How much time did medieval Christians devote to prayer?

Some early forms of Rosary were known before 1200, although they were probably not as popular as from 13th century on. Jesus prayer popular in Orthodox church was definitely known. Angelus is prayed outside monasteries since 13th century. Way of the Cross is even younger. Wikipedia article on novena is a stub and brief search didn't find anything much better, but novenas could be known and prayed even in early Middle Ages.

We don't know very well how laymen prayed before 1200 - we can be sure they prayed, but most of the forms have not been recorded. I would guess that  devout Christians could pray a lot, but there was no prayer practice everyone (including the less devout) was supposed to join except for Holy Mass, which was not so common in some parts of Europe (in Western Europe there could be a net of churches, but in newly evangelized lands this was hardly the case).


Can Orthodox Church members be extraordinary ministers in the Roman Catholic rite?

I can find no specific rule forbidding it, but almost certainly not.
The document Immensae Caritatis, written in 1973 by what was then the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments first raised the possibility of lay extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. The precise text used is:

In order, then, that the faithful who are in the state of grace and rightly and devoutly wish to share in the sacred meal may not be deprived of this sacramental aid and solace, Pope Paul VI has decided it opportune to authorize special ministers who will be empowered to give communion to themselves and others of the faithful, under the exact and specified conditions here listed.
I. Local Ordinaries possess the faculty enabling them to permit fit persons, each chosen by name as a special minister, in a given instance or for a set period or even permanently, to give communion to themselves and others of the faithful and to carry it to the sick residing at home:
a. whenever no priest, deacon, or acolyte is available;
b. whenever the same ministers are impeded from administering communion because of another pastoral ministry, ill-health, or old age;
c. whenever the number of faithful wishing to receive communion is so great that the celebration of Mass or the giving of communion outside Mass would take too long.
... The faithful who are special ministers of communion must be persons whose good qualities of Christian life, faith, and morals recommend them. Let them strive to be worthy of this great office, foster their own devotion to the Eucharist, and show an example to the rest of the faithful by their own devotion and reverence toward the most august sacrament of the altar. No one is to be chosen whose appointment the faithful might find disquieting.

This last sentence already raises a concern. If any of those receiving Communion is aware that the minister is not a Catholic, what will he or she think about the importance of being Catholic in the Eucharist? Might they conclude that anyone, regardless of their religion, could administer the Sacrament?
Ultimately, as this document says, it's the local ordinary (usually the bishop of the diocese) who has the final say. The bishops already have a say over who receives Communion—the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, for example, wrote a document in 1996 titled "Guidelines for the Reception of Communion". It states that

Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches.

The "discipline" referred to, that is, the Orthodox judgment of whether an Orthodox Christian may receive the Eucharist at a Catholic Mass, appears to be that such may not happen:

Orthodox Christians are not permitted to receive Communion in non-Orthodox communities, including the Roman Catholic. To do so would imply a unity that in fact does not yet exist.

("Communion in Roman Catholic Church", website of the Orthodox Church in America)
It would seem odd indeed if the Catholic Church would respect Orthodox wishes not to receive the Eucharist, and yet appoint a member of the Orthodox Church to distribute it.
Ultimately, the question is up to the bishop, who enjoys a great deal of latitude in these sorts of issues, but I'd be very surprised indeed if such a thing ever happened—if such a minister was ever appointed, and more so if the minister accepted.


What problems, if any, do Swedenborgians have with the Apostles' Creed?

Swedenborg himself had no problems with the Apostles' Creed and he did address it in his writings.

  It is to be observed, that in the Apostles’ Creed it is said, “I
  believe in God the Father, in Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit”;
  in the Nicene Creed, “I believe in one God, the Father, in one Lord
  Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit,” thus only in one God; ... 1

It is the Athanasian Creed with which he had a problem.

  ... but in the Athanasian Creed it is, “In God the Father, God the Son,
  and God the Holy Spirit,” thus in three Gods. But whereas the authors
  and favorers of this creed clearly saw that an idea of three Gods
  would unavoidably result from the expressions therein used, therefore,
  in order to remedy this, they asserted that one substance or essence
  belongs to the three; but still there arises from thence no other
  ideas, than that there are three Gods unanimous and agreeing together:
  for when it is said of the three that their substance or essence is
  one and indivisible, it does not remove the idea of three, but
  confounds it, because the expression is a metaphysical, and the
  science of metaphysics, with all its ingenuity, cannot of three
  Persons, each whereof is God, make one; it may need make of them one
  in the mouth, but never in idea. 1

You can find many of his views concerning creeds and trinity in Canons (1769).

Here's just one statement summary therein.

  Chapter V. The trinity of persons in the divinity is from the council
  of Nice, and was derived thence into the catholic church and [the
  churches] after it, and is therefore to be called the Nicene Trinity.
  But the trinity of God in one person, the Lord God the Saviour, is
  from Christ himself, and was thence in the Apostolic Church, and
  therefore is to be called the Christian Trinity; and this trinity of
  God is the Trinity of the new church. 2 (emphasis added)

1. The Teachings of Emanuel Swedenborg, Volume 2 by Emanuel Swedenborg (Simon and Schuster, Feb 4, 2013)
2. Canons by Emanuel Swedenborg, (1769) tr. by John Whitehead (1914)


First to address a couple fuzzy or incorrect conclusions drawn in the question:

The book of Job does NOT say, "However and whenever they celebrated, Job knew it didn't please God." As you quoted, Job is being proactive to show God he cares about his children, and that on the off chance they have sinned, an atonement can be made.

Also, the beheading of John the Baptist coincided with Herod's birthday, but was not done for his birthday: it was done to please Herodias' daughter (who asked for her mother) after she apparently did some pretty exciting "dancing" for the guests at the party.

To the question itself. Firstly, a "birthday" is amoral - it is a day like any other. Days do not have morality associated with them (though the actions of celebrants/observers will have moral implications).

Secondly, @Marc's answer is a start. Hannah celebrated Samuel's birth (though perhaps not the "day") annually:

  Now Samuel was ministering before the LORD, as a boy wearing a linen ephod. And his mother would make him a little robe and bring it to him from year to year when she would come up with her husband to offer the yearly sacrifice. Then Eli would bless Elkanah and his wife and say, “May the LORD give you children from this woman in place of the one she dedicated to the LORD.” And they went to their own home.

Paul writes in Romans 14 a generally-applicable commentary on celebrations:

  Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
  One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s.

There is no condemnation of celebrating certain amoral days on their own - any commentary made about varied celebrations is always about what the participant(s) may be doing (or not doing). It is not about the day itself.


How many writings of those who were disciples of the first 12 apostles (plus Paul) are available today?

The group you're referring to is known as the Apostolic Fathers. The exact number is unknown, because some writings cannot be dated precisely.

These writings we can say with some confidence are from the Apostolic Fathers:

1 Clement, a letter written by Clement of Rome, a disciple of Peter. He may also be the same Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3. There is also a letter called 2 Clement, but it is generally believed to have been written by a later author.
Polycarp's letter to the Philippians. Polycarp was a disciple of John, and a martyr in the early second century.
Seven letters of Ignatius of Antioch, who was also martyred in the early second century. He was a friend of Polycarp and probably a disciple of John.
Fragments of the writings of Papias of Hierapolis. Papias is known to have written five books, which were often quoted by later Christians. Papias' own writings have since been lost, but the quotes from them survive in later works. Papius was also a disciple of John.
The Shepherd of Hermas was considered Scripture by some early Christians, and actually appears in some early copies of the New Testament. By later consensus it was excluded from the NT because it came from the second generation of Christians, not the first.

These writings may or may not belong to that generation:

The Didache. The full Greek title translates to "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles". Some scholars believe these teachings were collected by the first disciples of the apostles, but other scholars believe this was a later work.
The Apology of Quadratus of Athens. Quadratus was the first Christian apologist. Unfortunately, like the works of Papias, Quadratus' apology survives only in fragments quoted by later writers.
The Apology of Aristides. This  was believed lost for many centuries, until a copy was found in 1889 in St. Catherine's Monastery on Mount Sinai.
The Epistle of Barnabas, attributed to Barnabas who traveled with Paul. Most scholars believe this was actually written by someone else.
The Disputation of Jason and Papiscus attributed to Aristo of Pella. Survives only in fragments.
The Epistle to Diognetus. The letter is attributed to "Mathetes", meaning "Disciple". The author calls himself "a Disciple of Apostles", but does not otherwise identify himself.
The Martyrdom of Polycarp, written by someone who knew Polycarp. Whether they were of the same generation, we can't be sure.


How would miaphysites approach the question of monothelitism versus dyothelitism?

Miaphysitism is very similar to the Hypostatic Union.

  Miaphysitism (sometimes called henophysitism) is the Christology of
  the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Miaphysitism holds that in the one
  person of Jesus Christ, Divinity and Humanity are united in one
  "nature" ("physis"), the two being united without separation,
  without confusion, and without alteration. (Source)

The term miaphysic is best understood as ''one united nature'' i.e. two natures united in Jesus Christ and thus, it is different from monophysitism (''one nature'' not two natures in Jesus Christ).

  Contrariwise, the Chalcedonians saw the Oriental Orthodox as tending
  towards Eutychian Monophysitism. However, the Oriental Orthodox
  persistently specified that they have never believed in the doctrines
  of Eutyches, that they have always affirmed that Christ's humanity is
  consubstantial with our own, and they thus prefer the term Miaphysite
  to be referred to as, a reference to Cyrillian Christology, which used
  the phrase "μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη", "mía phýsis toû
  theoû lógou sesarkōménē". The term miaphysic means one united
  nature as opposed to one singular nature (monophysites). Thus the
  Miaphysite position maintains that although the nature of Christ is
  from two, it may only be referred to as one in its incarnate state
  because the natures always act in unity.

  In recent times,leaders from the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental
  Orthodox churches have signed joint statements in an attempt to work
  towards reunification. Likewise the leaders of the Assyrian Church of
  the East, which venerates Nestorius and Theodore, have in recent times
  signed a joint agreement with leaders of the Roman Catholic Church
  acknowledging that their historical differences were over terminology rather than the actual intended meaning.(Source)

In my research, myaphisitism is indeed compatible with the dyothelitism of Chalcedon.

  The identity of the original human being was known by name. God named
  the first human beings , the male and female, with a singular name
  'Adam'. Scholars say that the name 'Adam' applied to Eve in Genesis
  5:2 was a designation of her equality with the male in human nature as
  stated in Genesis 2:23 where the male said that the female was the
  flesh of his flesh and the bones of his bones. In this case, God was
  treating human beings, male and female, as one.

  The union of the divine nature and human nature in a singularly named person called 'Jesus' was similar to the spirit being united with flesh
  which was called singularly as soul (cf. Genesis 2:7).

  Consciousness existed in the mind. In Jesus, the human mind and the
  divine mind were one i.e. in unity/united. This meant that in Him
  was united minds or one consciousness. This one consciousness  had two
  distinct divisions in which similar but not identical to the Perichoresis of the Trinity, the divine part had full access to the human part whilst the human part had varying access to the divine part -- from limited access
  during his ministry before the crucifixion to full access post-Easter.

  If the divine mind and human mind were two consciousness in Jesus, it
  would mean two separate persons (Nestorianism) which would be akin to
  Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD) wherein there existed ''split
  identities'' (www.webmd.com) in which there was multiple names for
  each person existing in one body. This was not the case in Jesus
  Christ. (Jesus Christ: one person with two minds based on biblical
  Anthropology and the Perichoresis of the Trinity, R. Brown, 2020)


According to Catholicism, why is the Holy Spirit never spoken of as the Father of Jesus?

Jesus had two fathers. One was Joseph, his earthly adoptive father. The other is the Father, his heavenly father (and ours as well). He had no earthly biological father.

That is the distinction. The Father is not Jesus' earthly father in any sense whatsoever. The person of Christ is eternally begotten of the person of the Father. That doesn't and didn't change when he became a man, but it doesn't mean he was temporally or humanly begotten by the Father. A father is a father of a person, not of that person's nature.

But of course, "When [Jesus] came into the world, he said, 'Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me.'" In what sense did the Father "prepare" a body for Jesus? Was it in his capacity as a father? No. His "fatherhood" is not in view at all in Hebrews 10, nor in Psalm 40, which is being referenced. Haydock paraphrases the verse by saying, "Thou didst decree I should be made man." What's in view is God's decree, not his begetting. Haydock emphasizes that Hebrews is speaking of Jesus' willingly becoming man, which Pope Benedict XVI agrees with in this homily: "In this double yes the obedience of the Son is embodied, and Mary gives him that body." I'm sure Jesus prayed with the psalmist, "You knit me in my mother's womb," but that's because that's what God does for all men, not because he begat him.

Mary conceived Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit, but this was miraculous, virginal, nonsexual, and nonmarital. On one website, I found an argument that she had to be wed to the Holy Spirit or else the conception was fornication -- but fornication requires sex! There was no sex, that was the whole point of calling it "miraculous." So the Father is not Jesus' father in the same sense that we have fathers, and neither is the Spirit.

Rather, the "Spouse of the Holy Spirit" title is metaphorical, as Pope Paul VI indicated in Marialis Cultus: "Examining more deeply still the mystery of the Incarnation, [the church fathers] saw in the mysterious relationship between the Spirit and Mary an aspect redolent [i.e. suggestive] of marriage, poetically portrayed by Prudentius: 'The unwed Virgin espoused [i.e. married] the Spirit.'"

Could the Holy Spirit be called Jesus' father in a metaphorical sense? I don't see why not -- in theory -- other than that it hasn't happened yet. It also could be confusing, since obviously Jesus' father is the Father, and the doctrine of the trinity is confusing enough without two of its persons having the same title (albeit in different senses). So will it happen in reality? It seems doubtful.


It sounds like you are scrambling two different parables.

The one with two sons, one of which squanders his inheratence but is welcomed back is found in Luke 15:11-32

The one about a master who lends money to his servants, and some of them give him a return on his investment but one does not is found in Luke 19:11-27.


What is the physical evidence for a local flood?

There are two variants of the "local flood" view. One variant is that Genesis 6-9 refers to an actual flood that was large-scale but not global, and the other is that the Noah story is fiction, but derived from the memory of a large flood in the past.

Both variants point first to evidence found in the geological column. In particular:

1) All of the early contributors to geology were Christians who believed in a global flood before they began studying rock columns. Buffon, Hutton, Lyell, Agassiz, and Kelvin all became convinced after seeing the rock layers that a single global flood could not have produced them.

2) Some formations, such as the Grand Canyon, include layers of desert sandstone in between layers of marine sediments. Yet YECs claim the entire formation was laid down in one global flood. Grey Neyman of Old Earth Ministries explains the problem:

  The young earth scientist would have to explain how the water receded, then the sandstone formed, then the water came back and deposited the other layers.  However, in the Biblical Flood account, the waters rose, then fell.  There were no cyclic water levels, nor was there a massive amount of time during the flood for a desert environment to create a 315-foot thick rock layer.

3) Other areas, such as the Gulf of Mexico, have thick layers of salt. Salt deposits are created when water evaporates. Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth, writing for BioLogos, explain why this is a problem for flood geology:

  One might argue that the waters from the Flood could have evaporated to leave behind the salt deposits we see today, but there is a serious problem. The thousands of feet of sediment on top of the salt is also said to be from the Flood, meaning the flood waters cannot have evaporated to produce the salt and still be present and violent enough to transport thousands of feet of sediment to the same location. In other words, a single flood cannot be called upon to explain both the salt and the overlying sediment.

4) Among the deposits are layers of igneous rock, formed by volcanic eruptions. When volcanoes erupt, they release greenhouse gases. The number of eruptions necessary to produce all the igneous layers found in the geological column, if they all happened within the same year, would produce enough CO2 to kill Noah and his family. Glenn Morton, writing for Old Earth Ministries, has the details:

  How does this relate to the present atmosphere? Currently we are approaching 400 parts per million (ppm) CO2 in the atmosphere, yet the YEC scenario would produce an atmosphere that had AS A MINIMUM a CO2 level of 58,615 parts per million. Scientists are worried about a 600 ppm CO2 world next century, the YEC post flood world would create such a hot climate that all life would be destroyed. Yet amazingly, Creationists like Austin, Baumgardner, Wise, Snelling, Vardiman, Humphreys and Oard think that the post flood world would be glacially cold.

5) Industrial geologists looking for oil deposits use temperature differences in boreholes to determine the age of the sediment they're drilling through. It's kind of complicated, but Willy Fjeldskaar, writing for Age of Rocks, explains:

  The temperature of the sediments is caused by the heat flow from the inner regions of the Earth. If you put a kettle with water on a hot plate, it will take some time for the water to be heated. A certain amount of time is also needed to heat sediments from the time they were deposited until today. The amount of time needed depends on the flow of heat from the inner regions of the Earth and on the thermal properties of the sediments. Both the heat flow and the thermal properties are relatively well known.

As the heat radiates up from the earth's core, the rocks in lower layers retain a certain percentage. The longer the rocks have been buried, the more heat they will have accumulated. In the short time span proposed by YECs, there's simply not enough time for the sediments to have reached the temperatures geologists find in the boreholes:

  We have seen that it is not possible to explain the measured temperature in these sediments on the assumption that the sediments are only some thousands of years old. Using measured properties of the sediments and conventional values for the Earth’s heat flow, we realize that the sediments must be considerably older than 1 million years.

6) The total amount of water on and in the earth is not nearly enough to produce a global flood. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe explains the problem:

  The four different Hebrew verbs used in Genesis 8:1-8 to describe the receding of the flood waters indicate that these waters returned to their original sources. In other words, the waters of the flood are still to be found within the aquifers and troposphere and oceans of planet Earth. Since the total water content of the earth is only 22 percent of what would be needed for a global flood, it appears that the Genesis flood could not have been global.

That's a sample of the evidence against a global flood. Some Christians take the idea of a local flood further, attempting to find evidence of a large local flood in the geological record.

Greg Neyman of Old Earth Ministries lays out the parameters:

  The site of the flood would have to meet three requirements.  First, it would have to be capable of containing the waters of the flood.  In order to do this, we need a basin, with no outlet to the sea.  If there were an outlet, the water would simply run out of the area.

  Second, the flood would have to fit the parameters mentioned in the Bible.  The source of the waters is not in question.  The only point that matters here is that Noah believed that the world was flooded, and that all the mountains were covered with water.

Neyman calculates that Noah, standing on the deck of the ark, would have been able to see a mountain 95 miles away. That gives us a ballpark estimate of how much area the flood would have to include to cover the highest mountains.

  The final requirement is this:  Does the proposed location agree with the geography mentioned in the Genesis account?  It would have to flood the areas populated by mankind.  We don't have many clues as to the extent of the geographic area.  However, it would appear to include the area around the Garden of Eden, and east of the Garden.

There is some evidence of massive flooding in the Middle East in the distant past. One conjecture which has received a lot of attention recently is the Black Sea deluge hypothesis. Geologists have found some evidence of a massive flood following an inrush of water from the Mediterranean about 7600 years ago, causing the Black Sea to overflow.

There's some evidence that glacial melting caused the Caspian Sea to flood the surrounding area somewhere between 9000 and 17,000 years ago.

Hugh Ross favors the Black Sea hypothesis, while Neyman favors the Caspian. Critics (including YECs) point out that there is no clear evidence that either flood could have produced enough water to cover the mountains and wipe out all of human civilization.


What was St. Thomas Aquinas's view on the difference between punishment accorded to original sin and punishment accorded to individual sin?

St. Thomas Aquinas was born in 1225 or 1227 and died in 1274. Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) had already defined the dogma:

  "We say that a distinction must be made, that sin is twofold: namely,
  original and actual: original, which is contracted without consent;
  and actual which is committed with consent. Original, therefore, which
  is committed without consent, is remitted without consent through the
  power of the sacrament; but actual, which is contracted with consent,
  is not mitigated in the slightest without consent. . . . The
  punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but
  the punishment of actual [mortal] sin is the torments of everlasting
  hell." (DZ 410) - Source: Limbo in Church Doctrine | Question
  from John Harden on 01-01-2008 | EWTN Catholic Q&A.

We should then expect that St. Thomas Aquinas would adhere to this Church dogma and teach it; and he does so in  New Advent: Summa Theologica > Supplement > Question 69. Matters concerning the resurrection, and first of the place where souls are after death > Article 7. Whether so many abodes should be distinguished?

  The abodes of souls are distinguished according to the souls' various
  states. Now the soul united to a mortal body is in the state of
  meriting, while the soul separated from the body is in the state of
  receiving good or evil for its merits; so that after death it is
  either in the state of receiving its final reward, or in the state of
  being hindered from receiving it. If it is in the state of receiving
  its final retribution, this happens in two ways: either in the respect
  of good, and then it is paradise; or in respect of evil, and thus as
  regards actual sin it is hell, and as regards original sin it is the
  limbo of children. On the other hand, if it be in the state where it
  is hindered from receiving its final reward, this is either on account
  of a defect of the person, and thus we have purgatory where souls are
  detained from receiving their reward at once on account of the sins
  they have committed, or else it is on account of a defect of nature,
  and thus we have the limbo of the Fathers, where the Fathers were
  detained from obtaining glory on account of the guilt of human nature
  which could not yet be expiated.

Summary: According to St. Thomas [in line with Church Teaching], the punishment of those dying in actual [mortal] sin and those dying only in original sin is eternal hell, though punished with different penalties and in different places. The former going to hell proper and the latter to limbo of children.

Further Reading: The Four Sections of Hell (St Thomas Aquinas) by Dr Taylor Marshall.


Did any medieval Catholics believe in the possibility the repentance was possible immediately after death?

John XXII (reigned 1316-1334) (in)famously held the opinion that one's particular judgment did not occur immediately after death. His successor Benedict XII (reigned 1334-1342) defined the following dogma in Benedictus Deus (1336):

  we define that according to the general disposition of God, the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin go down into hell immediately (mox) after death and there suffer the pain of hell.

Thus, those who die in a state of mortal sin do not have a chance to repent after death.

Now that this dogma has been defined, it's not a pious opinion but heresy to hold a contrary view.


How many people did Moses bring out of Egypt? How large was the area of the Promised Land?

According to the Bible, in Exodus 12:37:

And the people of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children.
Some Scholars believe that the total number of Israelites who left Egypt during the exodus, women and children and old men included, was around 2.4 million people. If we include Egyptians who chose to join the Israelites, the number would be even greater: “Many other people went up with them, and also large droves of livestock, both flocks and herds” (Exodus 12:38).
In the second year after the Israelites left Egypt, Moses took a census of the men in Israel able to fight—all the able-bodied men age twenty and above from all the tribes except the Levites. The number of warriors was 603,550 (Numbers 1:45–46). The Levites were not counted because God commanded Moses to exclude them from the census (verse 49). Instead of going to war, the Levites were to stay and guard the tabernacle (verse 53).
Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Israelites-exodus.html

With regard to the land that God had promised to his people, the Bible says this in Joshua 1:4:

Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphrates—all the Hittite country—to the Great Sea on the west.

That area includes all of the land modern Israel currently possesses, plus all of the land of the Palestinians (the West Bank and Gaza), plus some of Egypt and Syria, plus all of Jordan, plus some of Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
Although the Israelites failed to take possession of all the land promised to them, there was more than ample land to accommodate and feed the Israelites.


What is the biblical basis for only keeping the weekly Sabbath while disregarding all the other feasts/holy convocations (Lev 23, Num 28, 29)?

A biblical basis for some Christians to claim that the weekly Sabbath is still in effect while the Feasts of Leviticus 23 need not be kept is that it's not clear that the Sabbath is included in the feasts of Leviticus 23 as a feast.
It could be that verse 2 ends by indicating that what is to follow is "concerning the feasts", verse 3 is a parenthetic instructing that Sabbath observance is not to be disregarded during the feasts, verse 4 begins with the introduction "these are the feasts of the Lord" and then verse 5 begins the instructions concerning the feasts.

23:2 “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, These are the appointed feasts of the LORD that you shall proclaim as holy convocations; they are my appointed feasts.
Lev 23:3  “Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a
Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work. It
is a Sabbath to the LORD in all your dwelling places.
Lev 23:4  “These are the appointed feasts of the LORD, the holy
convocations, which you shall proclaim at the time appointed for
them.

Additionally, the question lists the feasts of Passover and of Unleavened Bread concurrently but if they are enumerated separately (as many hold they should be) then the feasts number 7 without the inclusion of Sabbath.  The two are often delineated in Leviticus 23:5-8 under the same (man-made) heading "The Passover" but they are clearly not concurrent.  The Passover is a single meal commemorating a single event and occurs on 14 Nissan and  Unleavened Bread is a seven day affair beginning on 15 Nissan:

In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight, is the LORD's Passover.  And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the LORD; for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall not do any ordinary work. But you shall present a food offering to the LORD for seven days. On the seventh day is a holy convocation; you shall not do any ordinary work.” - Leviticus 23:5-8

Unleavened Bread is an example of a feast that lasts multiple days, starting and ending on holy convocations.  One of the feast days is, by necessity, a weekly Sabbath.  It is not the only feast which also incorporates a weekly Sabbath and so lends credence to the idea of verse 3 being a parenthetic reminder to keep the weekly Sabbath during the festivals.
This explanation does nothing to instruct or suggest whether the Church need or need not keep any or all of them beyond that the audience intended in verse 2 is "the children of Israel" (which thing is an entirely different question).


Online resources for the Churches of Christ (USA)

Churches of Christ are All Autonomous

A fundamental axiom of any group that refers to itself as a church of Christ in the tradition of Cambpellite Restorationism is that it's an autonomous unit subject only to Christ himself and no human institution. As such, you will not find anything resembling official resources because there's no official hierarchy whatsoever.

There are some efforts to gather data about these individual congregations, but it's difficult to keep the data current.

Here are a few examples:

http://www.churchzip.com
http://church-of-christ.org/churches/United_States/United_States.htm
http://www.churches-of-christ.net/

There are a few colleges and universities that are affiliated with the churches of Christ, and a great deal of leadership comes out of those institutions, although they produce no formal statements of doctrine as to "what the churches of Christ believe." They also oftentimes are the communications hubs among the disparate congregations in the United States. These higher educational institutions may be able to answer questions about what congregations generally believe. Harding University, Oklahoma Christian University, Abilene Christian University, Lubbock Christian University Pepperdine University, Lipscomb University, York College, and Freed-Hardman University are a few.

Another source of information is The Christian Chronicle, a newspaper published out of Oklahoma Christian University.

It's very common for congregations of any size (100+, let's say) will have a website with statements of belief, though they may not provide a thorough delineation of what's accepted by the local leadership.

What They Believe

As for finding congregations that "adhere to its teachings," you're not likely to find any who will admit something like that, because there's no central teaching or doctrine to which to adhere. They're likely to describe what they believe as "what's written in the Bible" without any man-made creeds or confessions added. They believe that just as eternal judgement is personal, so Biblical interpretation is the responsibility of the individual. Because of this deliberate decentralization, there's a fair amount of variation among congregations as to what they believe, although they almost all worship without instruments, have (or prefer) a plurality of elders, and accept sola scriptura as axiomatic. They will usually say that "baptism is essential for salvation" and equate water baptism with becoming a Christian. There are probably some other commonalities among most congregations, but in order to know what a particular group believes or practices, you'd have to go and talk to them, and even then, you won't find uniformity on most issues outside of those common to most evangelical Christian groups.


The Bible doesn't support this at all, so there is no scripture reference to give. Although perhaps there is a negative one.

Speaking of Jesus' incarnation, the author of the epistle to the Hebrews says:

  Hebrews 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. (KJV)

That is, Jesus came to save men, not angels. This is why he took on human nature, not angelic nature. And it obviously also means that men are not angels. There is also Psalm 8, which is partially quoted in Hebrews 2.

  Psalm 8:3-5 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; [4] What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? [5] For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

So, men are not angels, but a little lower than the angels.


Does God have a form as seen by John the Apostle?

John 1:18

  "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him."

It may be possible, however that the prophets may have seen aspects of him such as found in Ezekiel 1:26-28

  "Above the expanse that was over their heads was what looked like a sapphire stone, and it resembled a throne. Sitting on the throne up above was someone whose appearance resembled that of a human. I saw something glowing like electrum that was like a fire radiating from what appeared to be his waist and upward; and from his waist down, I saw something that resembled fire. There was a brilliance all around him like that of a rainbow in a cloud on a rainy day. That was how the surrounding brilliant light appeared. It was like the appearance of the glory of Jehovah. When I saw it, I fell facedown and began to hear the voice of someone speaking."

Daniel 7:9

  “I kept watching until thrones were set in place and the Ancient of Days sat down  His clothing was white like snow, and the hair of his head was like clean wool. His throne was flames of fire; its wheels were a burning fire."

An explanation of those visions can be found in Insight from the Scriptures VII

  "these descriptions employ metaphors and similes, likening Jehovah’s appearance to things known to humans—jewels, fire, rainbow. He is even described as though he had certain human features. While some scholars make a considerable issue out of what they call the anthropomorphological expressions found in the Bible—as references to God’s “eyes,” “ears,” “face” (1Pe 3:12), “arm” (Eze 20:33), “right hand” (Ex 15:6), and so forth—it is obvious that such expressions are necessary for the description to be humanly comprehensible. For Jehovah God to set down for us a description of himself in spirit terms would be like supplying advanced algebraic equations to persons having only the most elementary knowledge of mathematics, or trying to explain colors to a person born blind.—Job 37:23, 24. The so-called anthropomorphism's, therefore, are never to be taken literally, any more than other metaphoric references to God as a “sun,” “shield,” or “Rock.”

So drawing from that I am unsure whether John saw a physical form or was trying to relate in human terms what he saw. It is pretty hard to describe something to others when they have absolutely no knowledge of what it looks like or in this case relating a vision when there are no words to properly explain what you saw. Instead you try to use describing words to relate it to others. It's sort of like describing the wind. You can't see it, but you can describe things about it to make it understandable.

Moses "saw" God too. but then he left this warning to the people of Israel at Deuteronomy 4:15-18

  “Therefore, watch yourselves closely—since you did not see any form on the day Jehovah spoke to you in Ho′reb out of the middle of the fire— that you may not act corruptly by making for yourselves any carved image having the form of any symbol, the representation of male or female, the representation of any animal on the earth or the representation of any bird that flies in the sky, the representation of anything creeping on the ground or the representation of any fish in the waters under the earth.

Moses said that after he had seen God in Exodus 24:9-11

  Moses and Aaron, Na′dab and A·bi′hu, and 70 of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was what seemed like a sapphire pavement, and it was as pure as the heavens themselves He did not harm the distinguished men of Israel, and they saw a vision of the true God and ate and drank.

As we do not have the proper information we then cannot make a conclusion. That is something we will have to ask God later I guess.


An evangelical perspective on this issue:
Q: What is the biblical basis for valuing virginity, but dispensing with levirate marriage?
A1: Applying the ruling of the council of Jerusalem upholds the former but does not enjoin the latter.
In discussing what provisions of the law gentile converts to Christianity must adhere to, the early church decided:

[they] are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality... - Acts 15:29 NIV

But released them from following any other particulars of the Mosaic law. The traditional understanding of sexual immorality is that it includes any kind of extra-marital sex, whereas levirate marriage would come under the "other particulars" that are no longer required.
A2: The same basic reasons that Jesus gives for "dispensing" with Mosaic divorce laws, but maintaining prohibitions against adultery:

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” (Matthew 19:3-12 NIV, Emphases added)

The social security aspect of levirate marriage laws were only necessary in the context of hardened hearts that failed to see that the commandment "love your neighbor as yourself" (cf. Leviticus 19:18) has such a broad application that fulfilling it, also fulfills all other laws governing human-to-human interactions. After the Holy Spirit was poured out, the believers (with regenerated soft hearts, full of the love of God) in the early church looked after the widows amongst them as a loving community superceding the necessity of the welfare provisions of Levirate marriage (cf. Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-35; 6:1-7; James 1:27).
The value of virginity is also changed in the context of the new covenant - it should no longer be seen as merely valuable in the sense of property rights, shame, societal norms etc. (as those with hardened hearts may have done), but in terms of a refocusing on the original design of God's sacred covenant for marriage which is undermined by any act of fornication or adultery. As Andy Stanley puts it, "sex is not just a physical", but it is integral to the sacred joining that occurs in the God-designed one-flesh union and should not be profaned, but reserved for that purpose (cf. Hebrews 13:4; Ephesians 5:21-33); and in the context of a new paradigm of paramount focus on the Kingdom of God that looks beyond the (still legitimate, but subsidiary and, for those "to whom it has been given", deniable) needs of human companionship and sexuality (cf. Matthew 19:12; 1 Corinthians 7:1-9; 25-40; Revelation 14:4). In these particular contexts, the value of virginity is broadened (unmistakeably including men, not just women) and sacralized.


What are common explanations for the angel being delayed for 21 days in Daniel 10:13?

The two most common explanations for the delay are:

To make an accommodation to the kingdom or guardian of Persia
To resist an evil intended by or suggested to the rulers of Persia

Accommodation to Persia
The view of an accommodation to Persia can be found primarily in church fathers like Jerome, Theodoret, and John Cassian.  This view typically understands the "prince" to be an archangel who has oversight over Persia (cf. Deuteronomy 32:8) and who resists the work of the angel out of a sense of justice for his own people.  Thus, Jerome writes:

And so the prince or angel of the Persians offered resistance, acting on behalf of the province entrusted to him, in order that the entire captive nation [Israel] might not be released.  [...] The prince of Persia opposed him for twenty-one days, enumerating the sins of the Jewish people as a ground for their justly being kept in captivity and as proof that they ought not to be released.1

This guardian, says Theodoret, was "displeased" that Israel would be blessed, despite their sins being worse than those of his own people, and thus the angel is delayed due to his debate with the Persian guardian over Israel's merit and God's plan for them.2
John Cassian's view of the prince is similar but less positive: he calls it a "hostile power" and says that it was out of "jealousy" that it delayed the angel.3
Resistance to an evil
The other common view, that the angel's delay was due to his resisting an evil, is held widely by Protestants in particular.  John Gill's explanation is typical:

Gabriel's business in the court of Persia was to work upon the minds of the king of Persia and his nobles, and to influence their counsels, and put them on such measures as would be in favour of the Jews, and be encouraging to them to go on in the rebuilding of their city and temple: in this he was withstood and opposed by an evil spirit that counterworked him; by exasperating the spirit of Cambyses against them.4

The Geneva Study Bible explains the angel's words by suggesting that Persia's rulers would have committed further evil against Israel:

Cambyses, who reigned in his father's absence, and did not only for this time hinder the building of the temple, but would have further raged, if God had not sent me to resist him: and therefore I have stayed for the profit of the Church.5

John Calvin,6 Matthew Poole,7 and John Wesley8 see the matter similarly.  Adam Clarke's interpretation is more gracious, seeing the "prince" as the fearful, not malicious, ruler of Persia:

Fearing, probably, the greatness of the work, and not being fully satisfied of his ability to execute it, [the king] therefore for a time resisted the secret inspirations which God had sent him.9

Who is the Prince?
The preferred interpretation of this verse has often depended on one's understanding of the "prince" of Persia: if a good angel, then the accommodation view, and if a bad angel or man, then the resistance view.  Albert Barnes notes that the language does not indicate whether the "prince" was good or bad, but because of his resistance to Daniel's angel, presumes him to be a bad angel.10  Haydock finds this argument wanting, saying that no angel, good or bad, can resist God's will.11

References:

Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, tr. Gleason L. Archer.
Theodoret, Commentary on Daniel, tr. Robert C. Hill, p 273–75
Conferences of John Cassian, 1.8.13
Gill, Exposition
Geneva Study Bible
Calvin, Commentary on Daniel
Poole, Annotations
Wesley, Notes
Clarke, Commentary
Barnes, Notes
Haydock, Catholic Bible Commentary


Why aren't Christmas and New Year's Day the same date?
In one sense they are the same date!
The short answer is that they are simply not taking the same place within the civil calendar.
Yet on the other side of the coin, they may seem to be the same date, although their not.
This question is going to be answered in a little convoluted and complicated manner.
It is true that liturgically speaking the Feast of the Circumcision of Christ is celebrated on January 1st, while the Feast of the Nativity is celebrated on  December 25th.
In the ancient days of Christendom, major feasts were celebrated for eight days. Christmas in days gone by was celebrated for eight days in a row, called liturgically an octave. Thus the Feast of Christmas columnated with the Solemnity of the Circumcision of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus in a liturgical sense of traditional minded Catholics, Christmas is one continuous liturgical feast that ends on January 1st.
The Feast of the Circumcision is a natural way to conclude the Christmas feast day, as circumcision was performed on the "eighth day" after birth, the number 8 became associated also with baptism, and baptismal fonts have from an early date often been constructed  in an octagonal design.
Thus the Brit Milah of Jesus would be a fantastic way to end the Octave of Christmas. Satan hates this day for on this day Christ received the sacred name of Jesus.  In the Catholic Church, January 1st remains a holy day of obligation.
Thus we can conclude the Pope Gregory XIII believed the Jesus was the Christ at the very moment of his conception in the womb of the Virgin Mary. Moreover, Christmas and the Circumcision of Christ was seen as one continuous feast!
In 1582, Pope Gregory XIII (Gregorian Calendar) corrected the Julian Calendar, the first day of the year varied from country to country.
For example, England celebrated New Years Day on March 25th. Now in England, the 25th of March fell on the Feast of the Announciation. The faithful of the Middle Ages were more religiously mind than our modern society is now. This can be seen in the fact that in som pious liturgical books the Annunciation and Good Friday. This had no effect on the date of the Easter celebration which was liturgical celebrated anytime between Marsh 22nd to April 25th, depending on when the first full moon of spring occurred.
It should equally be noted tha the Romans celebrated their New Years Day on January 1st. In an other view point, Gregory XIII was restoring the first day of the civil calendar to it’s original place!


I'll start with the "state of Christian grace" bit. The common teaching (and probably not limited to Catholics) is that people who die not in a state of grace do not go to heaven. BUT, the church also teaches that we don't know who is in a state of Christian grace, or not.

One of the teachings of the Roman Catholic church is that once a person has been baptized, he or she remains baptized for life.  The church also teaches that just not going to church is not sufficient to leave the Catholic church; in order to leave, one must formally renounce one's membership in the church, but even this does not undo baptism.

The church would say that one who has renounced membership will probably not be in a state of grace at the time of death, but that there is no way for a human to know for sure whether the dying person is, or is not in a state of grace.


Is it best not to mention a denomination or branch when talking to a person who belongs to a different one?

Unlike politics, Christians of different denominations very rarely are hostile to one another. The differences between denominations are not very significant in everyday life. Most Christians have close friends different denominations and many would be hard pressed to articulate the differences between their denomination and any others they might encounter. Even when they are known, the differences are rarely a cause for animosity and it is safe to talk about denominations.

There are a few parts of the world where the above is not true but those cases should be easily identified.


The Nation of Israel is an end-times figure in certain end-times teachings... So if Jeshrun is another name for Israel, that makes Jeshrun an end-times figure.

The short version is as follows:

This is tied to Dispensationalism, and certain premillennial views. The short version is that we are currently living in the "Church Age" which is a brief respite in the Seventy weeks of Daniel. This is a time period here God's dealings with Israel is suspended. In the pre-tribulation rapture view, the Church will be raptured, which will signl the start of the seven year Great Tribulation, in which God will again be dealing directly with Israel. Those seven years represent the final "week" in the seventy weeks of Daniel.

References for further study:

Why do some people consider Jeshurun to be an end-times figure?

http://gracethrufaith.com/ikvot-hamashiach/the-70-weeks-of-daniel/

http://www.raptureready.com/rr-pre-trib-rapture.html

The usual disclaimer, I'm just outlining the beliefs. Not everyone agrees with these views.


Does the LDS discuss the issue of LDS children "playing Sacrament"?

Previous answers speak of small children receiving the Sacrament, rather than imitating it as play.  As for that question,

  Is there anything in LDS teaching that addresses this issue, or is it a matter left entirely to the judgment of parents?

I'm not aware of anything that addresses this issue specifically, but more generally, Latter-Day Saints believe in the doctrine of the Age of Accountability, the concept that little children are not capable of committing sin, (including sacrilege, which is what making light of sacred ordinances would fall under,) until they are mature enough to understand the basic abstract concepts of morality.

Doctrine and Covenants 18:42 states that

  For all men must repent and be baptized, and not only men, but women, and children who have arrived at the years of accountability.

This is further clarified in Doctrine and Covenants 68: 27:

  And their [church members'] children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands.

As the question is dealing with children well below the age of eight, there's no real moral problem with it.  Play-acting is one of the ways that children use to come to understand the world around them; a wise parent would not discourage this, particularly for things that they want their children to understand and engage with, such as their faith.


In heaven will we love God more than everyone else, or will we love everyone as much as we love God? (Catholic)

In heaven we will still love God above all things, even our neighbor.

The order of charity—that is, of supernatural love—will endure in heaven; the love of God must remain above all, even in heaven. Mt. 22:36-40 says that the greatest commandment is to love God, and the second greatest is like (but not identical) to it: to love one's neighbor as thyself.

St. Thomas Aquinas explains how the order of charity endures in heaven in his Summa Theologica II-II q. 26 a. 13 "Whether the order of charity endures in heaven?" c.:

  The order of charity must needs remain in heaven, as regards the love of God above all things. For this will be realized simply when man shall enjoy God perfectly. But, as regards the order between man himself and other men, a distinction would seem to be necessary, because, as we stated above (A7,9), the degrees of love may be distinguished either in respect of the good which a man desires for another, or according to the intensity of love itself. On the first way a man will love better men more than himself, and those who are less good, less than himself: because, by reason of the perfect conformity of the human to the Divine will, each of the blessed will desire everyone to have what is due to him according to Divine justice. Nor will that be a time for advancing by means of merit to a yet greater reward, as happens now while it is possible for a man to desire both the virtue and the reward of a better man, whereas then the will of each one will rest within the limits determined by God. But in the second way a man will love himself more than even his better neighbors, because the intensity of the act of love arises on the part of the person who loves, as stated above (A7,9). Moreover it is for this that the gift of charity is bestowed by God on each one, namely, that he may first of all direct his mind to God, and this pertains to a man's love for himself, and that, in the second place, he may wish other things to be directed to God, and even work for that end according to his capacity

  As to the order to be observed among our neighbors, a man will simply love those who are better, according to the love of charity. Because the entire life of the blessed consists in directing their minds to God, wherefore the entire ordering of their love will be ruled with respect to God, so that each one will love more and reckon to be nearer to himself those who are nearer to God. For then one man will no longer succor another, as he needs to in the present life, wherein each man has to succor those who are closely connected with him rather than those who are not, no matter what be the nature of their distress: hence it is that in this life, a man, by the inclination of charity, loves more those who are more closely united to him, for he is under a greater obligation to bestow on them the effect of charity. It will however be possible in heaven for a man to love in several ways one who is connected with him, since the causes of virtuous love will not be banished from the mind of the blessed. Yet all these reasons are incomparably surpassed by that which is taken from nighness to God.


When do we as Christians draw the line on self-defense?

This verse is easy to misunderstand without an understanding of the culture that produced it.  It helps to read it very literally: If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Why is that significant?  Think back to the Old Testament, where it would explicitly point out anytime someone was left-handed, because that was thought to be really weird.  Being right-handed was the norm, and that's an important part of this verse.

It would be very awkward for a right-handed person bent on doing harm to attack someone standing in front of them by striking them on the right side of their face.  The only convenient strike that works this way is a backhanded slap, which is very different in nature: an insult, not an assault.  Understanding this changes the meaning of the verse greatly:

  Do not let evil men provoke you.  If someone insults you with a backhanded slap, do not respond to the provocation, but turn your other cheek instead.

This is in the same character as the other verses around it, particularly the one about being forced to go a mile with someone (which a Roman citizen could legally force a Jew to do).  There were Jews at that time who thought their religious duty was to resist Roman occupation in any way they could, including by killing Romans.  If the followers of Christ got mixed up in that, they would have ended up sharing his fate, execution at Roman hands, which would have seriously impeded the church's ability to grow.  So the message is, make it absolutely clear that you're going along with the law, so no one has any excuse to try to use the law to make even more trouble for you.

Also, keep in mind that when they were actually in real danger from people who were determined not to let the law get in the way of what they wanted:

  Luke 22: 35-36

  35 he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

  36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Two different directives for two different points in time, but both with the same objective: to keep his disciples safe from harm.  These two principles should provide a firm foundation for a Christian to base his understanding of self-defense on.


What is the earliest recorded instance where Mary is called "Blessed Virgin?"

The mother of Christ was specifically called "blessed" at least as far back as the end of the second century AD, and given the title "the Blessed Virgin" at least as far back as the early fifth century.
CCEL.org, the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, lists several references for "blessed Mary" from the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. For example:

And when he had thus said, the angel ordered the beast to stand, for the time when she should bring forth was at hand; and he commanded the blessed Mary to come down off the animal, and go into a recess under a cavern, in which there never was light, but always darkness, because the light of day could not reach it.  And when the blessed Mary had gone into it, it began to shine with as much brightness as if it were the sixth hour of the day.  The light from God so shone in the cave, that neither by day nor night was light wanting as long as the blessed Mary was there.

(Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, Chapter 18; in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 8: The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementina, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First Ages: Philip Schaff, ed.)
Wikipedia quotes (but does not provide a reference to) a work dating this apocryphon to the early seventh century.
There's also a letter from Pope Gregory the Great (Gregory I), who was Pope from 590 to 604 AD:

Epistle LVI.
To Peter, Subdeacon.
Gregory to Peter, &c.
Being exceedingly desirous of observing the festivals of saints, we have thought it needful to address this our letter of direction to thy Experience, informing thee that we have arranged for the dedication with all solemnity, with the help of the Lord, in the month of August, of the Oratory of the Blessed Mary lately built in the cell of brethren where the abbot Marinianus is known to preside, to the end that what we have begun may through the Lord’s operation be completed.  But, inasmuch as the poverty of that cell requires that we should assist in that day of festival, we therefore desire thee to give for celebrating the dedication, to be distributed to the poor, ten solidi in gold, thirty amphoræ of wine, two hundred lambs, two orcæ of oil, twelve wethers, and a hundred hens, which may be afterwards charged in thy accounts.  Provide therefore for this being done at once without any delay, that our desires, God granting it, may take speedy effect.

("Register of the Epistles of St. Gregory the Great", translated by James Barmby)
Even earlier than this, I see that this series of writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers includes letters from Theodoret of Cyrus, who lived in the early fifth century. He writes (to a "Bishop Timotheus", who may be Pope Timothy II of Alexandria):

And, again, Gabriel says to the blessed Virgin, "Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son and shalt call His name Jesus".

(Ante-Nicene Fathers)
Earlier still, there is a fragment of a sermon by Saint Hippolytus:

Tell me, O blessed Mary, what that was that was conceived by thee in the womb, and what that was that was born by thee in thy virgin matrix.

This then pushes back use of "blessed" to describe the mother of Christ at least as far back as the late second or early third century AD.


I can't answer the question in the way you're asking it, but I can 'disarm' numerology for you. When you encounter something, like say, a set of best practices in an activity, the number of units you decide to divide the information into determines the symbolic meaning you are essentially attaching to the set. This is possible with pretty much everything, so when you see 'ten commandments', if you affix too much significance to the ten, you lose sight of the fact that God could have given them four or twelve commandments with the same content, but Ten is chosen because of its symbolic meaning.

Take the cross; it is one thing. You can divide it into the cross bar and the pole, that's two. You can divide it into the top, middle and bottom, that's three. You can divide it into each of the cardinal directions: four. You can divide it into cardinal directions plus the center: five. Or, you can get four by including more details, such as cross bar, pole, sign (above) and footrest. The cross has six elevations (forward, back, top, bottom, left, right). The five pieces before plus the footrest and the sign is seven; with the footrest and sign you get eight points. Take the seven before and include the spear of longinus and the reed with the sponge, you get nine objects. Ten if you then count the rock it was planted on. You get twelve by counting the sides in two dimensions, fourteen in three dimensions, and so on.

The problem and weakness of numerology generally is that it assumes the numbering and the content are coeval, that the ten-ness of the ten commandments is somehow essential to its content. Consider the four Gospels; four were kept because of the symbolism of four; at one time a Syriac wanted to combine them into a single gospel for accuracy (this was a long, long time ago.)

The difficulty with numbers is teasing out the meaning of the number itself and not confusing it with the thing being numbered. All numberings aside from perhaps one and three are arbitrary; but even then the threeness of God is his decision.

This position essentially refutes numerology because instead of seeing the numbers as a noumena, I.e a revelation of the underlying reality, it sees them as phenomena, that is, an arrangement applied to the underlying reality. Their use has a meaning, but it is not itself the meaning.


Why did Jesus compare one born of the Spirit to the wind?

John 3 is the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus about baptism. Ignatius of Antioch writes about this verse:

  "For though some would have deceived me according to the flesh, yet the Spirit, as being from God, is not deceived. For it knows both whence it comes and whither it goes..." The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians, Chapter 7

So, according to Ignatius, the wind is the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit knows from whence He comes and where He is going. Indeed, the Greek word used for wind in the verse is πνεῦμα (pneuma, breath or wind), which is the same word used throughout the New Testament for the Holy Spirit. It is therefore clear that Jesus is speaking about the Holy Spirit when He speaks about the wind.

We too know where the Holy Spirit comes from: He "proceeds from the Father and the Son" (Nicene Creed). And we know where the Holy Spirit is going (i.e. what He is doing): He "calls alongside" us as the Paraclete, pointing us to Christ and His gifts of life and salvation. He is sent by the Father in Christ's name, teaching us all things and bringing to our remembrance all that Christ has said to us (John 14:26). Thus, the baptized child of God who has the Holy Spirit and has been born again knows where the wind comes from (from the Father and the Son) and follows where the wind is leading (to the Father through the Son).

When Jesus tells Nicodemus (not yet a baptized believer) that he does not know where the wind comes from and where it goes, He means that Nicodemus should seek to understand the source and work of the Holy Spirit and follow his guidance to Christ by means of baptism.


How is the matter of why the Son of God needed to be sacrificed explained in the Roman Catholic Church?

I have a problem with Christ Sacrifice being "needed"

To suggest such a thing suggests that God the father sent his son to die.  This was not his will, nor from the begining of creation was this his will.  Because of the Nature of God being outside of Time, the whole of History from start to finish is laid out for him in it's immediacy.

  To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination,” he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: “In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness. CCC 600

  Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed., p. 155). Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference.

This understanding of God being outside of time does not change his intention for his creation, that being to share in his divinity by pouring himself out in an act of total self gift.

Unable to understand this gift, which was freely given in the Garden, Man at the Fall, rejected the gift of devine sonship, falling and losing the divine Nature, the likeness of God.

Thomas Aquanis addresses this topic in a few articles.  Here is one explaining, not easily, how this sacrifice in a way necessary.

  FIRST ARTICLE

  WHETHER IT WAS NECESSARY FOR CHRIST TO SUFFER FOR THE DELIVERANCE OF THE HUMAN RACE?

  Objection 1. It seems that it was not necessary for Christ to suffer for the deliverance of the human race. For the human race could not be delivered except by God, according to Isaias. 45:21: Have not I, the Lord, and there is no God else besides Me? A just God and a Saviour, there is none besides Me. But no necessity can compel God, for this would be repugnant to His omnipotence. Therefore it was not necessary for Christ to suffer.

  Obj. 2. Further, what is necessary is opposed to what is voluntary. But Christ suffered of His own will; for it is written (Isa. 53:7): He was offered because it was His own will. Therefore it was not necessary for Him to suffer.

  Obj. 3. Further, as is written (Ps. 24:10): All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth. But it does not seem necessary that He should suffer on the part of the Divine mercy, which, as it bestows gifts freely, so it appears to condone debts without satisfaction: nor, again, on the part of Divine justice, according to which man had deserved everlasting condemnation. Therefore it does not seem necessary that Christ should have suffered for men’s deliverance.

  Obj. 4. Further, the angelic nature is more excellent than the human, as appears from Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv.). But Christ did not suffer to repair the angelic nature which had sinned. Therefore, apparently, neither was it necessary for Him to suffer for the salvation of the human race.
  On the contrary, It is written (John 3:14): As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

  I answer that, As the Philosopher teaches (Metaph. v.), there are several acceptations of the word necessary. In one way it means anything which of its nature cannot be otherwise; and in this way it is evident that it was not necessary either on the part of God or on the part of man for Christ to suffer. In another sense a thing may be necessary from some cause quite apart from itself; and should this be either an efficient or a moving cause, then it brings about the necessity of compulsion; as, for instance, when a man cannot get away owing to the violence of someone else holding him. But if the external factor which induces necessity be an end, then it will be said to be necessary from presupposing such end—namely, when some particular end cannot exist at all, or not conveniently, except such end be presupposed. It was not necessary, then, for Christ to suffer from necessity of compulsion, either on God’s part, Who ruled that Christ should suffer, or on Christ’s own part, Who suffered voluntarily. Yet it was necessary from necessity of the end proposed; and this can be accepted in three ways. First of all, on our part, who have been delivered, according to John (loc. cit.): The Son of man must be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting. Secondly, on Christ’s part, Who merited the glory of being exalted, through the lowliness of His Passion: and to this must be referred Luke 24:26: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into His glory? Thirdly, on God’s part, Whose determination regarding the Passion of Christ, foretold in the Scriptures and prefigured in the observances of the Old Testament, had to be fulfilled. And this is what St. Luke says (22:22): The Son of man indeed goeth, according to that which is determined; and (24:44, 46): These are the words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning Me: for it is thus written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead.

  Reply Obj. 1. This argument is based on the necessity of compulsion on God’s part.

  Reply Obj. 2. This argument rests on the necessity of compulsion on the part of the man Christ.

  Reply Obj. 3. That man should be delivered by Christ’s Passion was in keeping with both His mercy and His justice. With His justice, because by His Passion Christ made satisfaction for the sin of the human race; and so man was set free by Christ’s justice: and with His mercy, for since man of himself could not satisfy for the sin of all human nature, as was said above (Q. I., A. 2), God gave him His Son to satisfy for him, according to Rom. 3:24, 25: Being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood. And this came of more copious mercy than if He had forgiven sins without satisfaction. Hence St. Paul says (Ephes. 2:4): God, Who is rich in mercy, for His exceeding charity wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ.
  Reply Obj. 4. The sin of the angels was irreparable; not so the sin of the first man

  Thomas Aquinas. (n.d.). Summa theologica. (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Trans.). London: Burns Oates & Washbourne.

In addition to this discription Thomas speaks of the efficiency of Christs sacrifice here.

  Article 6. Whether Christ's Passion brought about our salvation efficiently?

  Objection 1. It would seem that Christ's Passion did not bring about our salvation efficiently. For the efficient cause of our salvation is the greatness of the Divine power, according to Isaiah 59:1: "Behold the hand of the Lord is not shortened that it cannot save." But "Christ was crucified through weakness," as it is written (2 Corinthians 13:4). Therefore, Christ's Passion did not bring about our salvation efficiently.

  Objection 2. Further, no corporeal agency acts efficiently except by contact: hence even Christ cleansed the leper by touching him "in order to show that His flesh had saving power," as Chrysostom [Theophylact, Enarr. in Luc.] says. But Christ's Passion could not touch all mankind. Therefore it could not efficiently bring about the salvation of all men.

  Objection 3. Further, it does not seem to be consistent for the same agent to operate by way of merit and by way of efficiency, since he who merits awaits the result from someone else. But it was by way of merit that Christ's Passion accomplished our salvation. Therefore it was not by way of efficiency.

  On the contrary, It is written (1 Corinthians 1:18) that "the word of the cross to them that are saved . . . is the power of God." But God's power brings about our salvation efficiently. Therefore Christ's Passion on the cross accomplished our salvation efficiently.

  I answer that, There is a twofold efficient agency--namely, the principal and the instrumental. Now the principal efficient cause of man's salvation is God. But since Christ's humanity is the "instrument of the Godhead," as stated above (Question 43, Article 2), therefore all Christ's actions and sufferings operate instrumentally in virtue of His Godhead for the salvation of men. Consequently, then, Christ's Passion accomplishes man's salvation efficiently.

  Reply to Objection 1. Christ's Passion in relation to His flesh is consistent with the infirmity which He took upon Himself, but in relation to the Godhead it draws infinite might from It, according to 1 Corinthians 1:25: "The weakness of God is stronger than men"; because Christ's weakness, inasmuch as He is God, has a might exceeding all human power.

  Reply to Objection 2. Christ's Passion, although corporeal, has yet a spiritual effect from the Godhead united: and therefore it secures its efficacy by spiritual contact--namely, by faith and the sacraments of faith, as the Apostle says (Romans 3:25): "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood.

  "Reply to Objection 3. Christ's Passion, according as it is compared with His Godhead, operates in an efficient manner: but in so far as it is compared with the will of Christ's soul it acts in a meritorious manner: considered as being within Christ's very flesh, it acts by way of satisfaction, inasmuch as we are liberated by it from the debt of punishment; while inasmuch as we are freed from the servitude of guilt, it acts by way of redemption: but in so far as we are reconciled with God it acts by way of sacrifice, as shall be shown farther on (49).

Summery of Points

Keeping in mind the attributes of the Persons and Natures of the God head, contemplating that from which humanity fell and that to which Christians shall rise to, the Church understands through its vigilance, That Christ was sent to us, given to us John 3:16 because he loved us. There are many ways in which he could have saved us, including, simply pronouncing our salvation through himself without the Cross at all.  Christ however was a teacher, his will and divine purpose united with that of the father, Revealed to us the most efficient way for him, not the only way, or the Necessary way, but the most efficient way, to complete the redemtion of the world. God would become man, and in his goodness free of any sin while living out the Law to perfection, would be killed by his creation.  This act, the most humbling example of self gift that could be given to man, the most perfect example of Love for us that ever was is the manor that God choose as the means of our redemption.

Uniting ourselves to this self Gift, making self gifts of ourselves in and through Christ, not on our own is how through the Sacrements of the Church many are drawn towards him in the Eucharist as he is lifted up.

Christ, by his sacrifice on the Cross showed us the love that we rejected and the means by which we can repair our fallen condition, by the same means, joining our lives to his through sacrifice by giving all back to the Father through the Son.


From the Baptist perspective: Does Leviticus 20:13 prove that God is advocating for the murder of homosexuals?

I will give you a quick answer for this, because I feel for you in your state of confusion! this can be a tough predicament, but this is really no predicament at all, like most seeming "contradictions" in the Bible, the problem is with our understanding, and not with the Bible itself.

A classic approach to attacking the Christian faith / Bible is to cherry pick verses out of the Mosaic Law that are particular out of place in our modern culture.

The idea is this, if the Christian agrees with the Scripture, then they are a labeled as hateful, bigotted, or possibly even criminal (which is what stoning a homosexual in the USA is, it is called murder.) So the Christian is put in a seeming dilemma, Either admit you are a murderous hateful biggot, OR admit that the Bible is wrong, and you are just a hypocrite. Either of these choices are ideal for the person who is attacking the faith/Bible.

But really we just need a better understanding of God's word to clear this all up.

Traditionally the Law of Moses is divided into 3 sections. The Ceremonial, Civil and Moral.

Basic over-view of each:

The Civil Law: Israel was LITERALLY a brand new nation. They needed laws, judges, and regulations of every kind. God gave this to them in a set of Civil laws, for the Jews, in the nation of Israel.
I am not a jew, but a Gentile, and I live not in Israel, but under another nation altogether, The United States. It is commanded clearly in the new testament that believers should behave orderly and not break the laws of the nation whenever possible. Think of Jesus statement about paying taxes, in

  Matthew 22:20-21
  And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?"
  21 They said to Him, “Caesar’s.”
  And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” NKJV

Also see Paul in

  Romans 13 :1-7 13 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

So as long as we are not ordered by the goverment to do anything immoral, and are not ordered against worshipping God (This is another question in itself) We are to honor the Government's laws as good citizens. Note that he also says "He does not bear the sword in vain" The "power of the sword" AKA the ability to take life in punishment of crime is reserved to the governing authorities. And not for us as individuals, or even as a church whole.

OK so that basically answers your question. The Bible, when taken as a whole, does NOT order Christians to kill homo-sexuals. Quite the opposite, we should count homo-sexuals as people who need god's grace and the forgiveness freely offered to men because of the death of the God Man, Jesus the Christ on the cross for the salvation of sinners of all stripes, Of whom i am the chief! Praise God!

Just for completeness we will touch on the other two aspects of the law.

Ceremonial. :
We no longer sacrifice sheep and goats have you ever noticed that? (would make for an interesting church service) This is because Jesus has FULFILLED the ceremonial portion of the law.

  Hebrews 10:12-14 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

Also,

  Colossians 2:16-17 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

Finally, the Moral Law.
Best shown in the 10 commandments. This aspect of the law stands for all time, Thats because it shows what God thinks is Good, and What is Bad. It is consistent with his Character, which never changes.

The Commandment says "You shall not bear false witness" Lying is wrong, because God is True.
The Commandment says "You shall not commit Adultery" Adultery is wrong, because God is Faithful. (adultery being unfaithful).
(You can find the 10 commandments in Exodus 20 if you are interested)

These things stand for all time!

Hope this helps you, and answers your question. Be encouraged, and continue to "Study to Show yourself approved"!


Are Christians monotheists and what is the nature of Jesus? (i.e. Give me the basics of Christianity please)

This answer will mostly link to other answers already on the site - please understand that I'm really taking this as a basic "Give me the basics of Christianity."  Please understand, normally this would be off-topic, as we are really more geared to experts, but I think having one basic answer here is helpful.

This answer really needs to explain the two big points of Christianity:

What is the Nature of God, and
What is the Nature of Jesus.

These two things are both as basic as it gets and hard to understand for non-Christians. As such, putting them in one place helps to define what Christians believe.

Note: This is stuff that all Nicene (read "Mainstream") Christians - Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant believe at one level (+ or - a few very small fringe groups <2%) at a basic level, although there may be nuances in the particulars.  The only real exceptions are those deemed 'heretical' since 325 or a few modern splinter groups, of which the Jehovah's Witness and LDS churches would be the largest outliers.

What is the Nature of God? (Answer: Trinitarian)

  1- Is Jesus one and only god?

In classic, Nicene Christianity, we believe in "The Trinity," namely that God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit are three persons but also one.  While it seems illogical, it's not really - it's just that there is no good metaphor to explain it.  The Athansian Creed puts it as such:

  "we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal."

For more, see

What is the Doctrine of the Trinity

Is God Three or One?

  2- Is there any other god except two of them?

Again, please see what the Trinity is - it isn't two (or three) but one, even though they have different personalities.

What is the Nature of Jesus? (Christology) (Answer: Hypostatic Union)

  3- If Jesus is a God then how people killed him? Why he let people to kill?

Classically, Jesus is "fully god and fully man".  If he is not God, then he has sins of his own for which he must pay. If he is not man, he is not an acceptable sacrifice. As both God and man, he can subject himself to death as He desires, and overcome it as well.

As to 'why did he let them kill him?'  The classic answer is John 3:16 -

  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosever should believe in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Along with that are several models of salvation, all of which seek to answer why it is that God required the death of his son to "satisfy" or "atone for" the sins of a fallen humanity, or if there was simple some "victory" that had to be won.

For more see

Was Jesus created?

Why did Jesus have to be fully God and Fully Man?

  4- How jesus was born? Is real god create him? If answer is yes can he create more gods?

Jesus wasn't "born" he was begotten.  Per John 1, He was from the beginning - and "without Him was nothing made that was made."  He was incarnated - meaning he became man - in Palestine around 4BC, lived, died on a cross, and was resurrected.

He sent the Holy Spirit, but does not "beget" more gods because God already is - he is eternal.


Does the Bible stipulate priorities among personal allegiances?

If you know enough about the rest of Scripture to know what kinds of things are NOT found, I think you can base an answer almost entirely on this passage:

  Mathew 22:34-40 (ESV)
  But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

The most important thing is loving, honoring and submitting to God. That trumps everything. As far as prioritizing things, that will always be at the top of the list.

Moving down on the list to number two, you find your "all others" lumped together in one big group. The other people and relations you mention are of course mentioned elsewhere in Scripture. You will find instructions to children to honor their parents, slaves to obey their masters, wives to submit to their husbands, citizens to obey the law, and a laundry list of other reminders. However all of these are summarized in this: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

What Scripture does not do is pit these other things against each other. I believe this is because if you really start digging, the only times they will be in conflict are also times when you would also have a conflict of interest with God, and then the choice again becomes clear.

Lets try a scenario where there is an apparent conflict. The country I live in has mandatory military service. Every male has to do their time. Yet many families aren't happy about their children being taken away to war or same other duty. It's generally understood that like it or not it's just a part of life that has to be dealt with and they celebrate that they are honorably serving their country. Every once in a while a child might run into a situation where family and friends advocate not going and doing something to hide from this law. At first glance this may seem like a conflict of interest where you have to prioritize honoring your parents wish for you to go underground or obeying the laws of your country.  However if you look at what is expected of you in God's eyes in both cases, it becomes clear that honoring your parents does not always mean obeying them. It would be a dishonor to the family to be dishonest even if that is their wish, so obeying the law is the best way to bring them honor even if they think they are not happy about it.

If you re-approach any apparent conflicts from a good understanding of what loving God requires, the need to prioritize them melts away in favor of the need to do the thing in any given scenario that best reflects your status as a child, servant and ambassador of Christ.


Is partaking of the Holy Eucharist the key to incorruptibility of the saints?

Inedia, according to the Catholic theologian Antonio Royo Marín, O.P. (Teología de la Perfección Cristiana p. 845), is the "ayuno absoluto durante un tiempo muy superior al que resisten las fuerzas naturales" ["absolute fast lasting much longer than natural forces can endure"], in which only Holy Communion is received. He continues (ibid. p. 846):

Supuesta, finalmente, la sobrenaturalidad del fenómeno, habrá que explicarlo, desde el punto de vista teológico, por una especie de incorruptibilidad anticipada de los cuerpos gloriosos, que suspende la ley del incesante desgaste de los órganos y dispensa, por lo mismo, de la ley correlativa de la refección alimenticia.
[Assuming the supernaturality of the phenomenon, it will have to be explained from the theological viewpoint, by a type of anticipated incorruptibility of the glorified bodies, which suspends the law of the incessant degradation of the organs and, therefore, dispenses from the correlative law of needing refreshment from food.]

One effect of Holy Communion is attaining glory and everlasting life: "If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever" (Jn. 6:52). One can only receive Holy Communion worthily within the Catholic Church (cf. St. Thomas on whether one can receive Communion from schismatic or heretical priests). Thus, it makes sense that the incorruptibles are Catholic.
A few examples of incorruptibles who experienced inedia (cf. Teología de la Perfección Cristiana p. 845):

St. Catherine of Siena (1347–1380), for ~8 years
Teresa Neumann (1898-1962), from 1926-1962.

For more examples of incorruptibles who also experienced inedia, see The Incorruptibles.


Under what circumstances may female Jehovah's Witnesses teach doctrine to men in an evangelistic setting?

There is no issue with a female Jehovah’s Witness evangelizing to a male.
Within the congregation women do not generally teach from the stage. Exceptions would be in isolated groups where a man is not available. When this becomes necessary a sister wears a head covering.
Head covering protocols are explained  here
Your baptism would not effect this since head covering protocols relate to baptized Jehovah’s Witnesses and within a family where the wife is taking on a role that is usually the responsibility of the head of the household (husband).
Since you have not been baptized as a JW nor are you married to her this would not be an issue.
As for your anecdotal observation this is a matter of propriety and safety.
When a sister comes upon a man who expresses interest in learning more about Jehovah’s Witnesses beliefs she will engage in a discussion with him. If this occurs at the mans home and she is invited into the home a sister will use good judgement to avoid putting herself in danger or giving an appearance of impropriety.
She would not enter the mans home if it would mean she and he would be alone in the house.
A brother would exercise the same good judgement if invited in by a female.
Most of the time we don’t go to doors alone and that goes a long way toward preventing this from becoming a problem.
If a sister determines that the man is genuinely interested in learning more she will arrange to return with a brother on the next visit if possible.
If not possible two sisters may return and the evangelizing session could resume.
Generally when a sister finds a man who wishes to learn more she will turn this over to a brother for future visits, not because there is a problem with a female JW evangelizing or teaching a man who may be baptized into a different denomination but for the avoidance of any impropriety or appearance there of.


What is the Scriptural basis for Modalism?

The United Pentecostal Church International, who are a denomination of Oneness Pentecostalism, and adopt the doctrine of Oneness, which is essentially the same as Modalistic Monarchianism, offer the following in support of their Doctrinal Foundation:

  The Oneness of God

  God is absolutely and indivisibly one (Deuteronomy 6:4;
  Galatians 3:20). In Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead
  bodily (Colossians 2:9). He is the self-revelation of the one
  God, the incarnation of the full, undivided Godhead (John 20:28;
  I Timothy 3:16).

  God has revealed Himself as Father (in parental relationship to
  humanity), in the Son (in human flesh), and as the Holy Spirit (in
  spiritual action).  (See Deuteronomy 32:6 and Isaiah 63:16;
  Luke 1:35 and Galatians 4:4; Genesis 1:2 and Acts
  1:8.) The one God existed as Father, Word, and Spirit before His
  incarnation as Jesus Christ, the Son of God; and while Jesus walked on
  earth as God Himself incarnate, the Spirit of God continued to be
  omnipresent. However, the Bible does not teach that there are three
  distinct centers of consciousness in the Godhead or that Jesus is one
  of three divine persons.

  Jesus is true God and true man as one divine-human person. We can
  distinguish these two aspects of Christ’s identity, but we cannot
  separate them. The Incarnation joined the fullness of deity to
  complete humanity.

  Jesus possessed all elements of authentic humanity as originally
  created by God, without sin. Thus we can speak of Jesus as human in
  body, soul, spirit, mind, and will. (See Matthew 26:38; Luke
  2:40; 22:42; 23:46; Philippians 2:5.) According
  to the flesh, Jesus was the biological descendant of Adam and Eve,
  Abraham, David, and Mary. (See Genesis 3:15; Romans 1:3;
  Galatians 3:16; Hebrews 2:14-17; 5:7-8.) We should
  not speak of two spirits in Jesus, however, but of one Spirit in which
  deity and humanity are joined.

  Christ’s humanity means that everything we humans can say of
  ourselves, we can say of Jesus in His earthly life, except for sin. In
  every way that we relate to God, Jesus related to God, except that He
  did not need to repent or be born again. Thus, when Jesus prayed,
  submitted His will to the Father, and spoke about God, He simply acted
  in accordance with His genuine humanity.

  As Jehovah manifested in the flesh, Jesus is the only Savior (Isaiah
  45:21-23; Matthew 1:21-23). Thus, Jesus is the only name
  given for our salvation (Acts 4:12). The Father was revealed to
  the world in the name of Jesus, the Son was given the name of Jesus at
  birth, and the Holy Spirit comes to believers in the name of Jesus.
  (See Matthew 1:21; John 5:43; 14:26; 17:6.)
  Thus, the apostles correctly fulfilled Christ’s command in Matthew
  28:19 to baptize “in the name [singular] of the Father, and of the
  Son, and of the Holy Ghost” by baptizing all converts with the
  invocation of the name of Jesus.

Source: Our Doctrinal Foundation; United Pentecostal Church International