three persons we identify as the members of the Trinity as core to the faith. It makes up almost half of the total text.

  I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
        the Maker of heaven and earth,
        and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

  Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
        born of the virgin Mary,
        suffered under Pontius Pilate,
        was crucified, dead, and buried;

It is clearly understood both today and in its time that this creed was affirming a belief in One God and at the same time identifying how he is revealed to us. While it doesn't use the term Trinity nor define the mixed natures as clearly as later creeds and confessions, it is unlikely that such a creed would have seen the near universal acceptance as articulating the core of Christian belief if it went against the teachings of the church fathers of the previous three centuries. The lack of controversy on this topic is remarkable. We do know people who taught otherwise, such as the Gnostics and Arians, but part of the purpose of this Creed was to emphatically reject them, a standard that has continued throughout mainstream Christian history.

Before moving on, it would be remiss not to point out that the most emphatic and authoritative writings on this matter in the first couple centuries are in fact the Scriptures themselves. Looking in material written by "early fathers"  for clues about what they did or did not believe without first and foremost considering the teachings found in the pages of the Bible their actions as church fathers helped to canonize would be a disservice to them.

That being said we do have clear evidence that the early Fathers did believe in the Trinity. Few of them used that word, but the words they did use fit the formula. For example Polycarp lived from 70 A.D to somewhere in the mid second century. Here's how he prayed:

  "O Lord God almighty... I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever."

While that statement was simply an affirmation of the three persons without directly trying to define their relation to each other, other early Fathers such as Theophilus from the late second century did remark on how they relate:

  It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place.... The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity, God, his Word, and his Wisdom.

Likewise Justin (another Martyr and church leader from the second century) had this to say about baptism:

  "For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water."

Clearly the three persons were at the center of the faith people were being inaugurated into. In another place, he comments specifically on the relation of these three persons to each other:

  We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein.

By the first decade of the third century, we have quite a collection of declarations about the Trinity. Here is Tertullian:

  And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

The list goes on. I can't quote them all here but Ignatius the Bishop of Antioch, Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp and later Bishop of Lyons, Didache, Hippolytus, Novatian, Origen, and other Fathers through the second and third centuries can all be quoted with emphatic articulations of the Trinity.

The exact formulation and best way to articulate this mystery has been widely debated in every age and language since. The above Fathers certainly had varying ideas about just what it meant to have a single God with three persons. We still struggle to wrap our heads around this today. And that's ok as long as we do not err on the side of either denying either the unity or diversity of his nature. We must not make out the persons of the Trinity to be separate beings nor deny that the one being is revealed to us in thee persons.


Why did Abraham lie to Pharaoh about Sarah being his sister in Gen 12?

Regardless of his faith, Abraham was still a man - he had not yet been perfected: he was still on his walk of progressive sanctification.

The same question could be asked as to why David sinned with Bathsheba, or why Samson fell for Delilah.

And any of countless more examples - the men and women portrayed in the Bible were not perfect (excepting Christ). Even Peter, who had been with Jesus since the earliest days of His ministry, denied him three times during the trial before the Sanhedrin.

Every instance is an opportunity to showcase God's faithfulness, mercy, and grace - even when his chosen ones fail Him.

Even those with the stoutest faith in God can forget or become fearful: while backsliding or temporarily turning from God to our own wisdom is never promoted, it is the entire life story that must be examined. When doing that with Abraham, it is obvious that though he was not perfect, he was following God.


The "chosen people" are, as you mention the Israelites.

  Deuteronomy 7:6
  For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

This simply means that God has chosen these people and set them aside to be holy.

History

It all began with Abraham:

  Genesis 12:1-3 (NIV)
  The LORD had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.

  2 “I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you;
  I will make your name great,
    and you will be a blessing.
  3 I will bless those who bless you,
    and whoever curses you I will curse;
  and all peoples on earth
    will be blessed through you.”

That was the original "chosing", if you will.  After that came Isaac and Jacob, who was called Israel.

With Israel (Jacob), God renewed the blessing above (in Genesis 28), saying specifically (in that passage):

  Genesis 28:15a
  I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go

A man becomes a nation (more history)

God was faithful to his promise to Abraham and Jacob.  He made a great nation out of the Israelites and turned them into a nation while they were enslaved in Egypt.

When he freed them from Egypt, he lead them to the base of a mountain and established a few ground rules (the 10 commandments).  Later (not much later), he established an entire set of rules that can be found in Leviticus.

These set of rules were the original covenant.  The essence of it can be seen in Leviticus 26, but it basically says:

  "If you follow my decrees and obey my commands, I will bless you.  If you turn away from me, I will curse you."

Summary (What it means to be chosen)

God set the nation of Israel aside.  They would be his people and he would be their God.

If they followed him, they would be blessed.  If they turned from him, they would be cursed.

Christians are not the Israelites.  Christians are not the "chosen people".

Christians are chosen

Having said that, Christians are, undoubtedly, chosen (although we are not "The Chosen People").

  John 14:15-24 (NIV)
  “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[a] in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”

  22 Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”

  23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

If you read through that, what you'll see is that Jesus has set us aside and given us the same type of covenant that you see mirrored in Leviticus (and Deuteronomy, for that matter).  Specifically:

  John 14:15
  "If you love me, keep my commands."

He goes on to say that he will be part of us and we will be part of him.  Clearly, we are "chosen" in this sense.

Summary #2

Christians are "chosen".  This means we live in Jesus and we are a part of Jesus and we will inherit eternal life.  He has chosen us for eternal life.  However, we are not the "chosen people".  (See the first half of this answer for that.)


Why was God so specific about how to make the Tabernacle?

A number of different answers to this question have been given by Christians through history.  Broadly speaking, the reasons for the extensive detail given by Moses might be categorized as follows: (1) to foreshadow future events and entities, (2) to demonstrate the importance of religious worship, and (3) to display God's glory.
Foreshadowing
Christians widely recognize, based on passages Hebrews 9, that some aspects of the tabernacle are types of New Testament realities. However, from the days of the church fathers, many have attempted to seek out a spiritual interpretation or foreshadowing for every detail of the Tabernacle.  Gregory the Great, for example, sees the Ark of the Covenant's features as significant:

What but the holy Church is figured by the ark? To which four rings of gold in the four corners are ordered to be adjoined, because, in that it is thus extended towards the four quarters of the globe, it is declared undoubtedly to be equipped for journeying with the four books of the holy Gospel.1

Similarly, the two cherubim, Gregory says, signify "the two testaments," since the word means "fullness of knowledge."2
Examples of this sort of interpretation apparently abounded in the early church, since Origen, no stranger to allegorical exegesis, warned about some who go too far:

When the (description of the) fitting out of the tabernacle is read, believing that what is written is a type, they seek to adapt what they can to each particular related about the tabernacle,— not being wrong so far as regards their belief that the tabernacle is a type of something, but erring sometimes in adapting the description of that of which the tabernacle is a type, to some special thing in a manner worthy of Scripture.3

Importance of worship
Some argue that the level of detail here is an indication of the importance of worship to God.  Matthew Henry contrasts the amount of detail mentioned in the Creation account:

He that gave us no account of the lines and circles of the globe, the diameter of the earth, or the height and magnitude of the stars, has told us particularly the measure of every board and curtain of the tabernacle; for God’s church and instituted religion are more precious to him and more considerable than all the rest of the world.4

Matthew Poole reasons that the additional detail was necessary here because man on his own could not deduce what was necessary to properly worship God:

the light of reason implanted in all men, gives him greater help in the discovery of moral and judicial things than in ceremonial matters, or in the external way and manner of God’s worship; which is a thing depending wholly upon God’s institution, and not left to man’s invention, which is a very incompetent judge of those things, as appears from hence, because the wittiest men, destitute of God’s revelation, have been guilty of most foolery in their devices of God’s worship.5

God's glory
A third explanation is that the detailed instructions ensured that the tabernacle best displayed God's glory.  Coffman writes:

Despite the fact of the tabernacle, where God would dwell (in a figure) with his people, being in essence a portable tent with an enclosure about it, its holiness was emphasized in the fact that only the choicest materials were to be used in its construction.6

Keil and Delitzsch argue that the specifics had to come from God, not man:

If the sanctuary was to answer its purpose, the erection of it could not be left to the inventive faculty of any man whatever, but must proceed from Him, who was there to manifest Himself to the nation, as the Holy One, in righteousness and grace.7

Young likewise sees the completed tabernacle as something that would cause the world to praise God:

These Israelites, when all was finished according to the pattern in the mount, had then something to show which would make an impression on men of the right sort in the outside world. Here was an answer to the question, "Where is now your God?" Visible he himself is not; but here is a dwelling-place not in anything constructed after art and man's device, but entirely of Divine direction. All our institutions are nothing unless we can trace them to the inspiration and control of God.8

Summary
Different Christians will tend to emphasize one or another of these views, at the expense of the others, but it seems likely that there is some truth to each of them.  Christians can usually agree that the tabernacle points to Christ, and that it indicates the importance of the worship and glory of God.

References

Pastoral Care 2.11
Homily 25
First Principles, Book 4
Complete Commentary
Annotations
Commentaries
Commentary
Pulpit Commentaries


How does the Swedenborgian Church interpret Psalm 110:1 and Mark 15:34?

Introduction: The metaphorical nature of the Bible
Here are two key principles in the method of Bible interpretation used and taught by Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772):

Within the literal meaning of the entirety of Swedenborg's canon of the Bible there is a spiritual meaning, accessed through a system of "correspondences" or particular symbolism of each person, place, object, and event in the literal meaning.
The literal meaning commonly speaks in terms of human and earthly appearances rather than the way things are in spiritual and divine reality. (See my article, "How God Speaks in the Bible to Us Boneheads.")

In particular, the Bible commonly speaks about God in terms of human concepts of space and time, directions such as right and left, and various personalities such as Moses, David, and Elijah. However, time and space are properties of the physical universe, whereas God is a divine being. Therefore any attribution to God of things such as "right hand" or "Son of David" or even "Son of God" are not speaking about literal spatial relations or about biological lineages, but are human appearances and metaphors used to describe various divine aspects of God.
The right hand of God
Although the Bible commonly speaks of God as having various human body parts, such as eyes, ears, nostrils, a right hand, and so on, it should be clear that the infinite core being of God, called "the Father" in the Bible, does not have a physical body or physical form as human beings do, such that someone could literally sit at God's right hand.
In the Bible, the right hand is commonly associated with power. For example:

Your right hand, O Lord, glorious in power—your right hand, O Lord, shattered the enemy. (Exodus 15:6)
Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, From now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Matthew 26:64)
"But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God." (Luke 22:69)
God put this power to work in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the age to come. (Ephesians 1:20–21)
He is the reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. (Hebrews 1:3–4)

Accordingly, Swedenborg interprets "the right hand of God" not as a literal right hand, but rather as God's omnipotent power. For example, in interpreting the opening verses of Psalm 110 and Jesus' quoting of it in Matthew 22:44, Mark 12:36, and Luke 20:42–43, Swedenborg writes:

Anyone who does not know that the expression "right hand," when used in reference to Jehovah, means almighty power will gather no other idea from these the Lord's words than that the Lord will sit on His Father's right hand and have dominion in the way that one sitting on a king's right hand on earth has. But the internal sense shows what one should understand in those places by "sitting at the right hand," namely God's almighty power. Hence also the expressions "sitting at the right hand of power" and "at the right hand of the power of God." (Arcana Coelestia #8281:2)

Jesus sitting at God's right hand
In Swedenborg's understanding of the Bible and of the nature of God, then, Jesus "sitting at the right hand of God [the Father]" does not mean one figure or person of God sitting to the right of another figure or person of God. Rather, it means God's core divine nature ("the Father") exercising its power through God's human nature ("the Son"); or another way of saying the same thing, God's divine love, or good, ("the Father") exercising its power through God's wisdom, or truth, ("the Son"). Swedenborg writes:

The fact that these statements [in Psalm 110:1-2, 5] refer to the Lord [Jesus Christ] is his own teaching in Matthew 22:44. His dominion over the hells is described there by "sitting at the right hand," for "the right hand" means the power that divine truth springing from divine good possesses. The hells and the evils and falsities coming from them are the enemies that were to be made as His footstool; they are also the enemies in whose midst he was to have dominion. (Arcana Coelestia #10019:5, links added)

And another commentary on Psalm 110 in the same work:

But since the declarations in this Psalm each contain secrets that have to do with the Lord's conflicts when he was in the world, and those secrets cannot be revealed without the internal sense, let a brief explanation of them be supplied. "Jehovah said to my Lord" means that the subject is the Lord when he was in the world. "Lord" here is used to mean the Lord's divine humanity, as is clear in Matthew 22:43-45; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42-44. "Sit at my right hand" means the almighty power of divine good, exercised through divine truth, the Lord being divine truth at that time, and divine truth being that with which he entered into and won the battle. For the meaning of "sitting at the right hand" as a state of power, and in reference to the Divine as almighty power, see Arcana Coelestia 3387, 4592, 4933, 6948, 7518, 7673, 8281, 9133; and the fact that all the power that good possesses is exercised through truth, Arcana Coelestia 6344, 6423, 8304, 9327, 9410, 9639, 9643. (Arcana Coelestia #9809:3, links added)

In other words, in Psalm 110:1, "Jehovah/the LORD" (Hebrew יְהוָה) refers to the Father, or God's core divine nature, which is divine love, while "to my Lord" (Hebrew לַֽאדֹנִי) refers to the Son, or God's human nature, which is divine truth, and was Jesus when he was incarnated in our world.
The command to "sit at my right hand," then, means that God's divine love acts through God's divine truth in accomplishing its victory over the power of the Devil, evil, and hell (which are synonymous in Swedenborg's theology). This phenomenon of the Father acting by means of the Son, who is divine truth, can be seen in various passages in the New Testament, such as:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. . . . And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son, full of grace and truth. . . . No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known. (John 1:1–5, 14, 18)
Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does the works. (John 14:10)
And Jesus came and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me." (Matthew 28:18)

So it is Swedenborg's teaching that everything done by the core divine being, which is divine love, and is called "the Father" in the New Testament, is done through the divine humanity, which is divine truth, and is called "the Son" in the New Testament. The Son "sitting at the right hand" of the Father is a metaphorical representation in human physical and spatial language of this relationship between God's core divinity and divine humanity, in which the one acts through the other to accomplish everything it does.
So in concrete terms Jesus sitting at the Father's right hand means God's omnipotence acting in and through God's human presence as Jesus Christ in the world and in the lives of individual human beings.
If there are not two (or three) "persons" of God, there is no question of an authority structure. Rather, it is simply the way the one God, who is the Lord God Jesus Christ, exercises omnipotent power from divine love through divine truth.
Jesus' cry on the cross
Jesus' cry on the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" (Mark 15:34) could be a whole separate question of its own, but here is the short version:
While Jesus was in the world, he had both an infinite divine nature from God and a finite human nature from Mary. During the course of his life on earth, his awareness alternated between those two parts of his being. And also during the course of his life on earth, through inner battles against the Devil, called "temptation" in the Bible, he gradually put away all of the finite human nature from his human mother and replaced it with a divine human nature that was God's divine humanity, or the glorified Jesus Christ.
The cross was Jesus' final battle against the Devil and the forces of evil. And when he cried, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" he was having his final experience of his conscious awareness being in the last remaining vestiges of his finite human nature from Mary, in which state he could feel separation from his inner divine nature, which was God.
When he rose from death, he left behind those last vestiges of that temporary finite human nature from Mary, and was at that point fully divine and fully one with the Father. For a fuller explanation of this, see my answer to the question, "How does the Swedenborgian Church explain passages where Jesus talks/prays to the Father?" (also linked in the question above).
He was also, of course, quoting the opening line of Psalm 22, a Psalm that tells metaphorically of Jesus' battle against and victory over the powers of evil—which is the exact task he was completing on the Cross.


Do Mormons believe that we currently live near the time when Jesus would return?

Yes, but let me qualify that at the end of my answer.

2 Nephi 25:7-8 teaches:

  [Nephi is speaking] But behold, I proceed with mine own prophecy
  … Wherefore, they are of worth unto the children of men, and he
  that supposeth that they are not, unto them will I speak particularly
  … for I know that they shall be of great worth unto them in the
  last days....

The Book of Mormon was specifically written for the last days or last dispensation of time.  From D&C 112:30:

  For unto you, the Twelve, and those, the First Presidency, who are
  appointed with you to be your counselors and your leaders, is the
  power of this priesthood given, for the last days and for the last
  time, in the which is the dispensation of the fulness of times....

The Book of Mormon contains a prophecy of one Zenos, describing the Lord's efforts to gather His people in the last days.  That prophecy is found primarily in Jacob 5, but from a summary in Jacob 6:2 we read:

  And the day that he shall set his hand again the second time to
  recover his people, is the day, yea, even the last time, that the
  servants of the Lord shall go forth in his power, to nourish and prune
  his vineyard; and after that the end soon cometh.

And we believe we are called to perform missionary work because this is the last time before the Second Coming when that can happen.  From D&C 43:28 we read:

  Wherefore, labor ye, labor ye in my vineyard for the last time—for the
  last time call upon the inhabitants of the earth.

So, yes, we believe we are living in the last days before our Lord's second coming.

HOWEVER…

We are strong believers in the Lord's disclaimer (Matthew 24:36):

  But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven,
  but my Father only.

Which is reiterated in D&C 39:21:

  For the time is at hand; the day or the hour no man knoweth; but it
  surely shall come.

We know these are the last days.  We do not believe anyone knows or can calculate when His coming will be.  Since we believe our Heavenly Father, His son Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are three separate individuals, we believe that Jesus' words as recorded in Matthew mean that even He (Jesus) does not know when He will return.  Only our Heavenly Father knows.

It is for this reason that LDS Church leaders teach we should basically live each day as if it were our last.  President Henry B. Eyring taught:

  The scriptures make the danger of delay clear. It is that we may
  discover that we have run out of time. The God who gives us each day
  as a treasure will require an accounting. We will weep, and He will
  weep, if we have intended to repent and to serve Him in tomorrows
  which never came or have dreamt of yesterdays where the opportunity to
  act was past. This day is a precious gift of God. The thought “Someday
  I will” can be a thief of the opportunities of time and the blessings
  of eternity.

Finally, please note there are many verses in the Book of Mormon and the book of Doctrine and Covenants that support this belief.  I've provided only a fraction of them here.


How did Calvin view the use of religious icons to facilitate worship of God?

It does not take much research at all to find out the great offense that many reformers took in the use of religious icons in worship.  They viewed it as nothing less than idolatry.

Calvin dedicated a section of his Institutes to explain how this idolatry, though originally opposed by ancient church Fathers (he argues), became an established sin in the church.  For example here Calvin establishes some history of his own to work with.

  Augustine distinctly declares, that it is unlawful not only to worship images, but to dedicate them. And in this he says no more than had been long before decreed by the Libertine Council, the thirty-sixth Canon of which is, "There must be no pictures used in churches: Let nothing which is adored or worshipped be painted on walls. (Calvin's Institutes Book 1, CH 11 - IMPIETY OF ATTRIBUTING A VISIBLE FORM TO GOD. —THE SETTING UP OF IDOLS A DEFECTION FROM THE TRUE GOD)

Clearly, even from the title of the section, Calvin had a problem with the use of images in the worshipping of God.


What is meant by a new heaven and new earth?

Because the Father is said to be in heaven, in the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:9) and elsewhere. And in John 14:2 Jesus says:

  In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Thus it is rather reasonably assumed that Jesus went to prepare us a place in heaven itself.

Also Matthew's constant use of the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" plays a part in this, as probably does 1 Thess 4:17 "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

And because those who die before the New Jerusalem descends from the New Heaven to the New Earth in the book of Revelation, are probably in heaven in the meantime.  In Revelation itself, John places Christian martyrs in heaven by stating they are "under the altar" in heaven. (Revelation 6:9)

Also, Jude 1:14 "...Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,...."  but cometh from where?  2 Thess 1:7 "And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,..."   So that would indicate these ten thousands of saints are with him in heaven prior to his second coming.


From where does the tradition come that Mary rode on a donkey to Bethlehem prior to the birth of Jesus?

The Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal Gospel probably written about AD 145, Says that Joseph used a donkey to bring Mary to Bethlehem

The day of the Lord shall itself bring it to pass as the Lord will. And he saddled the ass, and set her upon it; and his son led it, and Joseph followed.
Protoevangelium of James:17

So we know, that from very early times, Christians had the image of Mary riding a donkey to Bethlehem before Christmas.

Why not walking?
The distance from Nazareth to Bethlehem is 70-80 miles. A fit man can travel perhaps 20 miles a day. Normally it would take about 4 days to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem (assuming travel only during day time). Some Christians say that Joseph was a older man, and also as per tradition Mary was heavily pregnant and so she could not walk this long distance. There is fear of miscarriage too. This makes the journey longer than normal.

Samaria lay between Galilee and Judea which had Bethlehem in it.See map There was much ill feeling between the Samaritans and the Jews.John 4:9 Any lone traveler crossing from Galilee into Samaria would be at risk of not receiving any lodgings or any other type of assistance on the journey. The family would have had to travel east, cross over into modern-day Jordan and then travel south on the eastern side of the Jordan River, before crossing back into Judea. This makes the journey much longer.
Could she have used a different ways of transportation like a camel?
Common means of transportation in those times other than walking were donkey (ass), camel, horse, cart drawn by horse or donkey.
I personally don't see a women in her late stages of pregnancy, riding a camel. That would be too difficult. I am not a doctor, but I don't think it would be good for that child too. We also see that people using donkey when they are not in a position to walk like in the parable of the good SamaritanLuke 10:34
Some people say St. Joseph was very poor and could not have afforded a donkey. I personally disagree. St. Joseph was not rich, but he was also not so poor that he could not have afforded to borrow a donkey for his pregnant wife. He was a carpenter, he had a job.
So to answer your question why it is assumed almost universally, I think it is common sense.


How would a Reformed theologian distinguish his or her view of atonement?

This is not my personal answer, as to what I believe, but rather what I am coming to understand about the difference in views with regard to the extent of the atonement.

I found two excellent summaries.

The first is in favor of the term 'limited atonement' and the concepts behind it.  It is written from a "modern reformation" perspective which I suspect holds to 5-point Calvinism.

The second is from a 4-point Calvinist position which rejects the language and concept of 'limited atonement."  As these views are the closest I have found, with this one difference, I thought it would be worth posting the links for these articles here.

From the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals:
"Limited vs. Unlimited Atonement" Rev. Richard Phillips (chair of the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology and senior pastor at Second Presbyterian Church in Greenville, S.C.)

https://www.oneplace.com/ministries/alliance-of-confessing-evangelicals/read/articles/limited-vs-unlimited-atonement-10721.html

From Reasong from the Scriptures Ministries
"The Extent of the Atonement: Limited Atonement Versus Unlimited Atonement"  Ron Rhodes
http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Atonement.html


What is the basis for "Church Shopping"?

Although it is granted that there are some Protestants that engage in a practice of "Church Shopping", it is somewhat tendentious to assert that "Church Shopping" is actually a "Tradition" within Protestantism (particularly from a Catholic interlocutor given their particular semantic usage of the term).

The fact is, that many Protestant churches actively discourage "Church shopping" (in its usual perjorative sense) because at its heart it violates the Scriptural principle  inherent in Hebrews 13:17a -

  Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account.

A consumer mentality does not submit itself to godly leadership, rather it places confidence in itself as the ultimate arbiter of what is beneficial. Consequently, most Protestant Churches see "Church Shopping" in a poor light - those who engage in it often do so against denominational guidelines distilled from scriptural principles (eg the practices of writing a commendation, or sending off with a blessing).

That said, there are certainly legitimate circumstances that will lead Protestants of good faith and clear conscience to judiciously choose a new congregation that can be justified on a biblical basis (whether this is still called "Church Shopping" or not, is often in the eye of the beholder):

 1. Geographic Relocation

Most people will see this one as common sense: Protestants may have some denominational loyalty, but if they are relocating beyond reasonable commuting distance, they will be looking for a new congregation to attend and their criteria for choosing a church in a new location may have more to do with other factors. It is not unusual for relocators to visit a few different congregations in their new locality to weigh up these various factors and make a considered choice. This kind of choice is simply not explicitly addressed in Scripture, however examining the character of the different churches addressed in Revelation 2 & 3 gives one a sense that it is non-trivial - the nearest congregation (that isn't disqualified under criteria 2 & 3 below) may not be the best option.

 2. Corrupt Leadership

If the conditional clause in the afore-quoted verse from Hebrews ("because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account"), does not actually hold true in a particular instance, then believers are not bound to follow those who style themselves as leaders in the church but are not themselves submitted to Christ. They are instead encouraged to only follow those who are themselves following the Lord:

  Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. - the Apostle Paul , 1 Corinthians 11:1 NIV (emphasis added)

The Scriptures detail not just the possibility, but the inevitability of "false shepherds", "lying prophets", "false brethren" & "antichrists" and in the context of the new covenant, the "sheep" are by no means obliged to follow any of these, but are instead to be lead by the Lord himself to "go out and find pasture":

  1 “Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. 2 The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5 But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.” 6 Jesus used this figure of speech, but the Pharisees did not understand what he was telling them.

  7 Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. 8 All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them. 9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. - John 10:1-10 NIV (emphasis added)

From this, it should be patently obvious that if those who call the sheep to follow them (ie they purport to be leaders within the Church), have not themselves come through Christ and are not acting in accordance with his nature to bring life to the sheep, but instead act to steal, kill or destroy them according to the nature of "the thief"; then true sheep will not be following them at all.

  If you think you're leading and no one is following you, then you're only taking a walk. - Afghan proverb

3. "Significant" Disagreement With Leadership

"Significant" is a pretty subjective term, but a common application of Amos 3:3 -

  Do two walk together
      unless they have agreed to do so?

within Protestant circles, is that it is quite legitimate to seek an alternative congregation to attend when it becomes apparant that disagreements over matters of deep conviction are unresolvable.


Is Genesis 18 regarded as a Theophany of the Trinity by any denomination?

According to Augustine, it seems, he interpreted the three men in Genesis 18 as The Trinity God appearing in human form, hence the three men.

On the Trinity (Book II) - Chapter 10

  But under the oak at Mamre he saw three men, whom he invited, and
  hospitably received, and ministered to them as they feasted. Yet
  Scripture at the beginning of that narrative does not say, three men appeared to him, but, "The Lord appeared to him." And then, setting
  forth in due order after what manner the Lord appeared to him, it has
  added the account of the three men, whom Abraham invites to his
  hospitality in the plural number, and afterwards speaks to them in the
  singular number as one; and as one He promises him a son by Sara, viz.
  the one whom the Scripture calls Lord, as in the beginning of the same
  narrative, "The Lord," it says, "appeared to Abraham." He invites them
  then, and washes their feet, and leads them forth at their departure,
  as though they were men; but he speaks as with the Lord God, whether
  when a son is promised to him, or when the destruction is shown to him
  that was impending over Sodom.

Genesis 18 is taken seriously by many Trinitarians to prove that Trinity is mentioned in the Old Testament. The language used in Genesis 18 is vague and subjected to many interpretations. This has to be one of the most debated passages of all time. Non-Trinitarians and even some Trinitarians understand this as "God and two angels". However, as a Trinitarian, I prefer to believe that it was The Trinity who visited Abraham.

Explanation why the two men were not merely angels

Genesis 19 called the two men as angels. However, as the language here is vague, it seems the two angels were also the Lord(or Lords). For they said "we are going to destroy this place" and then later the Bible says "God destroyed the cities".

  (Genesis 19, NIV)

  (1) The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in
  the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and
  bowed down with his face to the ground.

  (12) The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law,
  sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get
  them out of here, (13) because we are going to destroy this place.
  The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent
  us to destroy it.”

  (24) Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and
  Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens.

  (29) So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered
  Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the
  cities where Lot had lived.


Which biblical verse was used against Galileo

Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentricity, and by Galileo’s time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view. Many people believe wrongly that Galileo proved the heliocentricity. Galileo could not answer the strongest argument against the heliocentric theory, which was made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: i.e. if heliocentricity were true then there would be observable parallax shifts in stars’ positions as the earth, moved in its orbit around the sun. In absence of a valid argument even Copernicus refrained from publishing his heliocentric theory for some time out of fear of ridicule from his colleagues. However given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. It would require more sensitive measuring equipments than was available in Galileo’s day to document the existence of shifts, given the stars’ great distance.  Until then the available evidence suggested that the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space ---only the sun, moon and planets were.

Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as a truth. Even so Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.

So yes. The verses quoted by David in his answer were used against Galileo precisely because of his inability to answer the strongest argument against the heliocentricity and because he attempt to move the debate onto theological grounds.

Unfortunately throughout the Church history there have been those who insist on reading the Bible in a more literal sense than it was intended. They fail to appreciate, for example, instances in which Scripture uses what is called “phenomenological” language---that is, the language of appearances. Just as we today speak of the sun rising and setting to cause day and night, rather than the earth turning, so did the ancients. From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to rise and set, and the earth appears to be immobile. When we describe these things according to their appearances, we are using phenomenological language. The phenomenological language concerning motions of the heavens and the non-motion of the earth is obvious to us today but was less so in previous centuries when the scientific discoveries were primitive.

Contrary to general belief, Church has supported scientific endeavours for centuries. During Galileo’s time, the Jesuits had a highly respected group of astronomers and scientist in Rome. Many of the scientific advances during this period were made either by clerics or as a result of Church funding. Ten years prior to Galileo. Johannes Kepler published a heliocentric work that expanded on Copernicus’ work and found a welcome reception among some Jesuits who were known for their scientific achievements.

Scripture scholars of the past were willing to consider whether particular statements were to be taken literally or phenomenologically, but they did not like being told by a non-Scriptural scholar such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must be taken in a particular sense.


Is it immoral to allow children to believe in Santa Claus?

This is not the entire answer, however, I'd like to give you a perspective that may inform the answer. I grew up in a Christian home, where Santa Clause was forbidden, whereas my wife grew up in a Christian home where Santa Clause was a celebrated and beloved part of the holiday.

When I read you question, I could almost here the voice of my mother speaking it. All of the reasons you gave were the reasons that they gave me for not believing. Beyond that (and implicit in your question I think), they also thought that if you were disillusioned of the fantasy of S.C. then you would be more easily disillusioned of your belief in God. Perhaps that was bit of what they experienced growing up, though their parents were not particularly religious.

My experience as a child was One of increasing apprehension and extreme burden carrying the HUGE weight of a terrible secret that I could not let any of my friends in on. I really cannot express the horror I felt, after carrying that burden for so long when inevitably my peers began to find out and started 'letting the cat out of the bag' to the other kids. I have vivid recollections to this day of Christmases in the 2nd and 3rd grade when this was happening.

It may be that not every kid is going to react that way, and I have no doubt it totally depends on the personality of individual kids. However, in my case, I believe it lead to a kind of resentment of parents having to carry around the burden of (what I began to think of, at the time, very young) as my parent's increasingly unfounded faith. When other kids got excited about Halloween candy and costume, I had to look forward to was a night with the lights outs, hearing the doorbell ring and hiding, whilst my mom wold sneak a peek out the window and bad mouthing the parents of any kids she happened to recognize. I spent Christmas hoping my parents would not catch me watching the S.C. history channel special when it aired on the TV, and tip toeing around the question, 'what is S.C. bringing you for Christmas?'. The answer by the way, was 'nothing, I don't believe in S.C.' when an adult ask me in front of my parents, to the considerable shock of the asker, the pride of my parents and the embarrassment of myself. And if another kid ask me at school, the answer was the same as any normal kid. Notice how the burden of my parents having to tell a lie, shifted to me (the child) having to lie? I doubt my parents wanted to field the calls from an upset teacher (or a mad parent) any more than I wanted to reveal the terrible secret.

Long story short, I realized in my mid teens that I did not believe in God, and only came to faith much later. How much did this aspect in my upbringing influence this sad part of my life? I couldn't say, probably not heavily, but certainly was part the entire package of life experiences that lead me down the wrong path.

My wife grew up in believing in S.C. until one day she figured it out, but kept up pretenses for the sake of her parents and younger brother. She never wavered in her faith, and is a extremely devoted Christian to this day.

So all of that doesn't really answer your question. What should the Christian response be here? Certainly, the will of God overrides whatever embarrassment or discomfort that you, or your kids might feel because of it.

Romans 12:2 - NIV
Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.

I think most Christian ethicists would agree that, as you said, telling some something that is not the truth, for what ever reason, is still a lie, and therefor a sin. I believe that Augustine says that telling an untruth, even if you believe it to be the truth, is still a sin.

So I am genuinely conflicted. I have read Mark Driscoll's article here (http://marshill.com/2010/12/13/what-we-tell-our-kids-about-santa-pastor-mark-for-the-washington-post) where he managed to find some middle ground. It is worth a read for sure. He suggest redeeming SC, telling the child he is real, in a way, through the person of St. Nick, and downplaying the commercialism that is so endemic around the celebration of the birth of Christ. At the same time it allows the child to participate in Santa as part of Christmas celebration, but the parent is being truthful at the same time.


What is the biblical basis for believing in the Book of Mormon?

Cwallenpoole made it clear, that the Bible, as we have it today, is not complete. If one is not careful, it is easy to run into a negative evidence fallacy by supposing that simply because the Bible doesn't mention something, that something must be false. (That would be like saying "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is false because that Name is never mentioned in the Old Testament.)

Before I also attempt to answer your question, let me prelude with a disclaimer: most members of the LDS church will hesitate to show "proof" or even "evidence" of the Book of Mormon's truthfulness, for the very existence of the Book itself is evidence of what is known as the Restoration, which is the fulfillment of prophecies concerning the dispensation of the fulness of times (the days before the Second Coming in which the Lord would send prophets to the earth again after a falling away first).

Mormons will remind anyone that the only way to truly believe in the Book of Mormon, or have a testimony of its truthfulness, is not by scholarly study, but by reading it and praying to ask God if it is true, and that an answer will come by the Holy Ghost.

So with that in mind, the following verses (in addition to those I've linked to) should be instructive. Keep in mind that while many people interpret these verses in many ways, this is one way the LDS population understands them:

Ezekiel 37:15-23 (The Stick of Judah and the Stick of Joseph. The Stick of Judah is written by Jews, in other words, is the Bible. The Stick of Joseph is the Book of Mormon, written by descendants of Joseph. More details about the sticks here.)
Isaiah 29:4,11-14 (A voice out of the dust. The Book of Mormon was buried for centuries until it came out of the ground and was translated. Because it is the same gospel that Christ teaches from the Bible, it is a familiar voice. Also, a vision of a sealed book taken to a learned man, and an unlearned man that could not read them. Plus the transcript of Joseph Smith's First Vision experience in 1820. These were fulfilled as recorded in JS-H 1:11-26,63-65.)
Ezekiel 17:22-23. (The highest branch of the high cedar is the royal family of Israel; the young twigs are the children, and the tender one is a man named Mulek, son of Zedekiah, who actually escaped and was led to the Americas. Lehi's group had already left Jerusalem, and later we learn that Mulek's group joined the Nephite nation.)
John 10:16. (Jesus refers to "other sheep" which would hear His voice. True, the gospel later did go to the Gentiles, but they heard the voice of His prophets and apostles, not His voice directly. These are the people of the Americas, and others. This is made clear in the Book of Mormon, where Jesus visited and ministered to them personally, established His Church on the American continent, and ordained prophets and disciples there, fulfilling all sorts of prophecies.)
Revelation 14:6-7. (An angel flying in the midst of heaven that had the everlasting gospel. This was Moroni, who buried the Book of Mormon, who later as a resurrected being, brought forth the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith to go forth to all the earth.)
Amos 3:7. (Why would inhabitants of the American continent not have the gospel, if God loves all His children and wants them to know of His Son? So, God at least probably called prophets in America and they obviously prophesied. God's works are without end and His words never cease, so that God's canon of scripture is closed would not be logical, at best.)
Isaiah 5:26-27. (An ensign, or standard, would be lifted up to all nations to gather Israel before the Lord's coming.)

There are others. This list is not comprehensive, but I hope others will add to this as is proper.

The Bible and the Book of Mormon support each other. The Book of Mormon supports what the Bible says. All the prophets since the world began (including those in the Book of Mormon) knew there would be an apostasy of the Christian church in the New Testament and that God would set his hand a second time to recover His people. For example, see 2 Nephi, chapters: 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33, and Mormon 7:8-10 are a few, although the doctrine of Christ's mercy and Atonement is found all throughout the entire book.

Of particular interest is 1 Nephi 13 (especially the second half of the chapter) which discusses Nephi's vision of the settling of colonial America, the coming of Christians from Europe, and the introduction of the Bible ("which proceedeth forth from the mouth of a Jew") among the Native Americans, that it is holy and true, but that many plain and precious parts are actually missing.

So, I add these references to the Book of Mormon because they should help support the Bible references mentioned here that help to directly answer your question.

Finally, the notion of "infallibility" in scripture is misleading, because while God does inspire true scripture, imperfect but holy men write it down.

From the Title Page of the Book of Mormon (emphasis added):

  ... Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.


Why do 21st century Protestants still not include the deuterocanonical books in the canon?

Because Protestants do not believe that the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ have borne witness to them that those texts are inspired scripture.

The Westminster Confession (1646) has a fascinating paragraph where it lists off many of the characteristics that set scripture apart from other writings, before dismissing them all to say that the ultimate reason we are persuaded that the scriptures are inspired is the inward work of the Holy Spirit and Christ in the lives of believers, witnessing to us.

  WCF 1.5: We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture;
   and the heavenliness of the matter,
   the efficacy of the doctrine,
   the majesty of the style,
   the consent of all the parts,
   the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God),
   the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation,
   the many other incomparable excellencies,
   and the entire perfection thereof,
  are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God;
  yet, notwithstanding,
  our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof,
   is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit,
   bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

The same idea is present in the Belgic Confession (1559):

  Article 5: We receive all these books and these only as holy and canonical,
  for the regulating, founding, and establishing of our faith.

  And we believe without a doubt all things contained in them—
  not so much because the church receives and approves them as such
  but above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God,
  and also because they prove themselves to be from God.

  For even the blind themselves are able to see that the things predicted in them do happen.

Now of course as sinful humans we can ignore the work of the Spirit and Christ. But let's consider another example of an issue where I think the Spirit is surely trying to convince the Church about the truth of a matter: infant baptism. For centuries Protestantism has been divided over whether or not infant baptism is a good practice. Individual Christians sometimes switch from one camp to the other, in part I'm sure because of the work of God. It is the Spirit who helps us interpret the scriptures (WCF 1.6) and yet we have not come to an agreement over what the scriptures teach about baptism. Is that because we hold too tightly to our traditions to hear what the Spirit is saying? Perhaps for some people, but for others it appears that, if they are switching camp from falsehood to truth (whichever direction that really is), they are heeding the voice of the Spirit.

What about for the canon? There is no major group of Protestants who believe the dueterocanon is inspired, there is not even a minor group. I can't even think of any notable individuals who have said this. Over five centuries have hundreds of millions, possible billions, of Protestants all tuned out the Spirit's witness to the authority and inspiration of those texts? That does not seem plausible to me. We know that the Spirit has been a witness to the authority of the scriptures because we Protestants fully recognise James as scripture despite our founder Luther's reticence to do so. Instead I must conclude that the Spirit has not been witnessing because those texts are not inspired.


Moral implications of heaven and hell doctrine

The answer to your question "Isn't this a reductio ad absurdum, showing that the heaven/hell doctrine provides for no moral incentives for unbelievers to act good without Christian belief?" is (essentially) yes.

Christianity is more than doing good to others. That is the second commandment of the law. The first and greatest is to love God. (Matthew 22:36-40).

Hosea 6:6

  For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

This may run contrary to your notion of "good", but be that as it may, Christianity holds faith in God as necessary to true goodness, or righteousness.

Hebrews 11:4

  By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain...

It wasn't because of his wisdom, charity, wit, etc. that Abel's offering was more excellent; it was because of his faith (in God).

That said, this statement is a bit leading to a Christian: "No matter how good an unbeliever behaves [he gets] the same exact fate."

The fallacy here, is the possibility people can be very "good" but choose to reject Jesus (and by extension, God himself).

All good comes from God. And therefore, good things acknowledge and worship God.

James 1:17

  Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Likewise, those who truly love and worship God are good.

John 4:19

  If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.

Now, it is important to remember than spoken belief (e.g. "I murder and have no remose, yet I believe in God") is not equivalent to true faith.

Matthew 7:22-23

  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Thus, true faith in God and true goodness, according to Christian belief are not separable. Of course, not all are taught Jesus, or at least not fully. There are several questions about the fate of the ignorant. (1) (2)


What is the Catholic Church's position on the scientific theory of evolution?

A quick Google search provides a link indicating there is (perhaps intentionally) no official authoritative declaration on the subject, leaving "no burden upon conscience".

To quote,

  [The advantage of Catholics] lies in the simple fact that they do not have to decide either for Evolution or against it.  Authority has not spoken on the subject; hence it puts no burden upon conscience, and may be discussed realistically and without prejudice.  A certain wariness, of course, is necessary.  I say that authority has not spoken; it may, however, speak tomorrow, and so the prudent man remembers his step.  But in the meanwhile there is nothing to prevent him examining all available facts, and even offering arguments in support of them or against them—so long as those arguments are not presented as dogma.  (STJ, 163)

And, again, referencing Pope Pius in the 1950s,

  In other words, the Pope could live with evolution, so long as the process of “ensouling” humans was left to God.  (He also insisted on a role for Adam, whom he believed committed a sin— mysteriously passed along through the “doctrine of original sin”—that has affected all subsequent generations.) Pius XII cautioned, however, that he considered the jury still out on the question of evolution’s validity.  It should not be accepted, without more evidence, “as though it were a certain proven doctrine.”  (ROA, 81)


What is the Holy See and when is it appropriate to use this term?

The pope is generally not called the Holy See, he is the bishop of the Holy See. The pope lives in the Papal Apartments located in Vatican City, and has a summer residence in Castel Gandolfo.

The pope is what we call the successor of St Peter: he is the bishop of a very old diocese (or "see", or "seat") called the Holy See. As its bishop, he has jurisdiction over that diocese. But because the pope has "primacy", he also has a certain kind of jurisdiction over the entire universal Church.
Vatican City is a sovereign city-state, established in 1929 and located inside the city of Rome. It is one of only three city-states today; Athens and Sparta are well-known ancient examples. Its ruler is the pope.
The Holy See is the diocese of the pope. It is also called the See of Saint Peter, the Apostolic See, and the Diocese of Rome. Its territory includes both Rome and Vatican City. This is an important diocese because it is the diocese of the pope, assisted by the Roman Curia (the Court of Rome), who together form the main governing body of the Church. The Holy See is a sovereign entity.

The Holy See is a sovereign entity, but is not a nation: it is a diocese that has universal jurisdiction. The territory of any diocese aligns with national/political borders only for practical reasons. If a church building were able to separate its church grounds from its country, it might become a sovereign state, but it would still be a part of its diocese, under the authority of its bishop.

When someone says "the Vatican" they might be talking about either the Holy See or Vatican City. Note the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Holy See, part of which says:

  [...] We can thus readily understand how Holy See came be the technical term for the pope, the central ecclesiastical government, and the actual abode of the same.

It is probably best not to copy this potentially confusing practice (see synecdoche).

For more information see the section on jurisdiction in the Hierarchy article, and the article on the Pope.


When did the practice of bringing non-believers to church originate?

This practice is mentioned in the New Testament, specifically in 1 Corinthians 14:

  23So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, 25as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”

This is clearly talking about how believers ought to behave in a worship setting, for the sake of unbelievers, so it is assumed that unbelievers will, at least at times, be present at the believers' worship gatherings.


Is it true that no post-apostolic theologians before St. Augustine believed in Eternal Security / Assurance of Salvation?

The answer seems to be NO.  It looks like that a lot of early church fathers taught the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints.  Of course they may not call it by that name, or by "Once saved always saved" label (after we translated their writings from Latin / Greek into English), but according to Rev C. Matthew McMahon whose Th.D dissertation is titled Augustine's Calvinism: The Doctrines of Grace in Augustine's Writings, many church fathers taught the doctrine, as shown from a blog article he wrote Did the Early Church Believe the Doctrines of Grace? which contains nicely formatted quotes tagged with the related Calvinist Doctrine.
For example, you can easily see quotes related to the Perseverance of the Saints by doing a web page search for "(Per.)" which yield 15 matches such as:

Clemens Romanus, AD 69: (Per.) “Whereas it is the will of God, that all whom he loves should partake of repentance, and so not perish with the unbelieving and impenitent, he has established it by his almighty will.’ But if any of those whom God wills should partake of the grace of repentance, should afterwards perish, where is his almighty will? And how is this matter settled and established by such a will of his?” (Ep. 1, ad Cor. p. 20).
Irenaeus, AD 180: (Per.) Concerning Christians, “but the Spirit encompasses man within and without, as always abiding, and never leaves him,” (Iren. adv. Haeres. 1. 5, c. 12, p. 450; vide Fragm. Graec. ad Calcem Ireuaei.).
Tertullian, AD 200: (Per.) Tertullian asserts, that the work of God cannot be lost, extinguished, or cease; “for what is of God is not so extinguished, as it is overshadowed; for it may be overshadowed,, because it is not God;. it cannot be extinguished, because it is of God,” (de Anima, c. 4,1, p. 342.).
etc.

The quotes themselves came from Michael Horton's 2011 book Putting Amazing Back Into Grace: Embracing the Heart of the Gospel.


Why must God reach the fullness of Glory (reformed theology)?

Let me answer a few of your side-concerns before I get to your main question.

Reformed theology stresses that God created the universe for one purpose:    to glorify him fully

I'm not certain how you're using the phrase "glorify him fully", but it could be interpreted to mean that God felt that he wasn't being glorified enough prior to creation, and therefore created the universe and ordained all events so that in the end he could finally get the glory he had been missing.

That may not be what you're saying at all, but let me just clear it up in case you're wondering about that.  Here's John Piper:

  This is why God created the world — “that he may be glorified.” Which does not mean:
  “that he may be made glorious.” Don’t take the word “glorify” and treat it like the
  word “beautify.” To beautify means to take a plain room and make it beautiful. We
  don’t take a plain God and make him beautiful. That is not what glorifying God means.

  When God created the world he did not create out of any need or any weakness or any
  deficiency. He created out of fullness and strength and complete sufficiency. As
  Jonathan Edwards said, “Tis no argument of the emptiness or deficiency of a fountain
  that it is inclined to overflow” (Yale: Works, Vol. 8, 448). So we don’t glorify God
  by improving his glory, but by seeing and savoring and showing his glory (which is the
  same as knowing, loving, showing).

and Jonathan Edwards:

  [Nothing would] imply any indigence, insufficiency, and mutability in God; or any dependence of the Creator on the creature, for any part of his perfection or happiness. Because it is evident, by both Scripture and reason, that God is infinitely, eternally, unchangeably, and independently glorious and happy: that he cannot be profited by, or receive anything from, the creature; or be the subject of any sufferings, or diminution of his glory and felicity, from any other being.

The theology makes God out to be self-obsessed.

Self-love is an ugly thing in sinful creatures.  But consider who God is.  He's the most perfect, wonderful, pure, holy, sinless, morally good, and valuable being in existence.  And for that reason, it is completely appropriate for God to love himself above everything else.

When you and I act in a humble, self-deprecating manner, we are acting in a way appropriate to our sinful nature.  But there is no cause for God to be humble or self-deprecating - in fact, it would be entirely inappropriate for him to act as if there was anything higher, greater or more praiseworthy than himself.  Since there is nothing more glorious than God, nothing should receive greater praise than God...  including from God himself.
Now, to answer your question, it is correct to say that God created the universe for his own glory--that is, to receive recognition, honor, and delight from mankind.  From your question it sounds like you already agree that the Bible makes that clear, so I won't focus on proving that.  If you'd like to see that in the Bible, try passages like Isaiah 43:6-7, Ephesians 1:5-6, Isaiah 40:4-5, Romans 1:20-21, and Philippians 1:20.  I can give you more if that would be helpful.

But where many people go wrong is in assuming that God acts like a narcissistic dictator, demanding worship from people who are either groveling slaves or simpering sycophants, and smiting them in wrath if they don't.  But that's not the right way to think of God's glory at all.  Here's Sereno Dwight, writing about Jonathan Edwards:

  From the purest principles of reason, as well as from the fountain of revealed truth, he demonstrates that the chief and ultimate end of the Supreme Being, in the works of creation and providence, was the manifestation of his own glory in the highest happiness of his creatures.

John Piper, who I've quoted before and is one of the pre-eminant reformed pastors of our day, has centered his life's work on this realization that God's glory has a direct bearing on our happiness.  His most famous statement, and the underpining of "Desiring God Ministries" is:

  God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him .

One last quote on this from Jonathan Edwards:

  God in seeking his glory seeks the good of his creatures, because the emanation of his glory... implies the... happiness of his creatures. And in communicating his fullness for them, he does it for himself, because their good, which he seeks, is so much in union and communion with himself. God is their good. Their excellency and happiness is nothing but the emanation and expression of God’s glory. God, in seeking their glory and happiness, seeks himself, and in seeking himself, i.e. himself diffused... he seeks their glory and happiness.

  Thus it is easy to conceive how God should seek the good of the creature... even his happiness, from a supreme regard to himself; as his happiness arises from... the creature’s exercising a supreme regard to God... in beholding God’s glory, in esteeming and loving it, and rejoicing in it.

One of the implications of this is that refusing to seek the glory of God is not only sinful in the light of who God is - it is self-destructive of a person's own happiness.

  Be appalled, O heavens, at this; be shocked, be utterly desolate, declares the LORD,
  for my people have committed two evils:
  they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters,
  and hewed out cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns that can hold no water. (Jeremiah 2:12-13)

So to conclude, the Bible teaches that God's glory -- the praising and honoring of the greatest being imaginable -- is the very basis for human happiness.  Therefore in creating the universe for his own glory, God gives the greatest gift to those who glorify him - the gift of himself.  God's didn't create the world because he needed our praise.  Rather, he is completely satisfied and delighted in himself, and in the overflow of his delight he created us so that we too could glorify him, be delighted in him, and find in him our greatest happiness and satisfaction.  The most loving thing God can ever do for a person is to give that person a sense of God's own infinite worth.

Here are some references.  I highly commend the first one two you.  If you prefer to jump straight to some of the objections that could be raised against God seeking to glorify himself, you might want to go right to page 162.

God's Passion For His Glory
(the free PDF link is under the book cover)

Why Did God Create the World?

How Does It Glorify God to Predestine People to Hell?

Is God a Monster?

God Wants to Show His Wrath (Romans 9:22–23, Part 1)

The Ultimate Purpose of the Universe (Romans 9:22-23, Part 2)


What are the traditional reasons ascribed to why God saw it fit that Jesus be born of a virgin?

In the Catholic Encyclopedia you can find a thorough historical and theological analysis (up until 1912 at least) of the development of the virgin birth doctrine/belief, including a list of early church fathers that wrote on the topic. The list is (for links to authors/text, see website):

St. Irenaeus (III, 21; see Eusebius, Church History V.8),
Origen (Adv. Cels., I, 35),
Tertullian (Adv. Marcion., III, 13; Adv. Judæos, IX),
St. Justin (Dialogue with Trypho 84),
St. John Chrysostom (Hom. v in Matth., n. 3; in Isa., VII, n. 5);
St. Epiphanius (Hær., xxviii, n. 7),
Eusebius (Demonstrat. ev., VIII, i),
Rufinus (Lib. fid., 43),
St. Basil (in Isa., vii, 14; Hom. in S. Generat. Christi, n. 4, if St. Basil be the author of these two passages),
St. Jerome and Theodoretus (in Isa., vii, 14),
St. Isidore (Adv. Judæos, I, x, n. 3),
St. Ildefonsus (De perpetua virginit. s. Mariæ, iii).
St. Jerome devotes his entire treatise against Helvidius to the perpetual virginity of Our Blessed Lady (see especially nos. 4, 13, 18).

In effect, several sects and individuals arose in the first centuries denying the virginal birth of Jesus. For example, (some of the) Ebionites and Cerinthus. Against them wrote the early father St. Irenaeus of Lyons in his book Against heresies (the first on in the list above). In Chapter 21 of Book III, for example, he states (emphasis mine):

But what Isaiah said, "From the height above, or from the depth beneath," Isaiah 7:11 was meant to indicate, that "He who descended was the same also who ascended." Ephesians 4:10 But in this that he said, "The Lord Himself shall give you a sign," he declared an unlooked-for thing with regard to His generation, which could have been accomplished in no other way than by God the Lord of all, God Himself giving a sign in the house of David. For what great thing or what sign should have been in this, that a young woman conceiving by a man should bring forth — a thing which happens to all women that produce offspring? But since an unlooked-for salvation was to be provided for men through the help of God, so also was the unlooked-for birth from a virgin accomplished; God giving this sign, but man not working it out.

Later on, he says (emphasis mine):

And as the protoplast himself Adam, had his substance from untilled and as yet virgin soil ("for God had not yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground" Genesis 2:5), and was formed by the hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for "all things were made by Him," John 1:3 and the Lord took dust from the earth and formed man; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up Adam [into Himself], from Mary, who was as yet a virgin. If, then, the first Adam had a man for his father, and was born of human seed, it were reasonable to say that the second Adam was begotten of Joseph. But if the former was taken from the dust, and God was his Maker, it was incumbent that the latter also, making a recapitulation in Himself, should be formed as man by God, to have an analogy with the former as respects His origin. Why, then, did not God again take dust, but wrought so that the formation should be made of Mary? It was that there might not be another formation called into being, nor any other which should [require to] be saved, but that the very same formation should be summed up [in Christ as had existed in Adam], the analogy having been preserved.

Although not an Early Church father, St. Thomas Aquinas deals with this very directly in his Summa Theologicae, quoting Agustine in a few paragraphs:

It is fitting for four reasons that Christ should be born of a virgin. First, in order to maintain the dignity or the Father Who sent Him. For since Christ is the true and natural Son of God, it was not fitting that He should have another father than God: lest the dignity belonging to God be transferred to another.
Secondly, this was befitting to a property of the Son Himself, Who is sent. For He is the Word of God: and the word is conceived without any interior corruption: indeed, interior corruption is incompatible with perfect conception of the word. Since therefore flesh was so assumed by the Word of God, as to be the flesh of the Word of God, it was fitting that it also should be conceived without corruption of the mother.
Thirdly, this was befitting to the dignity of Christ's humanity in which there could be no sin, since by it the sin of the world was taken away, according to John 1:29: "Behold the Lamb of God" (i.e. the Lamb without stain) "who taketh away the sin of the world." Now it was not possible in a nature already corrupt, for flesh to be born from sexual intercourse without incurring the infection of original sin. Whence Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "In that union," viz. the marriage of Mary and Joseph, "the nuptial intercourse alone was lacking: because in sinful flesh this could not be without fleshly concupiscence which arises from sin, and without which He wished to be conceived, Who was to be without sin."
Fourthly, on account of the very end of Incarnation of Christ, which was that men might be born again as sons of God, "not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13), i.e. of the power of God, of which fact the very conception of Christ was to appear as an exemplar. Whence Augustine says (De Sanct. Virg.): "It behooved that our Head, by a notable miracle, should be born, after the flesh, of a virgin, that He might thereby signify that His members would be born, after the Spirit, of a virgin Church."


What evidence is there that Jesus was a carpenter?

We know that Joseph was a τέκτων (tekton)- traditionally a carpenter but literally, any craftsman who worked with his hands, from Matthew 13:55 (Is this not the carpenter's son?).  Traditionally, boys would follow in their father's occupation, hence the tradition that Jesus was a carpenter.

Additionally in Mark 6:3, we get the same word describing Jesus himself. (Is this not the carpenter?). Mark is probably the older source ( the Farrer hypothesis ) from which Matthew is drawing. With Matthew's desire to portray Jesus as king, it makes sense that he would prefer to move such a menial task to the dad and let people just assume that Jesus would have been trained up in the family trade.


Like most of his contemporaries, Luther understood the Jews to be evil.  Anti-semitism was common in that era and was unremarkable. Jews, as spawn of the Devil (and I'm purposely getting into character here, not espousing this!) were creatures to be pitied at best and disposed of when they got in the way.

The title of his book On Jews and Their Lies gives away his attitude on the subject.

To Luther, the fact that God had originally given the law to Jews was interesting, but irrelevant. Jews and Christians clearly came from the same place, but had diverged so long ago as to be irrelevant. Christ-Killer rhetoric was acceptable, and since error has no rights, there was no problem with putting them to death.

At best, Galatians 3:24 would have summarized the relationship:

  So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.

Christ having come, the guardian was no longer necessary, and the people to whom the guardian was first introduce had clearly been forsaken by their maker, so no particular privilege was seen.  Jews were infidels and heretics on the level of Mohammedans.

A modern person, of course, would (or at least should!) be completely appalled at such a characterization. Tolerance was not a virtue in Luther's day, for the simple reason, it was unnecessary.  You were a Christian if you lived in Christendom. If you weren't, you were inviting God's wrath upon the community, were a degenerate and a rabble rouser, and you threatened the entire order of society and impaired its ability to look after its welfare.

Within that world view, however, Luther was remarkably open to seeing that anti-semitism was not their fault - rather it was the fault of the Catholic Church.  He wrote:

  If I had been a Jew and had seen such dolts and blockheads govern and teach the Christian faith, I would sooner have become a hog than a Christian. They have dealt with the Jews as if they were dogs rather than human beings; they have done little else than deride them and seize their property. When they baptize them they show them nothing of Christian doctrine or life, but only subject them to popishness and mockery...If the apostles, who also were Jews, had dealt with us Gentiles as we Gentiles deal with the Jews, there would never have been a Christian among the Gentiles

To be fair, however, the American concept of Individuality is much, much more modern and western thing.  It is a byproduct of modernization - and to judge Luther for it is anachronistic. It would be akin to judging Galen for supporting the concept of imbalances of the humors as the cause of disease. Knowledge changes over time, and Luther, like his contemporaries, simply had a worldview shaped by the lack of much outside of the Church.  In the same way Rome was pagan and the West is modern, Europe in the time of the Reformations was Christendom-focused.

Note: The nation of Israel did not exist as a political entity from 70AD until 1948.  Living in the early 1500s as he did, it was a long way in either direction.


Why is the Crucifixion said to have been between 30-33 AD, if Jesus was born between 4-6 B.C. and lived to be 33 years old?

Reading the  Wikipedia article cited in the question a little further we come to the Chronology section. In this we read that  most scholars consider the most likely date for the Crucifixion  to be April in the year 30 AD.

If Jesus was born in the Autumn of 5 BC, for example, He would have turned 4 in the year 1 BC, and turned 5 in the year 1 AD. (There was no Year Zero.) Having turned 5 in the year 1 AD He would turn 25 in the year 21 AD and would have celebrated His thirtieth birthday (if indeed He celebrated birthdays) in Autumn of the year 26.

If He began His ministry in Autumn 26, very close to His 30th birthday, then three years later He would have turned 33 in Autumn 29, and still been 33 at the time of the Crucifixion, and Resurrection, in the Year 30 AD.

On this basis His ministry would have begun in the 15th year since Tiberius became co-emperor.

We do not know for sure any of the dates, but there is no inconsistency in the assumptions made.


What was the light of the first day of creation?

Revelation 21:23 answers this rather directly.  In imagining the new heaven and the new earth, it says:

  The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.

John 1:5 concurs, saying:

  This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.

Thus being capable of its own luminesence, there is thus nothing to contradict the possibility that God himself was the source of the light.  There is also no need to take such an idea - that God is the light, and God speaking the Light into existence is creating himself, and contradict the notion that Jesus himself was not created.  Indeed, since Jesus was not created, he was eternal.  As John 1:1 indicates, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  Being thus present, God's glory would have been assumed to be there.  And, just like a lit candle, if its there, there will be light.

Rather, prior to his speaking, there is nothing to suggest that there was even a space into which his Light could shine.  As such, in "creating the light," he simply created the space in which his own light - the emanation of His glory - could be beheld.

The "Shekinah Glory" of the Lord is often compared to a bright light, so this is not altogether an unreasonable assumption.

Additionally, Isaiah 6:2 speaks of the seraphim as follows:

  Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying.

If they are covering their faces, it would also be consistent with a brightness emanating from the Glory of God.

And, finally, as we are reminded every Christmas that when the angels appeared to the shepherds,

  "An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them, and they were terrified.

In seemingly every instance, the glory of the Lord shines, thus producing its own light.


Is there a concise eschatology in the Catholic Church?

Yes, the Catholic Church does have a definitive eschatology. A good overview of it can be found in

Arminjon, Charles. The End of the Present World and the Mysteries of
the Future Life. Manchester, N.H.: Sophia Institute Press,
2008.[Translation of the French original which greatly influenced St. Thérèse of Lisieux, as reported in her autobiography,
Story of a Soul.]

The best Catholic commentary on the Book of the Apocalypse:

Kramer, Herman Bernard F. Leonard. The Book of Destiny: An Open
Statement of the Authentic and Inspired Prophecies of the Old and New
Testament. Rockford, Ill.: Tan Books and Publishers, 1975.

Among the catechisms:

Catechism of the Council of Trent (The Roman Catechism) "Article 7: From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead."
Pègues, Thomas. Catechism of the “Summa Theologica” of Saint Thomas
Aquinas : For the Use of the Faithful. New York: Benziger, 1922.
pp. 304ff.pp. 304ff. is a commentary on St. Thomas Aquinas's
treatises on the resurrection and on the last things (Summa
suppl. qq. 69ff.).

The Roman Catechism gives the conditions for the end of the world (cf. Matthew 24 and ch. 1 of The End of the Present World):

  The Sacred Scriptures inform us that the general judgment will be preceded by these three principal signs: the preaching of the Gospel throughout the world, a falling away from the faith, and the coming of Antichrist. "This gospel of the kingdom," says our Lord [Matt. 24:14], "shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come." The Apostle also admonishes us that we be not seduced by anyone, "as if the day of the Lord were at hand; for unless there come a revolt* first, and the man of sin be revealed,"[2 Thes. 2 ff.] the judgement will not come.

[*This revolt is understood to be a spiritual revolt; cf. my answer to "What is the Roman Catholic interpretation of 2 Thes. 2:3?".]

What distinguishes Catholic eschatology is its insistence on Matt. 24:36:

  But of that day and hour nobody knoweth, neither the Angels of heaven, but the
  Father alone.

Also, Catholic eschatology opposes Millenarianism (Chiliadism), which a Decree of the Holy Office on 21 July 1944 condemned:

  2296 In recent times on several occasions this Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has been asked what must be thought of the system of mitigated Millenarianism, which teaches, for example, that Christ the Lord before the final judgment, whether or not preceded by the resurrection of the many just, will come visibly to rule over this world. The answer is: The system of mitigated Millenarianism cannot be taught safely.

I've only treated what precedes the General Judgment and haven't even touched upon the Four Last Things, but the above resources are excellent places to start for understanding Catholic eschatology.


Why can't cardinals over 80 vote in the conclave?

The Church excuses them from voting out of concern for the Cardinals themselves. Selecting the Supreme Pontiff can be a great burden of responsibility, and especially so when one is advanced in age. These Cardinals instead take the role of supporting the electors by helping to lead the People of God in prayer during the election.

From Pope John Paul II's Universi Dominici Gregis, on the subject of papal elections:

  In the present historical circumstances, the universality of the Church is sufficiently expressed by the College of one hundred and twenty electors, made up of Cardinals coming from all parts of the world and from very different cultures. I therefore confirm that this is to be the maximum number of Cardinal electors, while at the same time indicating that it is in no way meant as a sign of less respect that the provision laid down by my predecessor Pope Paul VI has been retained, namely, that those Cardinals who celebrate their eightieth birthday before the day when the Apostolic See becomes vacant do not take part in the election.10 The reason for this provision is the desire not to add to the weight of such venerable age the further burden of responsibility for choosing the one who will have to lead Christ's flock in ways adapted to the needs of the times. This does not however mean that the Cardinals over eighty years of age cannot take part in the preparatory meetings of the Conclave, in conformity with the norms set forth below. During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, and especially during the election of the Supreme Pontiff, they in particular should lead the People of God assembled in the Patriarchal Basilicas of Rome and in other churches in the Dioceses throughout the world, supporting the work of the electors with fervent prayers and supplications to the Holy Spirit and imploring for them the light needed to make their choice before God alone and with concern only for the "salvation of souls, which in the Church must always be the supreme law".


Do any of the Church Fathers draw a connection between Eve and the Holy Spirit?

Perhaps not surprisingly, in light of Ephesians 5, church fathers widely connect Eve with Christ's Church.  This seems to displace other interpretations, like a connection between Eve and the Holy Spirit.  However, it is at least hinted at in Chrysostom, when he compares the Old Testament man to the New Testament man:

  Then [i.e., OT times] He said, “Let us make for him a help,” but here [i.e., NT times] He said nothing of the kind. What other help shall he need, who has received the gift of the Spirit? What further need of assistance has he, who belongs to the Body of Christ? (Homilies on John, 25.2)

That is, in the OT the "help" God provided to Adam was Eve, but in the NT, he has already provided the "gift of the Spirit," so no additional help is required.

Granted, the connection is weakened because Chrysostom goes on to describe other ways in which the New Testament believer has already been provided with "help."
Nonetheless, it's clear that Chrysostom connects the "help" for Adam of Genesis 2:18 (Eve) with the "gift of the Spirit" for the New Testament believer.


Do the Rogue Pits of cemeteries still exist?

The rogue pits that once existed were outside consecrated land and not part of a Catholic cemetery.

  "Denying sacramental rites to detractors has been an age-old practice in the church to settle scores," explained C.I. Issac, a historian and member of the Indian Council of Historical Research.

  "Earlier there used to be what was called rogue pits, dug on land immediately outside the main cemetery, to bury those branded as heretics and those who had committed suicide.... Those buried in rogue pits were denied the sacramental rites a Christian is entitled to upon death. It was the greatest insult a Christian could be subjected to."

  Among those who ended up in such pits was Malayalam litterateur M.P. Paul in 1952. Paul, a torchbearer of the progressive literature movement, had challenged the orthodoxy of the church.

  With time, the rogue pit became a thing of the past but what followed was a more "plebeian" form of boycott - as in the case of Mary John. - CHURCH RULES AND BURIAL CHOICE

Rouge Pits are not the same thing as receiving vaults which are still somewhat common in cemeteries that have harsh cold winters. Less common in modern cemetaries, they can still be found here and there.

  A receiving vault or receiving tomb, sometimes also known as a public vault, is a structure designed to temporarily store dead bodies in winter months when the ground is too frozen to dig a permanent grave in a cemetery. Technological advancements in excavation, embalming, and refrigeration have rendered the receiving vault obsolete. - Receiving vault

Front of a receiving vault in Marion, Ohio, United States

This whole question of rouge pits reminds me of the story of Pope St. Gregory the Great and how he refused to bury a monk because he broke the rule in regards to poverty.

  St. Gregory had distinguished himself for his affectionate goodness toward the monks of his monastery, but he also followed the demands of the Rule with a scrupulous severity. In the books of his Dialogues, St. Gregory relates the story of the death of one of his monks, Justus. Three gold coins were found in the monk’s cell, and since this was against their vow of poverty, St. Gregory ordered his body to be tossed on the dunghill instead of buried properly. The coins were thrown on the body in the presence of all the religious, who took turns repeating aloud: “May your money perish with you” (Acts 8:20). Afterward, mercy won over the heart of Abbot Gregory and he ordered, “See to it that for thirty days the Holy Sacrifice [of the Mass] be offered for Justus and that not one day be missed in which the Holy Victim be immolated for his intention” asking God for the liberation of his poor soul from Purgatory. On the thirtieth day, St. Gregory learned of the liberation of Justus’ soul and the efficacy of those thirty Masses through a private revelation.

  St. Gregory, inflamed with a very ardent charity for the souls in Purgatory, lamented that after his death he would not be able to do anything else for them. Our Lord responded, “My Friend, I want to grant in your favor a privilege that will be unique. All souls in Purgatory, for whom thirty Masses are offered in your honor and without interruption, will immediately be saved however great may be their debt toward Me.”

  The practice of having Gregorian Masses offered for the deceased has remained a custom of the faithful for centuries. The shortage of Priests, the majority of whom are occupied in parish ministries, often makes the celebration of the Gregorian Masses impossible.  - Gregorian Masses

Rogue pits is a fancy name for designating the place of burial for those who could not be buried in consecrated ground.

  The Execution and Burial of Criminals in Early Medieval England, c. 850-1150

  ABSTRACT

  In later Anglo-Saxon England, executed offenders and, probably also, other social deviants were separated from the rest of the community in death. They were buried in cemeteries far from settlements but in raised landscapes which would have been visible from frequented areas – so-called ‘execution cemeteries’. However, from the second half of the eleventh century, these deviant cemeteries appear to have fallen out of use.

  Deviant Burial

  Deviant burials are those burials with abnormal traits outside of the normative range of funerary rituals. In early medieval England these normative traits are those discussed previously: burial in consecrated land, or at least within churchyards, orientated west-east and laid supine with the limbs extended. Some of the early thoughts on deviant burials were quite imaginative, suggesting irregularities were due to the undertaker being lazy or even drunk (Aspöck 2008, 23-24 citing Leeds and Harden 1936, 39 and Rolleston 1869, 477 respectively). Most recent scholarship has suggested a more deliberate lack of respect or even purposeful unusual positioning (see for instance Cherryson 2008; Reynolds 2009). (Page54)

  The execution cemetery

  Andrew Reynolds’ recent work has reviewed deviant burial as a sign of judicial punishment in Anglo-Saxon England. Reynolds (2009) has identified and catalogued the phenomenon of the Anglo-Saxon execution cemetery, or cwealmstow, literally meaning death place or killing place. The basic concept of the execution cemetery is not an entirely novel one; it had previously been introduced on occasion as an explanation for sites with unusual forms of burial. Many of the burial types discussed by Reynolds are those same ‘deviant’ types detailed by Helen Geake: decapitation, prone burial, bound limbs and mutilation. Reynolds’ most significant contributions, in building on this earlier work, have been to compile a gazetteer of a number of exemplar sites and to create a site typology for execution cemeteries. (Page 59)

Rouge pits and execution cemeteries are simply terms that a cemetery that had not been consecrated for Christian burial. The dunghill of St. Gregory is an example of this also. Sinners were at one time not permitted to be buried in consecrated ground. There is no need for such cemeteries now, as civil cemeteries are not consecrated by the Church. Individual plots are blessed in such cemeteries in modern times.