Catholics should be wary of the acceptance of eastern, non-Christian religious concepts. EFT appears to have similarities with acupuncture, so I did some looking for acupuncture since EFT is lesser-known. I came across the following:

The Western form of acupuncture, which is based on science and not
Taoism, is acceptable for use by Christians. However, the traditional
Chinese acupuncture belief system is not compatible with Christianity.
"The philosophical thinking behind acupuncture comes from Taoism and
the concept of the yin and yang, and of being at one with the forces
in the universe through meditation," the Irish Theological Commission
wrote in 1994 in its document, "A Catholic Response to the New Age
Phenomenon." (See article)

So the test for whether this practice conflicts with Catholicism is whether it incorporates foreign teachings that conflict with core beliefs within the faith.
If something helps with pain or addiction and has been stripped of the dangerous dogmas of another faith, it may be harmless. This seems to rely somewhat on a placebo effect. Placebo effects can actually be very powerful at overcoming pain, apprehension, and addiction (see further reading)
A word of warning: recognize that these activities have the potential to soften your objectivity when encountering elements from eastern religions like Taoism. It has the potential to inadvertently open you up to oppositional ideas and concepts that could lead you into dangerous territory.


Is there any scientific explanation for the Sabbath Year?

Whether or not you would consider this as scientific evidence, we only have to look at recent history to find an answer.

The Dust bowl of the 1930's came about because the land was continuously farmed, and the nutrients of the land were depleted to a point that it could no longer support vegetation.

All things need to have their nutrients renewed periodically This is true of the land as well as mankind. Since the Dust bowl farmers routinely allow a portion of their land to go fallow, usually on a field rotational basis. Many even grow crops that leave a residue to be worked back into the ground, such as soy beans and corn.

God in his infinite wisdom knew that anything material would, through the process of aging, deteriorate, and that occasional renewing by the input of new nutrients would be necessary. The renewing of nutrients slows the process of deterioration, whether it is in man or plants or animals or even the land. And that is the reason for God declaring the Sabbath year.

That is also the reason why fertilization is such a necessary component of growing plants whether in your flower garden or on a large farm.

That is incidentally the reason for his declaring a Sabbath day for man.

  Exodus 20:8 KJV Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

God knew that unless man's awareness of him and his laws was renewed on a frequent basis it would eventually fade from his memory, as we see the World today.

When God put man into the garden of Eden he charged him with caring for it:

  Genesis 2:15  And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

This alone tells me that nature and the land needs our attention, but even further when God ejected man from the garden of Eden he told Adam that his punishment would be:

  Genesis 3:17 through 19  And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Also:

  Genesis 3:23  Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Since man is essentially dust and needs to replenish himself through eating why would the land be any different?


It's absolutely ridiculous to claim the Master isn't God/Jesus as it is in the other parables of the same nature (e.g. Mt 18:23,35; 24:44,46 etc). Not to mention that the wicked and worthless servant goes to Hell. Since interest/money refer to literal money, and the parable isn't talking literally about money but something spiritual (grace, spiritual gifts, skills), interest means Jesus coming back to find the grace given believers to be put to good use (Mt 7:19; Jn 15:1-2,6). That is, the spiritual gifts given the believer should return intact, and even more adundant, since they should convert more people, show good example, bring more people to Christ etc.


What specific scholarship is there behind the New World Translation?

From the Watchtower Organization's own "Reasoning From the Scriptures":

"As a basis for translating the Hebrew Scriptures, the text of Rudolf Kittel's 'Biblia Hebraica' editions of 1951-1955, was used.  The 1984 revision of the New World Translation benefited from updating in harmony with the 'Biblia Stuttgartensia' of 1977.  Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls and numerous early translations into other languages were consulted.  For the Christian Greek Scriptures, the master Greek text of 1881 as prepared by Westcott and Hort was used primarily, but several other master texts were consulted as well as numberous early versions in other languages."

So they used multiple sources in order to refine their translation to where they wanted it.  Regarding the translators (also from "Reasoning From the Scriptures"):

"When presenting as a gift the publishing rights to their translation, the New World Bible Translation Committee requested that its members remain anonymous.  The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania has honored their request.  The translators were not seeking prominence for themselves but only to honor the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures."

Since the translators are anonymous, we cannot state whether it is a scholarly translation.

"It is an accurate, largely literal translation from the original languages.  It is not a loose paraphrase, in which the translators leave out details that they consider unimportant and add ideas that they believe will be helpful." (Source)

Now this is the quote from the same book that all Jehovah's Witnesses have when they go door to door.  I'd like to rebut the above quote -- The New Testament translation in the New World Translation has taken out the Greek words 'Theos' (God) and 'Kurios' (Lord) in over 60 places within the NT and replaced them with 'Jehovah'.  Jehovah occurs nowhere in the Greek, in fact the word was only popularized in the 18th-19th century.  It's extremely important to understand this point when considering if the NWT is 'true' to the original language.


Does any church follow the Apostolic Tradition of Baptism ‘in the nude’, or was that never the tradition?

I think the deaconess assumption is unsound and contradicted:

  14He shall then baptize each of them once, laying his hand upon each of their  heads. 15Then he shall ask, "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was  born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and died, and rose on the third day living from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Father, the one coming to judge the living and the dead?"

  16When each has answered, "I believe," he shall baptize a second time. 17Then he shall ask, "Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the Holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh?" 18Then each being baptized shall answer, "I believe." And thus let him baptize the third time.

Now, it could just be translation (and a lack of a gender-neutral single pronoun), but that is a lot of "he". It continues in the same tone for quite some time. Note that is also seems to describe all the participants present at once, not individually.

There is nothing improper in this nakedness. It is not associated with any indecent act, humiliation, or lack of basic needs.

Also keep in mind: this is ancient Rome. Their views on nudity could be quite different from yours.


What is the Swedenborgian (New Church) view of therapies that involve access to the subconscious mind?

In general, Swedenborgians have been supportive of using the subconscious to get closer to God. There is some indication of Swedenborgians supporting hypnosis to that end.

When Franz Mesmer (1734–1815) developed the concept of  "animal magnetism" (generally called "hypnosis" now) there were Swedenborgians involved in the movement, seeing it as evidence of what Swedenborg wrote about.

The movements of "healing with the mind,"  "positive thinking" and the like also involved many Swedenborgians who saw them as focusing the mind on the higher levels.  One  Swedenborgian, Horatio Dresser (1866–1954) discounted movements that said everything could be healed in our minds—because Swedenborg was about us taking action into the real world, that exists beyond thoughts.

Today we have many Swedenborgians in mental health fields.   Stephen Larsen, a Swedenborgian psychologist, is very much in the school of "transpersonal" psychology or exploration of consciousness.  He wants to help us access the higher spiritual mind.

Wilson Van Dusen (1923–2005) was a Swedenborgian psychologist who worked with mental patients who had hallucinations.  He felt that some experienced what Swedenborg called spirits—good and bad.  He felt we were all vulnerable to spirits, but they reflect our own inner heaven and hell, and we can learn to focus on our own inner heavens to prevent influence from evil forces.

I am both a practicing social worker and a Swedenborgian minister.  I am very interested in the intersection of Swedenborg and mental health.  I know of no official Swedenborgian view on hypnosis NLP, or the subconscious.  However, I know of Swedenborgian therapists who utilize such techniques in therapy.  I would say that most do believe that evil spirit can be harassing, but that a way to prevent that is to find ways to connect with the Divine, including through techniques such as those you suggest.

Swedenborg did caution against "Ouija boards" or mediumship to try and contact spirits, as they can attract evil spirits and we need to keep our connection with the Divine.  I'd say modern Swedenborgians have a range of views on that, but would agree that our focus should be on connecting with the Divine—and that is the best protection from any harassment of evil spirits.

Heaven and hell are states within ourselves, and many Swedenborgians want to help us connect with our inner heaven.  Intention is important.  If one uses a Ouija board for the purpose of drawing evil spirits, that could make us vulnerable.   But things like meditation, hypnosis, and NLP, if used as a desire to understand ourselves better and to connect with the Divine more deeply are gifts to help connect with God's Divine inflow into all of us.

Rev. Dr. Wilma Wake
Minister of on-lineSwedenborgian Ministry


Which denominations are considered mainstream in the UK?

This 2007 report entitled Churchgoing in the UK has a vast array of demographic data on churchgoers in the UK. It even differentiates between regular churchgoers and those who just state affiliation.

For example, among regular churchgoers surveyed, the denominational breakdown is:

Church of England 31%
Roman Catholic 29%
Church of Scotland/Presbyterian 9%
Methodist 6%
Baptist 4%
Pentecostal/New churches 7%
Other 7%
Non-trinitarian 3%

All these are defined in the report (especially Appendix 1 Figure 10). This should answer mainstream as in "most common." Mainline is defined as a specific doctrinal stance in the Wikipedia article you link, so denominations on that list would be "mainline Protestant" there too. Though some don't exist there, I think there aren't any that exist there that aren't here/in that master list.


Are there examples of God forgiving without sacrifice?

Hebrews 9:22 answers this question definitely:

  Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and
  without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. (ESV)

The author of Hebrews goes on from this verse to say that the spiritual things needed to be purified with greater sacrifices than that of animals, and pointed to the sacrifice of Christ, which puts away all sins. See that argument developed in chapter ten.


Why do we celebrate Easter only 2 days after Good Friday?

3 days and 3 nights

To an American with a clock, this phrase automatically makes us think of 3 entire days and nights or 3-24HR periods.  This phrase to a Jew in the 1st century and before would have meant to the 3rd day or on the 3rd day.

Look how Jesus interchanges the language:

  Matt 16:21 From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He
  must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief
  priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third
  day.
  Matt 12:40 for just as Jonah was three days and three nights
  in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days
  and three nights in the heart of the earth.

We also have an OT reference that lets us know how a Jewish person would interpret this phrase at that period of time.

  Esther 4:15 Then Esther told them to reply to Mordecai, 16 “Go,
  assemble all the Jews who are found in Susa, and fast for me; do not
  eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maidens also will
  fast in the same way. And thus I will go in to the king, which is
  not according to the law; and if I perish, I perish.”

  Esther 5:1- 5 Now it came about on the third day that Esther put on
  her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king’s palace in
  front of the king’s rooms, and the king was sitting on his royal
  throne in the throne room, opposite the entrance to the palace. 2 When
  the king saw Esther the queen standing in the court, she obtained
  favor in his sight; and the king extended to Esther the golden scepter
  which was in his hand. So Esther came near and touched the top of the
  scepter. 3 Then the king said to her, “What is troubling you, Queen
  Esther? And what is your request? Even to half of the kingdom it shall
  be given to you.” 4 Esther said, “If it pleases the king, may the king
  and Haman come this day to the banquet that I have prepared for
  him.” 5 Then the king said, “Bring Haman quickly that we may do as
  Esther desires.” So the king and Haman came to the banquet which
  Esther had prepared. 6 As they drank their wine at the banquet,
  the king said to Esther, “What is your petition, for it shall be
  granted to you. And what is your request?


Regarding doubt, how do we apply Romans 14 in difficult situations?

Honestly, I don't see where this interpretation comes from. Looking at the rest of the chapter, it seems easy to see the context. The chapter is largely a discussion of how to regard a neighbor who is more scrupulous in practice of their faith than you. He uses the example of someone who, perhaps due to weak faith, has difficulty with the teaching of the cleanness of all foods:

I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteems anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
But if your brother is grieved with your food, you no longer walk in love. Destroy not him with your food, for whom Christ died.
Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not food and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Romans 14:14–17, King James 2000

In other words, if someone has a very restrictive interpretation of Christian teaching, and you doubt that they're correct, you shouldn't let that doubt govern your behavior—at least not in front of them. Instead, you should take account of their weakness, and modify your behavior to adapt to their imperfect understanding

It is good neither to eat meat, nor to drink wine, nor anything by which your brother stumbles, or is offended, or is made weak.

And if your neighbor believes that something is forbidden, and you doubt that, do not act on your doubt in front of them—you will not be acting in love, nor out of your faith, but out of a sense of judgment or of showing off your superior understanding and deeper faith:

And he that doubts is condemned if he eats, because he eats not of faith: for whatever is not of faith is sin.


70 years

  David was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned forty years.
  2 Samuel 5:4


It would be the heresy of monophysitism  (or, pushed to an extreme docetism)  to deny Jesus' free will.

The classic text on the matter is in this matter is Luke 22:42 -

  "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

If Jesus had no free will, this statement has no meaning.

Additionally, Hebrews 4:15 states:

  “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin”

Again, if Jesus did not have the ability to sin, this statement makes no sense.

Finally, even Satan realized that Jesus could sin. Otherwise, why would he have even attempted to entice Jesus to break his fast, worship him, or put God to the test, in the wilderness in Luke 4 / Matthew 4?


How well provided is Paris Foreign Missions Society?

A Wikipedia article confirms that the park of the Paris Foreign Missions Society is the largest private garden in Paris.  With regard to the acquisition of the property, the article in the link below says this:

  The Seminary (Séminaire des Missions Étrangères) was created in March 1663, when Mgr. Jean Duval, ordained under the name Bernard de Sainte Thérèse and nominated Bishop of Babylon (modern Iraq) in 1638, offered the deserted buildings of his own Seminary for Missions to Persia, which he had created in 1644 at 128 Rue du Bac.

The article gives detailed and fascinating information about the history of the Seminary, part of which says:

  At the end of the 18th century, the French Revolution halted the growth of the society, which had previously been very rapid. At that time it had six bishops, a score of missionaries, assisted by 135 native priests; in the various missions there were nine seminaries with 250 students, and 300,000 Christians.  - Paris Foreign Missions Society

With regard to funding, the Society had the backing of the Church and the pope as well as the King of France.  Other income appears to have come from charitable donations.  As to how those missionaries were able to endure lengthy and often hostile postings, I can only conclude that they were made of sterner stuff than folks today.  Well educated and self-sufficient, they were no doubt able to organise the local communities and enlist help to provide for their daily needs.

When Jesus sent out his disciples, he told them not to take any gold, silver or copper with them; not even a bag for the journey, nor an extra tunic, sandals or staff.  He simply said “the worker is worth his keep.”  They would find accommodation from worthy persons in the towns or villages they went to (Matthew 10:8-11).

The missionaries sent out from the Paris Foreign Missions Society may have left France with very little in the way of material possessions, but they had the backing of the Church and the State.

Here is a useful article on the history: - Society of Foreign Missions of Paris (Catholic Encyclopedia)


What is the Biblical basis for the belief that separation from God is in itself sin?

I can think of one clear-cut verse off the top of my head. Assuming that the question you are asking is about one who was once not separated from God but later became separated (actually this is true for all man if you think about it, since man was with God at the beginning and later separated himself from God)

  Jer. 2:13  For My people have committed two evils: / They have
  forsaken Me, / The fountain of living waters, / To hew out for
  themselves cisterns, / Broken cisterns, / Which hold no water.

Of course, you can also read into the context of the Bible and see. When man decided to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil rather than the tree of life, he actively made a choice to choose the representative of Satan (tree of knowledge) over God (the tree of life). In this way, the original sin itself is actually the act of separating himself from God in the way of disobedience.


What did salvation mean to the Israelite people of the OT?

Throughout the narrative parts of the Old Testament, there is very little mention of any afterlife. That idea arises mostly later on, in the books of the Prophets.

During the bulk of Old Testament times, salvation had little or nothing to do with:

Heaven or the afterlife, since there was little or no belief in such
a thing.
Being freed from the curse of the Law. The Law was seen as a blessing, not a curse.
Being set free from the flesh. Physical enjoyments were not
considered evil as long as they did not violate the law.
Being set free from the Devil. The Devil was not a well-developed concept
in Old Testament times.

And as for being set free from the world, it was just the opposite. As we will see, salvation meant being blessed in the world.

Of all the possibilities raised in the question, only being adopted into God's family has any real bearing on salvation as understood by the ancient Israelites. They saw themselves not exactly as God's family but as God's people. So in that sense, being God's specially chosen people does relate to their concept of salvation.

Now, if few to none of the common Christian understandings of salvation had any meaning to the ancient Israelites, what did salvation mean to the Israelite people of the Old Testament?

Quite simply, to them it meant literal, physical salvation from human enemies, and from material-world "enemies" such as poverty, disease, and death. And on the positive side, it meant having wealth, power, and victory over their enemies, all of which were seen as blessings from God.

In the Hebrew Bible, aside from a poetic use Genesis 49:18, the first use of the word "salvation" (יְשׁוּעָה, yĕshuw`ah) occurs in Exodus 14:13-14:

  And Moses said to the people, "Fear not, stand firm, and see the
  salvation of the Lord, which he will work for you today. For the
  Egyptians whom you see today, you shall never see again. The Lord
  will fight for you, and you have only to keep still."

The scene is the Israelites camping by the Red Sea, and the Egyptian army pursuing them with horses and chariots.

The salvation of the Lord was the Lord's drying up the sea so that the Israelites could pass over on dry ground and escape from the Egyptian army, and then the Lord's closing the waters back over the pursuing Egyptian army, drowning and destroying them, and thus saving the Israelites from their power.

So here in the first narrative use of the word "salvation" in the Old Testament, it means God saving the people from literal, physical, human enemies who were bent on recapturing and carrying them back to slavery in Egypt.

This use of "salvation" as being physically saved from human enemies is common throughout the Old Testament. For a few more examples, see Judges 7 (note the word "saved" in verse 2); 1 Samuel 11 (note "salvation" in verse 13); 2 Samuel 23:8-12 (the word "victory" is a translation of the Hebrew word for "salvation").

When speaking of the people as a whole, then, for the ancient Israelites "salvation" meant especially being saved from enemies who wished to kill, conquer, and enslave them. "Salvation" was synonymous with victory in battle against enemies.

Less commonly, "salvation" was used of individuals who were saved from sickness, enslavement, loss of property, death, or other material calamity.

For example, the prayer of Hannah, the mother of Samuel, in 1 Samuel 2:1-11, which celebrates the Lord's salvation of her from the terrible condition (for an ancient Israelite woman) of barrenness, opens with these words:

And Hannah prayed and said,

"My heart exults in the Lord;
    my horn is exalted in the Lord.
My mouth derides my enemies,
    because I rejoice in your salvation."

And David's song of praise in 2 Samuel 22 similarly speaks of the Lord's salvation (mentioned specifically in verses 3, 36, 47, & 51) not only of his people and his army from their enemies, but of himself (David) personally from Saul's attempts to kill him because he was rival aspirant to the throne.

So whether it is speaking of the nation as a whole or of individual people, "salvation" in the narrative of the Old Testament most commonly means salvation from and victory over physical, human enemies and over material-world sufferings and setbacks.

By extension, the Lord's threats and promises to the Israelites almost invariably involved physical and material ruin, defeat, and death on the one hand, vs. victory, health, prosperity, and long life on the other.

The narrative of Deuteronomy 26:16-30:20 is a long series of physical and material curses, defeats, and calamities that would befall the Israelites if they disobeyed God's commandments, and of blessings of victory, health, and prosperity that they would enjoy if they obeyed God's commandments. It concludes with these famous words:

  See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. If you
  obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you today,
  by loving the Lord your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping
  his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live
  and multiply, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that
  you are entering to take possession of it. But if your heart turns
  away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods
  and serve them, I declare to you today, that you shall surely perish.
  You shall not live long in the land that you are going over the Jordan
  to enter and possess. I call heaven and earth to witness against you
  today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.
  Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving
  the Lord your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he
  is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that
  the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to
  give them. (Deuteronomy 30:15-20)

As shown in the entire narrative sequence that concludes with these words, the life and death, good and evil that the Lord set before them was physical and material life and death, good and evil.

For the ancient Israelites, then:

Salvation meant being physically saved from their human enemies, and enjoying peace, prosperity, fruitfulness, and long life in their own sovereign nation, as well as having many descendants to carry on an individual's name, and the long-term flourishing of the Israelite nation as a whole.
Being cursed, or to use a later term, damned, meant being physically killed, captured, and enslaved by their human enemies, and suffering loss of property, crop failure, infertility, disease, and early death, along with the dying out of an individual's family lineage, and the cutting off and destruction of the Israelite nation as a whole.

The more abstract versions of salvation and damnation that came later, in the Prophets and especially in the New Testament, used these earlier pragmatic and earthly meanings of salvation and damnation as symbols and representatives that foreshadowed and depicted spiritual salvation and damnation.


The Jansenists were known for adhering to errors on grace condemned by Innocent X in 1568 (DZ 1092 ff.). Opposed to the Jesuits' presumed laxity, they were moral rigorists ("hards"), who, according to Noonan's Contraception p. 317,

insisted on the Augustinian tie between sexual acts, concupiscence, and original sin. They [unlike St. Augustine] insisted on the sinfulness of initiating intercourse with any purpose other than procreation.

Thus, the Jansenists appear to have an extreme procreative view of sexual intercourse. The Cathars / Alibegensians were against procreation because, like the Manicheans, they believed the material/bodily world is evil and that marriage is, too, because it "traps" souls in bodies.
Catholic teaching is that (Summa Theologica suppl. q. 49 a. 5 co. // Super Sent., lib. 4 d. 31 q. 2 a. 2 co.)

when married persons come together for the purpose of begetting children, or of paying the debt to one another (which pertains to "faith[fulness]") they are wholly excused from sin.[quando conjuges conveniunt causa prolis procreandae, vel ut sibi invicem debitum reddant, quae ad fidem pertinent; totaliter excusantur a peccato.]

Martin de Barcos, a student of Cornelius Jansen himself, was a prominent Jansenist theologian. De Barcos promoted the heresy that "St. Peter and St. Paul are the two princes of the Church who form one head." (DZ 1091). What he wrote about pleasure in marriage in Du decalogue pp. 296-301 does not appear to be contrary to Catholic teaching on marriage.
The Jansenist philosopher Pascal also seems "to have an extreme procreative view" of marriage when he writes (Pensées diverses III – Fragment n° 65 / 85):

les filles de Loth, par exemple, qui n’avaient que le désir des enfants, étaient plus pures sans mariage que les mariés sans désir d’enfant.the daughters of Lot, for example, who only desired children, were purer without marriage than marrieds who have no desire for children.

This statement depreciates virginal marriage.


According to the Eastern Orthodox, what are the rules for acquiring / owning icons?

I have never heard either of any rule about not buying icons. If we all waited until we received them as gifts, we’d probably have very few, and we might wait our whole lives and never get any. And when would churches get them? So rarely they would never have proper iconostases. But an icon emits Divine Energy¹, which is also known as the Grace of God, so they’re highly important, and the more you have, the more of the Grace comes into your house. So yes, please buy icons. However, definitely do not get any from a place called “Monastery Icons”. That place is not even Christian², and while they do sell a few authentic (and stunningly beautiful) icons they have bought from elsewhere, what they paint is not nearly canonical. The skin of the saints is monochrome (real icons use some contrast, a bit green in the background, golden in foreground) and like that of a mannequin, the texture of the clothing is cartoonish, the colors garish and clashing. Backgrounds generally, or at least the halo, should be gold-leaf, or at least a soft and glowing golden color, but their backgrounds are always flat, and usually saturated, orangish yellow. By the way, if you like their authentic icons, you can get that same Russian style from the reputable Holy Trinity Store and Istok.

The most important thing about owning icons is please do not treat them disrespectfully. ‘Icon’ is the same word as ‘image’ in the Bible, and it’s a representation not just in the usual sense of that word, but completely literally too, a re-presentation:

  eikṓn (from 1503 /eíkō, "be like") – properly, "mirror-like
  representation," referring to what is very close in resemblance (like
  a "high-definition" projection, as defined by the context). Image
  (1504 /eikṓn) then exactly reflects its source (what it directly
  corresponds to). For example, Christ is the very image (1504 /eikṓn,
  supreme expression) of the Godhead (see 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15).

  "1504 (eikṓn) assumes a prototype, of which it not merely resembles,
  but from which it is drawn" (R. Trench). 1504 (eikṓn) then is more
  than a "shadow"; rather it is a replication (F. F. Bruce, Hebrews,
  226; see also Lightfoot at Col 3:10 and 2:21).³

So an icon of a saint should be treated much like that saint. Therefore, it shouldn’t touch the floor (to not be in danger of being stepped on or kicked), it shouldn’t get dirty, it should be put in a place of honor, it should never be thrown away, and if you have to dispose of it (even a paper printing of one from a magazine or church bulletin), you should bury it, or burn it⁴ (OK, this part is different, maybe for the purpose of saving space) and then bury the ashes where the ground won’t be stepped on. And an icon should never be printed on clothes. The only clothing it goes on are vestments. Inferior materials do not make the same image into a common picture, so yes, the rules are always the same.

Going beyond not disrespecting to actual respect, one starts by making the Sign of the Cross (3 first fingers together for Trinity, 2 other fingers against palm
for 2 natures of Christ; say (or think), ‘In the Name of the Father’ and touch forehead; say, ‘and the Son’ and touch solar plexus; say, ‘and the Holy…’ and touch right shoulder; say, ‘Spirit’ and touch left shoulder) in front of the icon, bow, then stand, and kiss the icon. If it’s Christ, and you can see the feet, kiss the feet. All other cases kiss the hand, or clothes or whatever you can reach is OK too. Don’t kiss the face; that’s for equals. Then you can say a prayer. The icon should be on a stand, stood up on a shelf, or hung on the wall. It’s preferable for it to face west, so you face east when you pray, the direction Christ will return from.

Continuing with practices of greater reverence, you can touch the floor with the back of the hand (i.e. do a metania) or make a prostration, instead of just bowing.

(Sorry, I don’t have an ‘at home’ picture of that one.) A candle,
or better, an oil lamp,⁵ and possibly incense (church kind only, not Nag Champa or something from Spencer’s), should be burned in front of the icons. (I haven’t done this myself, because we have a toddler, and we might be too forgetful anyway for a fire hazard!) You can make the Sign of the Cross—it is a sanctification—when entering a room that has icons in it, the same as people do when entering a church with them. Another high respect is refraining from crossing your legs, or otherwise sitting in a particularly casual posture, in front of icons.

Funny thing about this is many of the rules for the care of an icon are the same as or very similar to the care for a flag (U.S. at least): keeping it clean and off the floor and ground, disposal, only garment it may be on is a service uniform in small format, saluting (i.e. bowing, while it doesn’t bow, and the flag may not be dipped), remembering it stands for others, keeping it lit, being at attention, and respectful songs are associated. But many (or most?) Protestants honor the secular flag with the actions they refuse to give to holy icons, even of Jesus Christ Himself.

My background personally: I was a member of an Eastern Orthodox church for 3 years, and now have been a Byzantine Catholic for 2 years. (The Russian Catholic Church is where I was put, apparently because of my Russian-Rite Baptism and Chrismation.) Some of my family had come from Belarus, from the territory of the Union of Brest (Byzantine Catholic union), and brought their icon along. My Protestant family still had it, hanging in my Grandma’s living room. I always loved it while I was young, but was brought up essentially agnostic. I came to the Church by marrying a Byzantine Catholic.

¹Icons and the Name of God. Sergius Bulgakov. vii.
²“A Word About ‘Monastery Icons’”. Fr. Anthony Nelson.
³“1504. eikón”. Bible Hub. Strong’s Concordance, et al.
⁴“How Not to Be an Accidental Iconoclast”. A Reader’s Guide to Orthodox Icons.
⁵“Create a Quiet Place for Prayer”. Orthodox Prayer.


Verse 9 gives the answer:

  After that the Reuʹben·ites, the Gadʹites, and the half tribe of Ma·nasʹseh departed from the other Israelites, from Shiʹloh in the land of Caʹnaan, and they returned to the land of Gilʹe·ad, the land of their possession where they had settled at the order of Jehovah through Moses.


When and why did the ancient church no longer care about offending a brother?

The fact that Paul found it necessary to discuss this issue not once, but twice, would seem to indicate that it WAS a problem in the first century church, and not something that the church handled just fine in the first century but then went astray later.

More important, there are two sides to Paul's discussion of such offense. He doesn't say, If something offends a brother, don't do it, period end of story. Rather, he has admonitions for both parties.

  Romans 14 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. ... 19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. 21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.

So yes, vv 19-21 say that the brother who sees nothing wrong with X should nevertheless be careful that he does not create a stumbling block for the brother to whom it is a problem. This may mean giving up something that he is convinced is perfectly good and acceptable to avoid offending another Christian.

But before he says that, look at verse 3: The brother who thinks that X is bad but has no clear scriptural justification for saying that, should not condemn the brother who does it.

We could debate exactly what Paul meant you should do. I suspect he's a little vague because the answer is not so simple as "never do it". If that was the rule, then one foolish Christian who condemns things for no good reason would force all the other Christians in the world to give up all sorts of good things. It is no answer to say that you will only give it up if the other person can offer good reasons. Paul's whole point is that he is talking about "disputable matters". By definition, this is about cases where neither person can give solid, undisputable reasons for his position.

Suppose another Christian said that he believed that a Christian should not own a house. Would you burn your house down and live under a bridge to avoid offending him? (You can't sell it -- that would just be encouraging others to sin!) Sorry, I doubt I would go that far.

In practice, well, let me take a real case. Many Christians I know believe you should not drink any alcohol at all. I disagree. I won't get into the scriptural arguments here as they're beside the point. I don't belittle Christians who don't drink. I don't try to badger them into drinking, like saying, "Here, have some  wine. How can it hurt? What's the big deal?" etc. I don't drink in front of them, offer them alcohol, or discuss how much I like this brand or whatever in front of them. But I don't totally abstain to avoid offending hem, either. I just don't do it in front of them.

Likewise, Paul is saying that they should not condemn me for drinking.

We should respect each other's difference of opinion or understanding.


What is a free online New Testament commentary you recommend for diving into the historical/cultural context and the Greek/manuscripts?

Rather than a commentary you might find an Introduction to the New Testament helpful such as this one which does go into the socio-historical context. More detailed commentaries are usually on a book-by-book basis.
You can get commentaries on every book of the Bible, such as the New Bible Commentary, although this will won't go into so much detail (some books are covered better than others).
You might also find a study Bible helpful such as the ESV Study Bible which has lots of helpful articles as well as notes on the actual text.


Scholars tend to agree that Joseph had died prior to Christ's ministry. Catholic tradition represents Mary as a widow during the adult ministry of Christ. Joseph is not mentioned as being present at the Wedding at Cana at the beginning of Jesus' mission, nor at Golgotha. If he had been present at the Crucifixion, he would under Jewish custom have been expected to take charge of Jesus' body, but this role is instead performed by Joseph of Arimathea (see Luke 23:50-53). Nor would Jesus have entrusted his mother to John's care had her husband been alive (see John 19:27).

One explanation given for his death is given in the apocryphal Gospel of James (written ~145AD), supposed to be authored by, or a protoevangelium of James—Jesus brother—which claims that James was actually Joseph's son from a previous marriage. The canon gospels never mention Joseph's age, but this account of James presents Joseph as an old man who was called of God to look after the virgin Mary. If this account is accurate, then the explanation for Joseph's absence later in in Christ's life would be attributed to him passing from old age.

The life of Joseph actually has its own field of study called Josephology. Records of devotions to Saint Joseph go back to the year 800AD and Doctors of the Catholic Church since Saint Thomas Aquinas have written on the subject. With the growth of Mariology, the theological study of Saint Joseph also grew and several centers of study were formed in the 1950s specifically for study of Joseph—Husband of Mary. The modern study of the theology of Saint Joseph is one of the most recent theological disciplines.


Is it known when and why Christians began to sign themselves and impart blessings with the Cross?

The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

  The cross was originally traced by Christians with the thumb or finger
  on their own foreheads. This practice is attested by numberless
  allusions in Patristic literature.

It's unclear when it began, but it's true there are "numberless allusions" indicating it was an early and widespread tradition. For example, Tertullian:

  At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we
  put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table,
  when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary
  actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign.

It's been associated with Revelation 7:

  Then I saw another angel come up from the East, holding the seal of
  the living God. He cried out in a loud voice to the four angels who
  were given power to damage the land and the sea, “Do not damage the
  land or the sea or the trees until we put the seal on the foreheads of
  the servants of our God.” I heard the number of those who had been
  marked with the seal, one hundred and forty-four thousand marked from
  every tribe of the Israelites.

Catholic commentators associate the seal on the forehead with the sign of the cross. This goes back to Ezekiel 9:4.

  Lord said to him: Pass through the city, through the midst of
  Jerusalem, and mark … the foreheads of those who grieve and lament
  over all the abominations practiced within it.

The mark spoken of here is "tau," a Hebrew letter in the shape of a cross.

The Catholic Encyclopedia also says that it wasn't long before Christians began making the sign of the cross on things other than foreheads:

  Hardly less early in date is the custom of marking a cross on objects
  — already Tertullian speaks of the Christian woman "signing" her bed
  (cum lectulum tuum signas, "Ad uxor.", ii, 5) before retiring to
  rest—and we soon hear also of the sign of the cross being traced on
  the lips (Jerome, "Epitaph. Paulæ") and on the heart (Prudentius,
  "Cathem.", vi, 129). Not unnaturally if the object were more remote,
  the cross which was directed towards it had to be made in the air.
  Thus Epiphanius tells us (Adv. Hær., xxx, 12) of a certain holy man
  Josephus, who imparted to a vessel of water the power of overthrowing
  magical incantations by "making over the vessel with his finger the
  seal of the cross" pronouncing the while a form of prayer. Again half
  a century later Sozomen, the church historian (VII, xxvi), describes
  how Bishop Donatus when attacked by a dragon "made the sign of the
  cross with his finger in the air and spat upon the monster".

As for the purpose, Athanasius quotes Antony as saying:

  When, therefore, [demons] come by night to you and wish to tell the
  future, or say, "we are the angels", give no heed, for they lie. Yea
  even if they praise your discipline and call you blessed, hear them
  not, and have no dealings with them; but rather sign yourselves and
  your houses, and pray, and you shall see them vanish. For they are
  cowards, and greatly fear the sign of the Lord's Cross, since of a
  truth in it the Savior stripped them, and made an example of them. ...
  But we by the mention of Christ crucified put all demons to flight,
  whom you fear as if they were gods. Where the sign of the Cross is,
  magic is weak and witchcraft has no strength.

Conclusion: The sign of the cross originated early, growing out of an interpretive seed found in Revelation and Ezekiel. It's a way of invoking the power of the cross against the enemies of God.


How does the LDS doctrine of assurance compare to the Methodist doctrine of assurance?

I was a member of the LDS church for 20 years.  I've been a Methodist for 2 years.

LDS Assurance

The sentence from the LDS Bible Dictionary:

  The effects of true faith in Jesus Christ include (1) an actual knowledge that the course of life one is pursuing is acceptable to the Lord (see Heb. 11:4); (2) a reception of the blessings of the Lord that are available to man in this life; and (3) an assurance of personal salvation in the world to come.

In LDS church doctrine, all people will be saved.  What this means is that all people will be resurrected, and as spirits, regain a perfected body.

However, your place in the kingdoms of God is determined by how you lived your life.  Mormons work so that they will be worthy of the highest kingdom of God, the celestial kingdom.

The LDS church has an obscure ordinance called the second anointing.

  In the Latter Day Saint movement, the second anointing, also known historically and in Latter Day Saint scripture as the fulness of the priesthood, is an obscure and relatively rare ordinance usually conducted in temples as extension of the Nauvoo Endowment ceremony. Founder Joseph Smith, Jr. cited the "fulness of the priesthood" as one of the reasons for building the Nauvoo Temple (D&C 124:28). In the ordinance, a participant is anointed as a "priest and king" or a "priestess and queen", and is sealed to the highest degree of salvation available in Mormon theology. Those who participate in this ordinance are said to have their "calling and election made sure",...

So yes, according to LDS doctrine, you can have an assurance of personal salvation.  However, a member of the LDS church has to work very hard to be worthy of a second anointing.

The LDS church doctrine is based on salvation by works.  Many, many works.

Methodist Assurance

The sentence from the Methodist doctrine of assurance:

  John Wesley believed that all Christians have a faith which implies an assurance of God's forgiving love, and that one would feel that assurance, or the "witness of the Spirit"

This comes from Romans 8:16:

  The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.

John Wesley delivered a sermon entitled "The Witness of the Spirit".

Here's the pertinent line from the sermon:

  The testimony of the Spirit is an inward impression on the soul, whereby the Spirit of God directly witnesses to my spirit, that I am a child of God; that Jesus Christ hath loved me, and given himself for me; and that all my sins are blotted out, and I, even I, am reconciled to God.

Basically, it's God assuring us that God loves us and is with us, no matter what we did or didn't do.

Methodist doctrine is based on salvation by grace.  Works do not earn you a place in heaven, but rather strengthen our character and serve others through God.


Under what basis does the Catholic Church consider animals, in particular great apes, not to be persons?

Humans have the gift of free will given directly by God [CCC 1730], as well as a soul [CCC 1703]. Only humans have an immortal soul.

Many higher mammals have the traits you speak of: wolves, most domesticated dogs and cats, dolphins and porpoises, and most primates. Sentience is not a function of humanity.

Scripture specifically makes humans special from the time of creation:

Genesis 1:26 And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,  and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and the fowl of the heaven, and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep along the earth. 27: And God created man in his image; in his image he created him; man and woman he created them. 28: And God blessed them, and God said, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts that tread upon the earth.

CCC 1704 goes on to say By free will, [man] is capable of directing himself towards his true good.

In these regards, both scripture and Catholic theology recognize the supremacy of humans over all other species on the planet.

I'm not sure if this is a defense, per se, as you have asked, but God was very specific about the supremacy of humans. Of interest, cultures which are not monotheistic have by and large less empathy towards nonhumans than the Church. If anything, Catholic theology supports animal rights and the relief of suffering as long as it is not to the detriment of humans [CCC 2415-2418].

To sum up, sentience, if present,  is not a substitute for humanity. (Of note, the CCC specifically prohibits slavery of persons [CCC 2414].) Your argument that "some modern scientists" believe sentience makes a nonhuman a "person" is not a replacement for scripture or dogma.


According to Jehovah's Witnesses is Jehovah God omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent?

I will return later to flesh this out and look forward to your requests for clarification
We don’t teach that Jehovah is omnipresent.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102005167
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102011131
We do teach that Jehovah is omniscient.
However when it comes to foreknowledge he does not choose to exercise it in all circumstances.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001549#h=7
We do teach that Jehovah is omnipotent.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1953481
This article is very informative on both omniscience and omnipotence
Below is an excerpt.

Jehovah is also all-knowing, all-wise —omniscient. He can foresee whatever he wishes to foresee. Of him it is said: “There is not a creation that is not manifest to his sight, but all things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of him with whom we have an accounting.” —Hebrews 4:13.

God’s omnipotence and omniscience make it impossible for him to fail. He always predicts the future accurately. Hence, he could say: “Surely just as I have figured, so it must occur; and just as I have counseled, that is what will come true.” (Isaiah 14:24)


Catholic Encyclicals/Bulls in Which Jews and Freemasons are Mentioned?

Pope Leo XIII is your man.  He definitely didn't like the Freemasons, and with good reason if you read the document, seems like they're not as benign a force in Italy as they seem over here .

  We wish it to be your rule first of all to tear away the mask from Freemasonry, and to let it be seen as it really is; and by sermons and pastoral letters to instruct the people as to the artifices used by societies of this kind in seducing men and enticing them into their ranks, and as to the depravity of their opinions and the wickedness of their acts. As Our predecessors have many times repeated, let no man think that he may for any reason whatsoever join the masonic sect, if he values his Catholic name and his eternal salvation as he ought to value them. Let no one be deceived by a pretense of honesty.

Humanum Genus

But I think that's the only Free Masonry specific Encyclical there is. The Pope does say that his predecessors have repeated his statements, so there's probably something.

Nothing in there tying Freemasonry to the Jews though, not that I'd expect there to be.


Is Any New Testament Book Undisputed In Its Authorship?

This is a good question, and I think there are several things to consider.

Straightaway, you should keep in mind that phrases like “the majority of scholars” or “many scholars”—which are encountered everywhere in Biblical scholarship—would be rejected even by Wikipedia as weasel words.

Next, as the commenter observes, everything can be questioned; and given that academics need publications and presentations in order to be employed, everything surely has been questioned by now. (See the Wikipedia article on the authorship of the Pauline epistles—even the “Undisputed epistles” are disputed; they give citations!)

But the final thing to ask is what kinds of arguments can be constructed either way. What does it mean, for instance, to dispute the authorship of Jude? There is nothing to compare it to; the same goes for Matthew and Mark, for example.

The name “Paul” has more books associated with it, and Paul is prominent in Acts, and is mentioned in 2 Peter 3:16. But even then, one can only ask whether the fourteen letters bearing Paul's name were written by the same person or different people. Perhaps I believe that the Pauline epistles were written by two different people. But I can never know which person had the Damascus Road experience. (Wikipedia lists Ephesians as disputed, but perhaps Ephesians is the only letter actually written by Paul, and all the others are forgeries. It's just not possible to argue one way or the other.)

A final note is that it's very difficult to make a convincing argument about authorship. Here is a passage from Richard Hays's The Moral Vision of the New Testament:

  New Testament scholars are sometimes oddly resistant to the idea that
  Paul could have developed or even declined as a theological thinker.
  When the topic of pseudonymous composition arises, I like to ask my
  students whether all those albums issued under the name of Bob Dylan
  for the last fifteen years can possibly be the work of the same person
  who performed “Highway 61 Revisited.


Why do Popes have seven candlesticks on the altar at Mass?

The seventh candle seems to be the jurisdiction candle.

The number of candles "at a pontifical high Mass, celebrated by the ordinary, seven candles are lighted. The seventh candle should be somewhat higher than the others, and should be placed at the middle of the altar in line with the other six. For this reason the altar crucifix is moved forward a little. In Requiem Masses, and at other liturgical services. e.g. Vespers, the seventh candle is not used. If the bishop celebrate outside his diocese. or if he be the administrator, auxiliary, or coadjutor, the seventh candle is not lighted."

This candle seems to be now moved as "an astute Pray Tell reader writes in with an interesting detail on the altar candles:

I just managed to catch the end of the Pope’s Sunday Mass. Someone has moved the central candlestick (the one that says “I have jurisdiction here”) to the side, leaving what appears to be a much smaller-than-before crucifix alone in the middle, with three candles grouped in one corner, and four in the other . . ."

Abbots do not enjoy this privilege.

"The seven apocalyptic lamps (Revelation 1:12) might be in some way related to the menorah, but this would not have influenced their introduction into the liturgy.

The practice described in the seventh-century evidence was later discontinued in Rome although maintained in some monasteries. Sometime around the first half of the 11th century candles appear upon the altar itself. However, neither this practice nor the number of candles was universal.

It was not until the late 13th century that the custom of seven candles upon the altar for the bishop’s Mass was restored to the Roman liturgy. It was firmly established in a book of ceremonies written by Cardinal Giacomo Stefaneschi (1270-1343) who observed, “When the Pope celebrates solemnly, seven candles must be placed upon the altar.”

This practice continues today. For the extraordinary form the indications of the Ceremonial of Bishops for a bishop’s Pontifical Mass are to place seven candelabras upon the altar. The cross is placed in front of the middle high candle at the center.

The practice for the ordinary form is less precise. This is because it is permitted to have candles near the altar and not just upon it. Nos. 125 and 128 of the Ceremonial of Bishops foresee the possibility of having from two to seven acolytes with lighted candles form part of the entrance procession. These candles may then be located upon or near the altar.

Although it is not specifically stated in the liturgical book, and in accordance with the practice of papal celebrations, it is possible to have seven candles upon or near the altar before Mass begins. For the entrance procession two candle bearers accompany the processional cross and they may be followed by six torch bearers. In this case the candles used in the entrance procession are discreetly placed to one side once the procession is over. The two candles are used during the proclamation of the Gospel and at the end of Mass. The six torches accompany the thurible in front of the altar during the Eucharistic Prayer."

The Lamb's Supper

Revelation 1:20 also how seven candlesticks displayed at Mass could be seen as to demonstate the use of the pope's seventh candle (the jurisdiction candle):

  The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches. - Revelation 1:20


What is the biblical basis for restitution?

The basis for making restitution is an Old Testament idea that is explicitly reiterated in the New Testament by Jesus.  When asked to summarize the law (the same law that he said he came to fulfill, not to abolish), Jesus uses an interesting formulation.  He said,

  He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”

(This is in both Matthew and Luke)

In using this formulation, he was clearly drawing from Leviticus, a book we know he was thoroughly intimate with. (Not only here, but when he was tempted, etc...)  In using this formulation, he is explicitly pointing out that sin is sin against God and your neighbor, and as sin, it must be paid for. There are offerings, mentioned in Leviticus which come into play.

The OT basis for restitution

The biblical basis for restitution stems primarily from levitical law, and specifically, Leviticus 5 - 7. Leviticus 6, in particular looks to both the reasoning and the implementation of returning that which was taken, plus extra, to both the one offended and to the Lord against whom also the offender has sinned:

  6 [a]The Lord spoke to Moses: 2 “When someone sins and offends the Lord by deceiving his neighbor in regard to a deposit, a security,[b] or a robbery; or defrauds his neighbor; 3 or finds something lost and lies about it; or swears falsely about any of the sinful things a person may do— 4 once he has sinned and acknowledged his guilt —he must return what he stole or defrauded, or the deposit entrusted to him, or the lost item he found, 5 or anything else about which he swore falsely. He must make full restitution for it and add a fifth of its value to it. He is to pay it to its owner on the day he acknowledges his guilt.

  6 Then he must bring his restitution offering to the Lord: an unblemished ram from the flock according to your assessment of its value as a restitution offering to the priest. 7 In this way the priest will make atonement on his behalf before the Lord, and he will be forgiven for anything he may have done to incur guilt.”

Restitution is a fairly simply property idea in law - a thief (however he took it) - should not be allowed to keep what he took, otherwise it makes a mockery of property rights.  Furthermore, the purpose of the law to is keep people from sinning against their neighbors as well as the Lord, so on the one hand, you don't want an incentive to sin, and on the other, you want clear consequences.

The Levitical approach, you will note, deals with both halves of the crime.

First, the victim gets his property back, plus profit (20% to be precise).  Not only does the thief not profit, he loses.  I find it interesting that the 20% "penalty" is equal to "two tithes," namely one for the Lord, plus one for the neighbor.

Restitution for God is required

In addition to the victim's payment, however, restitution demands a sacrifice.  The linkage between the restitution offering and the sin offering is explicitly the same. As it says in Leviticus 7:

  The restitution offering is like the sin offering; the law is the same for both. It belongs to the priest who makes atonement with it.

The idea in making the parallel explicit is that it highlights that sin is sin against both your neighbor and the Lord.  After David got Uriah killed so as to cover up his affair with Bathsheba, David makes an interesting statement:

  Against you, you only, have I sinned
      and done what is evil in your sight;
  so you are right in your verdict
      and justified when you judge.

Now, I'll admit, I tend to think that David also sinned against Uriah, but the point is that David realizes the Lord is equally a party that need be satisfied for this sin.

Human forgiveness is optional. God's forgiveness is what counts

So, why do I keep hammering home the idea that one must "Love the Lord ... and Love your neighbor?"  Because, quite simply, forgiveness comes from the Lord.  If he has been satisfied with your attempt at restitution, you are forgiven. When you sinned, you sinned against two. If the greater one forgives, the lesser one's forgiveness isn't really that relevant. Sure, its nice if you can make up - but the sin was against the Lord, not your neighbor.

I doubt, for example, that Zaccheus was able to return an exact accounting for the extra taxes he swindled in a precise 120% return to each individual that he had wronged. Logistically, accountingwise, pridewise (on the part of the victims) - it would have been daunting. But as Zaccheus proclaimed that he would give restitution, surely the Lord the was pleased.  That's the point.

Restitution is an outward manifestation of an inward desire for repentance. It is a sign before God and man that the heart has changed. God forgives, man benefits. Both are offended, and the bigger one is clearly reconciled.


What are the names of two thieves who were crucified along with Jesus?

Gospel of Nicodemus
The earliest known record of the thieves' names occurs in the anonymous work which eventually (several centuries later) became known as the Gospel of Nicodemus.  The work is basically orthodox in nature and was likely composed in the early-mid fourth century.  The first part of the work purports to be a translation of the official trial record of Jesus' crucifixion, written by Pilate.  Although few, if any, scholars consider it possible that the so-called Acts of Pilate reflects an actual letter of Pilate, most do believe it was a significantly earlier work incorporated into the Gospel of Nicodemus.
The Acts of Pilate was likely written in the late second century.  Earlier, around 155, Justin Martyr wrote:

And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate. (The First Apology, Ch. 35)

thus suggesting his reader consult the official trial log of Pilate.  Whether such a log actually existed or Justin Martyr just assumed it did cannot be known.  Either way, scholars generally think the Acts of Pilate was written to answer critics who were calling for the document to be produced.
There are two thief passages of Gospel of Nicodemus, both found in the Acts section.  The textual tradition of Gospel of Nicodemus is fairly corrupt, resulting in two fairly different readings.
The first passage reads, in the better attested (Greek) version of Nicodemus:

Then Pilate ordered the curtain of the tribunal where he was sitting to be drawn, and says to Jesus: Your nation has charged you with being a king. On this account I sentence you, first to be scourged, according to the enactment of venerable kings, and then to be fastened on the cross in the garden where you were seized. And let Dysmas and Gestas, the two malefactors, be crucified with you. (Ch. 9)

The other version is not significantly different.  The second passage reads:

And one of the malefactors hanging up spoke to Him, saying: If you are the Christ, save yourself and us. And Dysmas answering, reproved him, saying: Do you not fear God, because you are in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the fit punishment of our deeds; but this man has done no evil. (Ch. 10)

the other (Latin) version reads more straight-forward, not incorporating the Gospel-like language:

And in like manner did they to the two thieves who were crucified with him, Dimas on his right hand and Gestas on his left.

Later accounts
The Arabic Infancy Gospel, written around the sixth century, and The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathea, date unknown but probably later than that, greatly expand the story.
In the Infancy Gospel, "Titus and Dumachus" meet the Holy Family on their way to Egypt and Titus, the good thief, convinces Dumachus not to physically harm the family.  The young Jesus then prophesizes:

Thirty years hence, O my mother, the Jews will crucify me at Jerusalem, and these two robbers will be raised upon the cross along with me, Titus on my right hand and Dumachus on my left; and after that day Titus shall go before me into Paradise.

The The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathea is probably dependent on Gospel of Nicodemus.  It contains some details about Demas' (so spelled in this account) life:

He was called Demas, and was by birth a Galilæan, and kept an inn. He made attacks upon the rich, but was good to the poor— a thief like Tobit, for he buried the bodies of the poor. And he set his hand to robbing the multitude of the Jews, and stole the law itself in Jerusalem, and stripped naked the daughter of Caiaphas, who was priestess of the sanctuary, and took away from its place the mysterious deposit itself placed there by Solomon.

and has a very long, detailed of Demas' confession of faith.
In Codex Rehdigeranus (8th century), the names Joathas and Maggatras are inserted into the  Gospel account.  In Codex Colbertinus (12 century), the names Zoatham and Camma are inserted into Mark and the names Zoatham and Chammatha are inserted into Matthew.  The 17th century Codez Bezae has Gemas and Demas.1
Analysis
It seems nearly every account gives different names to the thieves.  This highly suggests that the names were made up.  They probably were not known even in the very early church, as there really would have been little reason for anyone associated with Jesus to have known the other criminal's.  They were just random criminals - not associated with Jesus' trial or anything like that.
Additionally, there is a strong tendency in apocryphal texts to give names to nameless figures and otherwise fill in "missing" details of the canonical Gospels.  The same thing almost certainly happened here.  The Greek name Dysmas, perhaps derives from the word dysme which means "sinking" or "setting", thus suggesting "dying".2  This suggests that the name may have been invented to fit the context.
So the real answer is, "we don't know."  If we insist on names then Dismas (or Dysmas) for the repentant thief and Gestas for the unrepentant one is the best we can do.  It is the earliest account and there is small chance the Acts of Pilate has a historical core.

References
1 The Gospel according to Luke by James R. Edwards
2 EWTN Catholic Q & A by William Carroll


What is the Biblical basis for not making circumcision a requirement for Christians?

Scripture (and that I mean here the law) clearly tells us that the circumcision is not to be of only physical nature.

  Jeremiah  4:4 Just as ritual circumcision cuts away the foreskin as an external symbol of dedicated covenant commitment, you must genuinely dedicate yourselves to the LORD.

In Jeremiah 9:25, scripture says that if we are not circumcised in our hearts than it is of no use. Here the argument of Paul verses Jesus is clearly defeated since Paul is basing his teaching on what was said in the law which Jesus was saying in Matt. 5:17 that He came to fulfill the law. Paul being a learned Jewish scholar knew all these prophecies which were being fulfilled in Jesus.

  Jeremiah 9:25 The LORD says, “Watch out! The time is soon coming when I will punish all those who are circumcised only in the flesh. 9:26 That is, I will punish the Egyptians, the Judeans, the Edomites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, and all the desert people who cut their hair short at the temples. I will do so because none of the people of those nations are really circumcised in the LORD’s sight. Moreover, none of the people of Israel are circumcised when it comes to their hearts.”

So above verses and following verses from scripture (law) rather tells us that we need to be circumcised in heart also.

  Ezekiel 44:7 When you bring foreigners, those uncircumcised in heart and in flesh, into my sanctuary, you desecrate it – even my house – when you offer my food, the fat and the blood. You have broken my covenant by all your abominable practices.

  Ezekiel  44:9 This is what the sovereign LORD says: No foreigner, who is uncircumcised in heart and flesh among all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, will enter into my sanctuary.

Now coming to the New Testament, we see in verse of Act:10.45 that even uncircumcised believers were filled with Holy spirit.

  Acts: 10:45 The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were greatly astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles,

And in Verse Act. 11:5 Peter’s vision tells us about to accept uncircumcised believers:

  Acts 11:5 “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, an object something like a large sheet descending, being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came to me. 11:6 As I stared I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild animals, reptiles, and wild birds. 11:7 I also heard a voice saying to me, ‘Get up, Peter; slaughter and eat!’ 11:8   But I said, ‘Certainly not, Lord, for nothing defiled or ritually unclean has ever entered my mouth!’ 11:9 But the voice replied a second time from heaven, ‘What God has made clean, you must not consider ritually unclean!’

Elsewhere also we see that there is a strong Biblical basis for not following the practice of circumcision in the following verses:

  Acts 15:7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that some time ago God chose me to preach to the Gentiles so they would hear the message of the gospel and believe. 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, has testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 15:9 and he made no distinction between them and us, cleansing their hearts by faith. 15:10 So now why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? 15:11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they are.”

  Romans: 2:25 For circumcision has its value if you practice the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcised man obeys the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 2:27 And will not the physically uncircumcised man who keeps the law judge you who, despite the written code and circumcision, transgress the law? 2:28 For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision something that is outward in the flesh, 2:29 but someone is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart by the Spirit and not by the written code. This person’s praise is not from people but from God.

  Romans 4:12, “And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.”

So it is not Paul who stopped the circumcision on his own but his preaching was firmly based on the various verses in the law which Jesus came to fulfill and those verses are to be fulfilled by not circumcising physically but spiritually.


Are there one or two covenants in Exodus? Clarifying the role of the first set of laws compared to the second set

I assume you are talking about the tablets of the Ten Commandments which Moses broke in Exodus 32:19, then the second set of tablets made in Exodus 34:4. You are wondering if God wrote something different on the second set.

Exodus 34:1 gives us the answer to your question: "Cut two tablets of stone like the first ones, and I will write on these tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke."

So the second set of laws was the same as the first set.


What prominent Christian thinkers (if any) held to polygenism and if so how did these thinkers view original sin?

Yes. In his book, The Problem of Pain, popular Christian author C.S. Lewis discusses Adam's sin in the context of Scientific understanding of his time, which included Darwinism. He presents an understanding in which those creatures, guided by the hand of God, became man. Despite Lewis' prominence in twentieth century Christianity, this particular viewpoint of his  is not a widely celebrated one:

  ...The Fathers may sometimes say that
  we are punished for Adam's sin: but they much more often say that
  we sinned "in Adam". It may be impossible to find out what they
  meant by this, or we may decide that what they meant was
  erroneous. But I do not think we can dismiss their way of talking as
  a mere "idiom". Wisely, or foolishly, they believed that we were
  really and not simply by legal fiction - involved in Adam's action.
  The attempt to formulate this belief by saying that we were "inAdam in a physical sense - Adam being the first vehicle of the
  "immortal germ plasm" - may be unacceptable: but it is, of course, a
  further question whether the belief itself is merely a confusion or a
  real insight into spiritual realities beyond our normal grasp. At the
  moment, however, this question does not arise; for, as I have said I
  have no intention of arguing that the descent to modern man of
  inabilities contracted by his remote ancestors is a specimen of
  retributive justice. For me it is rather a specimen of those things
  necessarily involved in the creation of a stable world which we
  considered in Chapter II. It would, no doubt, have been possible for
  God to remove by miracle the results of the first sin ever committed
  by a human being; but this would not have been much good unless
  He was prepared to remove the results of the second sin, and of the
  third, and so on forever. If the miracles ceased, then sooner or later
  we might have reached our present lamentable situation: if they did
  not, then a world, thus continually underpropped and corrected by
  Divine interference, would have been a world in which nothing
  important ever depended on human choice, and in which choice
  itself would soon cease from the certainty that one of the apparent
  alternatives before you would lead to no results and was therefore
  not really an alternative. As we saw, the chess player's freedom to
  play chess depends on the rigidity of the squares and the moves.

Lewis refers to this as the "true import of the doctrine that man is fallen."

  ...Science, then, has nothing to say either for or against the
  doctrine of the Fall. A more philosophical difficulty has been raised
  by the modern theologian to whom all students of the subject are
  most indebted. This writer points out that the idea of sin
  presupposes a law to sin against: and since it would take centuries
  for the "herd-instinct" to crystallise into custom and for custom to
  harden into law, the first man - if there ever was a being who could
  be so described - could not commit the first sin. This argument
  assumes that virtue and the herd-instinct commonly coincide, and
  that the "first sin" was essentially a social sin. But the traditional
  doctrine points to a sin against God, an act of disobedience, not a
  sin against the neighbour. And certainly, if we are to hold the
  doctrine of the Fall in any real sense, we must look for the great sin
  on a deeper and more timeless level than that of social morality.

  ...For long centuries God perfected the animal form which was to
  become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. He gave it
  hands whose thumb could be applied to each. of the fingers, and
  jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, and a brain
  sufficiently complex to execute all the material motions whereby
  rational thought is incarnated. The creature may have existed for
  ages in this state before it became man: it may even have been
  clever enough to make things which a modern archaeologist would
  accept as proof of its humanity. But it was only an animal because
  all its physical and psychical processes were directed to purely
  material and natural ends. Then, in the fullness of time, God
  caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and
  physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say "I" and
  "me", which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God,
  which could make judgements of truth, beauty, and goodness, and
  which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past.
  This new consciousness ruled and illuminated the whole organism,
  flooding every part of it with light, and was not, like ours, limited to
  a selection of the movements going on in one part of the organism;
  namely the brain. Man was then all consciousness.

  ... We do not know how many of these creatures God made, nor
  how long they continued in the Paradisal state. But sooner or later
  they fell. Someone or something whispered that they could become
  as gods - that they could cease directing their lives to their Creator
  and taking all their delights as uncovenanted mercies, as
  "accidents" (in the logical sense) which arose in the course of a life
  directed not to those delights but to the adoration of God.


How do "once saved, always saved" advocates explain the Parable about wise virgins?

While it is impossible to account for all OSAS interpretations of of the passage, the most obvious answer is that the unwise virgins were not saved. Remember that certain (purported) proponents of OSAS allow that someone can be (self) deceived about their status as one of the elect.

Consider what Calvin wrote:

  Experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence, it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption .... there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith .... Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their mind to this extent .... there is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent (Institutes, 3.2.11).

The unwise virgins believe that are ready only to learn too late that they lack the needed oil (grace?).


Why would Catholics believe that being kind to one's father will bring reparation for sins?

Consider this passage from the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 25 (as usual, emphasis is mine):

  34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

  35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

  36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

  40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me.

  41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

  42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

  43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

  45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me.

  46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Now, to someone who does not quite get the perspicuity of Scripture, this passage might be construed as arguing that the righteous are justified because (for, v. 35) they fed, gave drink, shelter, clothing, or visited "the least of these my brethren" (v. 40). And the others are condemned because (for, v. 42) they did not feed, give drink, shelter, clothing or visit "one of the least of these" (v. 45).

Now, Protestants clearly do not hold that this Gospel "goes against everything in Scripture". I believe the explanation is that those who do the Corporal Works of Mercy described in the Gospel are simply showing visible signs of their internal conversion, operated by faith — any Protestant brother, please correct me in the comments if that impression is mistaken.

By the same token, the passage in Ecclesiasticus (AKA Wisdom of Sirach) 3:14, when it says (re-quoting the KJV for consistency with the Gospel I quoted above):

  14 For the relieving of thy father shall not be forgotten: and instead of sins it shall be added to build thee up.

Here the Sacred Writer enjoins his readers to be kind to their parents because the kindness shown to the parents is also a Corporal Work of Mercy, which Jesus (this time the Son of God, not of Sirach) mentioned in his sermon in the Gospel, and "every tree is known by his own fruit; for of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes" (Lk 6:44). And a man who cannot respect his own father and mother will certainly not respect a complete stranger, nor the Father who is in heaven.

Furthermore, the Catechism says of the duties of children, in the section commenting on the Fourth Commandment (honour father and mother):

  2215 Respect for parents (filial piety) derives from gratitude toward those who, by the gift of life, their love and their work, have brought their children into the world and enabled them to grow in stature, wisdom, and grace. "With all your heart honor your father, and do not forget the birth pangs of your mother. Remember that through your parents you were born; what can you give back to them that equals their gift to you?"Sir 7:27–28

  2216 Filial respect is shown by true docility and obedience. "My son, keep your father's commandment, and forsake not your mother's teaching.... When you walk, they will lead you; when you lie down, they will watch over you; and when you awake, they will talk with you."Prov 6:20–22 "A wise son hears his father's instruction, but a scoffer does not listen to rebuke."Prov 13:1

  2218 The fourth commandment reminds grown children of their responsibilities toward their parents. As much as they can, they must give them material and moral support in old age and in times of illness, loneliness, or distress. Jesus recalls this duty of gratitude.Cf. Mk 7:10–12

    For the Lord honored the father above the children, and he confirmed the right of the mother over her sons. Whoever honors his father atones for sins, and whoever glorifies his mother is like one who lays up treasure. Whoever honors his father will be gladdened by his own children, and when he prays he will be heard. Whoever glorifies his father will have long life, and whoever obeys the Lord will refresh his mother.Sir 3:2–6

    O son, help your father in his old age, and do not grieve him as long as he lives; even if he is lacking in understanding, show forbearance; in all your strength do not despise him.... Whoever forsakes his father is like a blasphemer, and whoever angers his mother is cursed by the Lord.Sir 3:12–13.16

  2220 For Christians a special gratitude is due to those from whom they have received the gift of faith, the grace of Baptism, and life in the Church. These may include parents, grandparents, other members of the family, pastors, catechists, and other teachers or friends. "I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you."2 Tim 1:15

In conclusion, Catholics dispute that the passage in Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 3 is "against everything in Scripture", because there is plenty in Scripture (not just the Deuterocanonical books) where "justification by works" can be read into the text, like the Gospel passage first mentioned in this answer.


How do decentralized churches/denominations practically deal with "brothers" from another denomination in light of Matthew 18:17

If appealing to authority is necessary, then you would have to appeal to authority that the brother in the wrong is submitting himself to. In this case, it would need to be someone in his congregation (or its hierarchy of authority).

The entire goal of the church discipline described in Mt 18 is to win him over to the truth. He ought to have close ties to the people in the congregation he's a part of, and so if those people must cut him off, the hope is that he will care about those lost/damaged relationships enough to reconsider what he's doing and repent.


If Jehovah's Witnesses believe they should use Jehovah to be accurate why don't they use Jesus' real Hebrew name?

There's a problem with one of your assumptions: Jehovah's Witnesses don't use Jehovah "to be accurate". They use Jehovah because they think it's important to call God by name, and because Jehovah is the traditional rendering in English. They accept that the original pronunciation has been lost, and argue that were it important, Jehovah God would not have allowed it to be lost. They do make linguistic arguments in favour of a trisyllabic pronunciation, but these are lesser considerations.
They also remark that many names contain elements of the divine name: Jeremiah and Jehoshaphat, for example. They argue that if you were to change Jehovah to Yahweh, you should, for the sake of consistency, change these names too.
For more information, see their official publication The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever.


Do these Scripture say that prayer along with fasting is more powerful than either alone?

Let's break down the scriptures you used.

This kind...

In Matthew 12:45 we read that there is a demonic hierarchy. Some demons are more wicked, or more powerful, than others.

  Matthew 12:45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other
  spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there:
  and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall
  it be also unto this wicked generation.

In the Old Testament as Daniel was visited by an angel he was told that he needed help from Michael to defeat a greater power so that he could bring the revelation to Daniel.

  Daniel 10:12-13 Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the
  first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to
  chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come
  for thy words. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me
  one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came
  to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

Prayer elevates the worshiper into the supernatural and causes the things of this world to fade away. It dims the eye to the worries and cares of the natural world. Prayer is so important that in Acts the disciples appointed the first deacons to administer to the widows and so forth so that they could be more devoted to prayer (and study). It is far easier to minister when you have spent time in His Presence.

  Acts 6:4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the
  ministry of the word.

Fasting, likewise, denies the things of this world to better serve him.

On fasting, it's important to note that when Jesus fasted forty days he was not hungry until after the fast was over.

Luke 4:2
Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.

So this kind of spirit would not come out except by the faith of someone who had yielded themselves to God through prayer and fasting. No doubt the disciples had spent the day in fellowship with other disciples, but had neglected to spend time with their heavenly Father. When a test came, their (spiritual) eyes had not been sufficiently dimmed to the things of the world and they could not cast out the evil spirit.

Should you fast and pray simultaneously? Here is some advice based on my personal experience. I would encourage you to try praying early in the morning before breakfast, or skip the last meal in the day and pray into the evening. In this way you can both fast and pray as I believe the early believers did. If you feel led to fast further, and do not find yourself growing hungry but instead are being fed by fellowship with the Lord, continue fasting. In my experience fasting is easiest when I have something or someone weighing on my soul and need an answer from God desperately.


How do Jehovahs Witnesses understand Jesus inheritance of Gods name

There's a 1984 Watchtower article which comments on this pair of scriptures. The conclusion drawn is that the "name" which Jesus inherited is his position, or reputation, as King. This is the definition of "name" that people refer to when they talk about "making a name for yourself."

True, the apostle Paul wrote to the Hebrews: “He [Jesus] has become
better than the angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name
more excellent than theirs.” (Hebrews 1:4; Philippians 2:9, 10)
However, this describes his situation after his having been here on
earth. He was still the archangel and “the beginning of the creation
by God.” (Revelation 3:14) But he became better than the angels. The
‘more excellent name’ or position is something he did not possess
before coming to earth. (These scriptures contradict the Trinitarian
concept that the Son is and always has been equal in every way to the
Father.)
Hence, the fact that Michael is the archangel, chief of the angels,
the fact that he stands up to rule as King, and the fact that he takes
the lead in casting Satan out of heaven at the time of the birth of
God’s Kingdom all lead us to just one conclusion: ‘Michael the great
prince’ is none other than Jesus Christ himself. —Daniel 12:1.
— w84 12/15 p. 29


Miracle of the loaves and fishes, multiplication or sharing?

What the Pope actually said (from the official translation of the Italian) was

  Looking at those five loaves, Jesus thinks: this is Providence! From this small amount, God can make it suffice for everyone. Jesus trusts in the heavenly Father without reserve; he knows that for him everything is possible. Thus he tells his disciples to have the people sit down in groups of 50 — this is not merely coincidental, for it means that they are no longer a crowd but become communities nourished by God’s bread. Jesus then takes those loaves and fish, looks up to heaven, recites the blessing — the reference to the Eucharist is clear — and breaks them and gives them to the disciples who distribute them... and the loaves and fish do not run out, they do not run out! This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing, inspired by faith and prayer. Everyone eats and some is left over: it is the sign of Jesus, the Bread of God for humanity.

I'm not sure what's unclear about this: the five loaves and two fish were not more than five loaves and two fish, but that small amount of food was successfully shared between the people present. The fish did not suddenly multiply to become five thousand fish and each person get one; they remained two fish, and each person received a part of those.

That is, rather  like the widow's jug of oil [1 Kings 17:8–16], the five loaves and two fish were never exhausted. Not only did they not run out, but as well as feeding everyone there was loads left over. This is what Pope Francis means by "they do not run out, they do not run out!"

The bible account does not say that the people brought more than that with them; only that one boy came prepared and he fed everyone. This is the miracle. Everyone shared the boy's meal, and received their fill.

This was part of Pope Francis' sermon on the Sunday after Corpus Christi. The Pope draws an analogy between the sharing of five loaves and two fish such that all in the multitude receive some of that food which Christ makes possible, and the Eucharist, where all receive the completeness of the Body of Christ in a single small particle.


What did the fathers of the early church think of Tertullian?

Like today, those in the early church had differing opinions regarding Tertullian.  Some were largely critical, some largely complimentary, and some more balanced.
The first writings we have discussing Tertullian are decidedly in the first category – their author, Lactantius (c. 250–325), was dismissive of him:

Septimius Tertullianus also was skilled in literature of every kind; but in eloquence he had little readiness, and was not sufficiently polished, and very obscure. (Divine Institutes, 5.1)
Although Tertullian fully pleaded the same cause in that treatise which is entitled the Apology, yet, inasmuch as it is one thing to answer accusers, which consists in defence or denial only, and another thing to instruct, which we do. (5.4)

Following Lactantius we might turn next to Eusebius (c. 260–340) and Jerome (c. 347–420).  Eusebius emphasizes Tertullian's credibility, calling him "especially distinguished in Rome" (Church History, 2.2; cf. 2.25, 3.20, 3.33, 5.5), while Jerome focuses on his influence on Cyprian (c. 200–258) and his "lapse" into Montanism:

I myself have seen a certain Paul an old man of Concordia, a town of Italy, who, while he himself was a very young man had been secretary to the blessed Cyprian who was already advanced in age. He said that he himself had seen how Cyprian was accustomed never to pass a day without reading Tertullian, and that he frequently said to him, "Give me the master," meaning by this, Tertullian. He was presbyter of the church until middle life, afterwards driven by the envy and abuse of the clergy of the Roman church, he lapsed to the doctrine of Montanus, and mentions the new prophecy in many of his books. (Lives of Illustrious Men, 53)

Historians agree that Cyprian was greatly influenced by Tertullian; see, for example, Everett Ferguson, Church History, 7.I.B.
Our last two authors take more balanced approaches, both praising and critiquing Tertullian.  Augustine (354–430) briefly writes of him in On Heresies, acknowledging his "many eloquent works" and defending his doctrine of the soul, before explaining his heresy:

Therefore, the reason Tertullian became a heretic was [...] because in joining the Cataphrygians, whom he had earlier demolished, he also began to condemn, contrary to Apostolic teaching, second marriage as debauchery. Later, having separated from them too, he established congregations of his own. (On Heresies, 86)

Finally we come to Vincent of Lerins (d. 445).  In his treatment of Tertullian one can sense both his admiration and frustration:

For who more learned than he, who more versed in knowledge whether divine or human? [...] Was not his genius of such unrivalled strength and vehemence that there was scarcely any obstacle which he proposed to himself to overcome, that he did not penetrate by acuteness, or crush by weight? As to his style, who can sufficiently set forth its praise? It was knit together with so much cogency of argument that it compelled assent, even where it failed to persuade.
Yet this man also, notwithstanding all that I have mentioned, this Tertullian, I say, too little tenacious of Catholic doctrine, that is, of the universal and ancient faith, more eloquent by far than faithful, changed his belief, and justified what the blessed Confessor, Hilary, writes of him, namely, that "by his subsequent error he detracted from the authority of his approved writings." He also was a great trial in the Church. (Commonitory, 18)

Hilary of Poitiers (c. 310–367), mentioned here, was another church father who was influenced by Tertullian yet eschewed his divergence from the developing orthodoxy.
Summary
So we find then that, not unlike today, some in the first five centuries of the church had little regard for Tertullian (Lactantius), some were largely positive (Eusebius and Jerome), and others recognizing his merits while unable to defend his faults (Augustine and Vincent).  His influence on Latin Christianity was not always admitted (e.g., in Cyprian and Hilary), but his errors were significant enough that they were rarely ignored.