Christianity certainty and other religions certainty

This is an interesting question.  Many people are firmly convinced that their religious position is, indeed, true.  This includes atheistic positions as well.  Yet, the question is not with the level of certainty an individual has, but the validity of that certainty.  As on writer put it, "faith is only as strong as the object of that faith."

The illustration of ice is mentioned.  A traveler from the Arctic regions may visit a warmer climate in winter.  While in his home town, they drive cars on the lakes at this point, where he is visiting only seldom as ice thick enough to walk on.  Coming upon a lake, he may leap out onto it with all the certainty possible.  Yet the object of his faith does not hold up, and he gets very wet and very cold.

Another person from the mild climate may visit an arctic region, and with great timidity, gently step out onto a lake that is covered by two feet of ice.  His uncertainty is placed in an object that can well accommodate his act of faith, and he remains dry and on solid "ground".

So, again, faith is only as strong as the object of that faith.  As Spurgeon exhorted, "never make a Christ out of your faith."  It is not the strength of our faith that saves us, but the truthfulness of salvation that God offers to us through Christ.

So, the real question in this matter is which religious belief is true.  All religious beliefs which are false, including atheism, will not support our weight if we put our trust in them.  Christianity, however, will indeed support our weight as we put our trust in Jesus, despite the timidity or certainty of our faith.

Christianity alone has overwhelming evidence to support its truthfulness, including hundreds of predictive prophecies fulfilled in Jesus, the inexplicable growth of Christianity in the face of severe and extensive persecution at its very birth, billions of transformed lives, and on and on and on and on...  but that's another question.


Why are the Gospels silent on the physical appearance of Jesus?

The prophecy of Isaiah 53 asserts that Jesus would not have any extraordinary physical attributes.

  For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,
  And like a root out of parched ground;
  He has no stately form or majesty
  That we should look upon Him,
  Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.  Isaiah 53:2 NAS

Thus, this affirms that there was nothing extraordinary in His physical appearance, so He was not likely seven feet tall nor did He likely have the physique of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

As to why this was the case, the second of the Ten Commandments asserts that we are not to even make any images that could be used in worship.  The lack of description of Jesus' appearance seems to have a preventative effect to this end.

  “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them... Exodus 20:4-5a NAS


Can an adult be Baptized if they are not Catholic

Definitely.  Many churches (e.g. Baptists) would be glad to welcome you and baptize you.


Does the Eastern Orthodox Church have guidelines on which language to recite the Jesus Prayer in?

The general guideline of the Orthodox Church has always been to allow believers to worship, read and pray in the language which they understand.

In his Ecclesiastical History, Theodoret describes how, in the 4th century, John Chrysostom ministered to the Goths (Scythians) within Greek-speaking Constantinople itself:

  Appointing presbyters and deacons and readers of the divine oracles
  who spoke the Scythian tongue, he assigned a church to them, and by
  their means won many from their error. He used frequently himself to
  visit it and preach there, using an interpreter who was skilled in
  both languages, and he got other good speakers to do the same. This
  was his constant practice in the city, and many of those who had been
  deceived he rescued by pointing out to them the truth of the apostolic
  preaching.

  Book V, Chapter XXX

The existence of the Cyrillic alphabet provides another such example of such support.  The Prologue describes how Cyril and Methodius ministered to the Slavs:

  When the Khazarite king, Kagan, sought preachers of the Christian
  faith from the Emperor Michael, the Emperor commanded that these two
  brothers be found and sent to the Khazars. They converted Kagan to the
  Christian faith and baptised him, together with a great number of his
  nobles and an even greater number of the people. After some time, they
  returned to Constantinople, where they compiled a Slavic alphabet of
  38 letters and began to translate the service books from Greek into
  Slavonic. At the invitation of Prince Rastislav, they went to Moravia,
  where, with great devotion, they spread and confirmed the Faith, made
  more copies of the books, brought them priests and taught the young.

  Lives of Sts. Cyril and Methodius

Today the Orthodox Church comprises four of the five ancient Patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem), nine autocephalous Churches (ten if the Orthodox Church in America is counted), and five autonomous Churches (Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church, pp. 5-6).  These Churches not only support worship in the local language, but also - in the spirit of John Chrysostom - often in the language of any foreigners who happen to be present.  In the Cathedral of St. Luke in Hong Kong, which belongs to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, for example, I have heard English, Cantonese, Greek, Romanian, Russian, and French all used in the same service, depending on who happened to be visiting that particular Sunday.

Although the Jesus Prayer is understood to be mystical by Orthodox believers, it is not "magical".  It is a prayer and not an incantation and, as such, falls entirely within the Orthodox tradition of prayer and worship in one's own language.


Does the Minimal Facts Argument have the potential to the biggest Christian revelation over the last thousand years?

Although I admit I hadn't heard of Habermas prior to this question, it can't be denied that he is an important figure in Apologetics, as evidenced by him being in the top 14 authors by number of index references in Groothuis's textbook Christian Apologetics.

The Minimal Facts Argument (MFA) does not exist in isolation. It is a specific form of apologetic argument in the broader approach of Evidential Apologetics. Habermas is not the only proponent of this approach, and though I don't know who first developed it as a distinct approach to apologetics, Habermas is the youngest of the proponents listed in Wikipedia, making me think it's pretty unlikely that he was its founder.

Evidential Apologetics itself is really a development of so-called Classical Apologetics. Groothuis explains their relationship as follows: Classical Apologetics has a two-step strategy: arguing first for a monotheistic God, and then for the particulars of Christianity, focusing on miracles, the incarnation, and the death and resurrection of Jesus. Evidentialism has a one-step strategy, jumping straight to the argument of the historicity of Christ and the resurrection, its proponents arguing that the fact of the resurrection is enough to bring someone directly from atheism to faith in Christ, without needing to be convinced of theism first.

It is natural for Christian apologists to give a heavy focus to the death and resurrection of Jesus - it is the centre of our gospel of course! More than that, it seems to me that the MFA is really just a particular formulation of another common argument, often called the Transformation of the Disciples. Two popular pop-level apologetics books, Josh McDowell's Evidence Demands a Verdict and Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ each include it as part of their Cumulative approach to apologetics. McDowell quotes none other than John Stott saying "Perhaps the transformation of the disciples of Jesus is the greatest evidence of all for the resurrection", and Strobel interviewed J. P. Moreland who says that his first line of evidence for the resurrection is the transformation of the disciples.

Furthermore, it is also quite common for apologists to present first the extra-Biblical evidences for Jesus. Though many have written on these topics, few do it as well as John Dickson's The Christ Files, which considers in order the secular Greco-Roman sources about Jesus, then the hostile witness of Jewish sources, before finally considering the Christian witness.

In summary, The Minimal Facts Argument is unlikely to be revolutionary within Christianity because it is far from a revolutionary argument. The ideas it conveys are actually well recognised and are given a place of top importance by many apologists. (For this reason I'm highly doubtful that you can attribute the change within secular academia of almost universal acknowledgement of the historicity of Jesus to the MFA.) The MFA is one way of building an argument on these facts, but it is not the only way to do so. And because most apologists do not subscribe to the Evidentialist approach, I think the specific form of MFA may end up being overlooked compared to those who present the very similar Transformation of the Disciples argument within a Cumulative approach.


What is the difference between 'Hell', 'Sheol', 'Hades' and 'Gehenna'?

Michael A. Knibb says, in 'Life and death in the Old Testament', published in The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives, pages 403-5, that at death the individual was placed in the grave, but he was at the same time thought to go down to the realm of the dead, to Sheol, as that realm is most commonly named in the Old Testament. He says the dead were believed to continue in existence in Sheol, albeit in a very weak and reduced state. The Old Testament concept of the realm of the dead as a place of darkness, in which the dead lead a shadowy existence, cut off from men and God, unable to praise God and indeed unable to do anything, seems quite similar to the pagan concept of Hades. The early Christian pseudepigraphal Ascension of Isaiah speaks of Jesus descending to sheol to rescue the righteous dead before reascending to the highest heaven (there were seven heavens).

Alan Millard says in Discoveries from the Time of Jesus, page 38, that a steep-sided valley to the south of Jerusalem, was probably the site of their refuse tip, where they could dump what they did not want, possibly throwing it over the edge of the valley, and set it on fire.  He says even if flames were not always shooting out, the piles of rubbish would always be smoking and smouldering.  Much of what was not burnt, or would not burn, gradually decomposed, as worms and insects gnawed and burrowed, or corrosion and rust ate into it. That valley was named the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom, or just the Valley of Hinnom, in Old Testament times. By the first century, its name had been put into Aramaic as  Gehenna and had become a common Jewish word for hell. Uta Ranke-Heinemann says, in Putting Away Childish Things, page 236, Gehinnom (Gehenna) owed its ill repute to the child sacrifices that are supposed to have been offered up in the fire there.  The Jewish Encyclopedia says the valley was deemed to be accursed, and "Gehenna" therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for "hell." We see a New Testament reference to Gehenna in Mark 9:47, although this is commonly (eg KJV) translated as 'hell fire'.

Our word 'hell' is from Norse mythology, where it is the realm of Hel, the goddess of death, but is not a place of punishment. Wikipedia tells us that Achaemenid era (648–330 BCE) Zoroastrianism developed the abstract concepts of heaven and hell, as well as personal and final judgement, all of which are only alluded to in the Gathas. Hell did not properly enter the Jewish faith, but the Zoroastrian concept is believed to have strongly influenced Christianity. In later Christian tradition Satan ruled hell and suffered there himself, but neither point is clear in the New Testament. Uta Ranke-Heinemann says (ibid, page 236) Matthew is the main gospel to makes Jesus use hell as a threat. She cites Georg Baudler, who says (Theologie der Gegenwart) all the divine tribunals and images of Hell that appear in Jesus' parables are later interpolations, and in some cases they actually wreck the structure of the original parable.


Are there any passages in Sacred Scripture that explicitly describe apocalyptic weather patterns?

The only passages that come to mind regarding weather patterns in the end times have to do with clouds:

  Joel 2:2  A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of
  thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great
  people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall
  be any more after it, even to the years of many generations.

  Zep 1:14  The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth
  greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall
  cry there bitterly.  Zep 1:15  That day is a day of wrath, a day of
  trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of
  darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness,

Is it the quantity of clouds? Will they be blacker than normal? We can expect unusual weather patterns when much of the earth's greenery is burnt ("The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up" -- Rev. 8:7), the air is scorched, and smoke is everywhere. From what I've seen in my life on earth, dense smoke turns the sun red:

  Joel 2:30  And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth,
  blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.  Joel 2:31  The sun shall be
  turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and
  the terrible day of the LORD come.

The abundance of burning vegetation will surely cause crazy weather patterns.


Having personally aided exorcists in various ways, I can assure you that not all exorcisms are performed at night. Neither does the Rituale Romanum of 1614 or the revised one in 1998, states when an exorcism is to be perform.

That stated I will admit that many exorcism do occur at night. But this is more a question that those involved are entitled to their privacy. Most people are asleep at night and churches are thus empty and more available for priests to perform this Rite when possible (any other suitable dwelling may be used) in a more discreet atmosphere. A priest must never reveal the name of the possessed. This applies to those who assist the priest in their individual functions.

The fire crackers that you are hearing is nothing more than the Devil or Demons involved making noise in order to impress those within ear shot and work on our imaginations. The Devil is a master of making illusions.

Exorcisms may take a priest a couple of times of performing an exorcism in order to liberate a person from the clutches of the demons or may take several weeks or months and occasionally years. The now famous Vatican exorcist Gariele Amorth explains all this in his two books: An Exorcist Tells His Story and An Exorcist: More Stories.


Catholic Church and the Critique of Pagan Worship?

Cardinal Newman, the leader of the Oxford Movement in the Church of England who converted to that of Rome in 1847 wrote a book entitled An Essay in the Development of Christian Doctrine.

He describes the problem in Chapter 8, Section 2, Paragraph 12.

  That great portion of what is generally received as Christian Truth is in its rudiments, or separate parts, to be found in heathen philosophies and religions.

He lists amongst these a doctrine of the Trinity, the ceremony of washing, the rite of Sacrifice,  the Divine Word, the doctrine of the Incarnation, angels and demons, a sacerdotal order and a new birth.

He says that Mr (Henry) Milman argues from this that

  These thing are in heathenism, therefore they are not Christian

but that we (Cardinal N and the RCC) prefer to say

  These things are in Christianity, therefore they are not heathen.

He explains

  From the beginning the Moral Governor of the World has scattered the seed of truth far and wide over its extent, that they have variously taken root and grown as in the wilderness, wild plants but living; and hence that as the inferior animals have an immaterial principle in them, yet have not souls, so the philosophies and religions of men have their life in certain true ideas they are not directly divine.

A little later he says one way Providence has imparted divine knowledge to (the Church) is by allowing her to draw and collect it together out of the world and so to suck the milk of the Gentiles.

In so far as this question is a resource request, Cardinal Newman is someone who addressed this issue.


Darkness is a physical reality of the physical universe.  It should be noted that darkness is really the absence of light.  We have light bulbs that light a room, but there is no such thing as a dark bulb that brings dark into the room.  Darkness occurs in the absence of light.

That being said, the physical universe was created by God.  The physical universe is made up of time, space, and matter.  Science now shows (with the theory of relativity) that the universe had a beginning.  There was a "time" when time, space, and matter did not exist.  The creator of time, space, and matter must be an entity outside of time, space, and matter.  God is Spirit and thus exists apart from the physical universe.

Consequently, God is the "Beginner", who created the physical universe, including the physical reality of darkness.


Which heresy did Spurgeon accuse Pusey of?

The following quotes show that Spurgeon accused Pusey (and his followers) of

1. Attempting to Re-unite Anglicanism with Catholicism

  Nowadays Dr. Pusey dreams that the Anglican and the Russian Church may be united, and then perhaps the Romish may chime in—and so once more all may be one. A mere dream! A mere chimera of a kindly but whimsical brain! If it should ever come to be a reality it would prove to be an upas tree at the roots of which every honest man must at once lay his axe. But what did the Savior mean, "That they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me"?

Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 12

2. Idolatry

  We
  spoke of idolatry as being buried at Athens and consigned to its tomb at Rome, but it lives in the Puseyism of the present hour; men are naturally idolaters, and it is nothing but idolatry which nowadays, in the
  toyshops of the Tractarians is polluting the simplicity of our worship by thrusting their childish symbols
  and emblems before the sublime truth that God is to be worshipped in spirit, and only to be approached
  through the atoning sacrifice of His only-begotten Son.

The Heart - A Den of Evil


How does the Filioque affect Reformed Protestant theology?

The Filioque is considered to be of extremely significant importance in Reformed Theology. Even in Reformed-flavored Protestantism (such as that found at The Gospel Coalition), it has implications for Scripture's authority, as well as preaching and discipleship. These implications include the authority of Scripture and the preaching and discipleship of the church: the Scriptures must be our final authority for deciding matters of faith and practice, rather than the councils of fallible men (which are useful insofar as they are in agreement with the Word of God) ; for preaching and discipleship--when Christians are commanded to live holy lives, they are enabled to do so by the Spirit of Christ in them.

For it's significance in specifically Reformed thinking, Richard Muller writes in his Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics,

  The Reformed exegetes, moreover, understood the issue to be one of exegesis, not merely an issue of the form of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, and found the biblical text to be entirely of one accord in favor of double procession.

Which is further confirmation of the Reformed view that Scripture is the ultimate authority for questions of faith and practice.

In a lecture delivered at Mid-America Reformed Seminary, Nov. 10, 1999, Robert Letham says,

  According to the West the Eastern repudiation of the filioque
  leaves no clear relation between the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is
  in odd contrast to the patristic teaching of perichoresis, whereby the
  persons of the Trinity indwell and interpenetrate one another. The
  West holds that this exhibits subordinationist tendencies reaching
  back as far as Origen, for in the East the Son and the Holy Spirit are
  commonly said to derive their deity from the Father. In contrast,
  the filioque affirms the intimate relation between the Son and the
  Spirit, and thus between the Word and Spirit. The East’s position,
  the West claims, has led to a gulf between theology and piety.
  Speculative theology, grounded on the Logos, has been separated
  from worship, mediated by the Holy Spirit. Thus Eastern piety, so
  Western observers like Bavinck claim, is unduly dominated by
  mysticism. 14

Although many historic Reformed theologians would disagree with him, Letham considers this argument to actually be flawed. So he offers what he considers a stronger argument:

  A third objection, however, carries much greater weight. Following John of Damascus, the East tends to consider that the essence of God is unknowable, only God’s energies or operations being revealed, the things around him (“all that we can affirm concerning God does not shew forth God’s nature, but only the qualities of his nature”-- τα περι την φυσιν). 17 This dichotomy is used to offset some of the Biblical evidence for the joint and coordinate involvement of the Son in relation to the Holy Spirit. As a sympathetic critic like T.F. Torrance argues, it drives a wedge between the inner life of God and his saving activity in history, ruling out any real access to knowing God in himself.18 It also departs from earlier Greek patristic thought, which rejected this distinction.19 Besides opening a yawning chasm between the economic and the ontological, the tendency seems to be towards a quarternity rather than a trinity—the unknowable divine essence plus the three revealed persons.

It's worth noting that Letham ultimately comes down somewhat in the middle on the Filioque, and suggests in his lecture that both West and East could come to agreement on the topic. Since Letham's work is relatively recent (1999), I'm not sure how widely this is accepted.

In this article Bojidar Marinov (a Bulgarian Reformed missionary leader) writes about the historical and cultural implications of the Filioque for the East and West. He concludes that the Filioque is the prime reason for the theological and cultural differences between the East and West.

  Faith has consequences. What started as an innocent difference in wording, by one word only, actually led over a long period of time to a huge and not so innocent difference in faith, then ideology, then social practice, then culture. The changes were not immediate, but even as early as the 9th and the 10th centuries it was visible. The Western Church was compiling the Canon Law; the Eastern Church was compiling the Lives of the Saints. The Western Church was fighting kings and emperors over the validity of the old royal/pagan laws; the Eastern Church was writing treatises on the emperors as divine legislators. The Western Church was developing the idea of practical imitation of Christ; the Eastern Church was developing the idea of the mystical imitation of Christ. Christ’s place in the representative work of the Spirit made the difference. The filioque made the difference.

So for the historical Reformed position, the Filioque not only develops from the text of Scripture and impacts how one understands who God is, but it also uniquely affects the history and piety of the church.

This is particularly evident in understanding how it was good for the church that Jesus went away physically. In John 16:7, ESV, Jesus said, "Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you." Though the disciples were disturbed that Jesus said he was going away, they didn't know what to make of his words. Jesus can't have been referring to his second coming because in John 14:19 ,using nearly identical language he says that "yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me." So the seeing wasn't going to be that of the world seeing him return whereby they would fall down in fear before him, nor was it going to be the world seeing him which resulted in them hating and killing him. Rather, the seeing was going to be the church having Jesus' real spiritual presence by His Spirit. Jesus rose and ascended bodily, but he sent the Spirit to the church to fulfill his promise that he would come again to them after he had left.

The Spirit reveals Christ. In Reformed theology, this is seen as the chief work of the Spirit. People sometimes divorce the work of the Spirit from that of making Christ known, but the Spirit hasn't spoken of himself as having a separate work besides that of making Christ known. This illuminating work of the Holy Spirit is what makes Christ known as more and more beautiful to the believer. If the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father, then He can provide access to the Father apart from Christ. This goes against the biblical teaching that our access to the Father is through the Son, and by the Spirit. The Spirit reveals Christ to us, and through Christ we have access to the Father. The filioque affects the very core of the Christian life--union and communion with the Triune God.

Addendum, if anyone has a subscription to WTJ (perhaps also available through your theological library or even interlibrary loan), they could see more than the first page of this article which is specifically on the importance of the filioque for Reformed theology.


According to Pentecostalism/Charismaticism, can Satan understand all tongues?

From experience, it is a relatively common teaching in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles that one of the benefits of praying in tongues is that Satan can't understand it (and can't stand it!).  As well as the verses you've cited, this doctrine is also supported by Romans 8:26-27 -

  26 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. 27 And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. (ESV)

For those unfamiliar with Pentecostal/Charismatic doctrine, where the bible talks about 'praying in the Spirit' it is taken as synonymous with praying in tongues (cf. 1 Cor 14:14-15)


You are asking two completely separate questions.

1. Is the Old Testament a Jewish book?

Insofar as the Torah was revealed first to the Jews, yes. As Romans 9 points out

  Theirs [The Jews] is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised

But, is the promise made to Jews alone?  Paul continues:

  It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[b] 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

Whether or not we are descended from Abraham (or even Isaac) here is irrelevant - Paul admits it is not the children by physical descent who are God's children. Whilest I am always a little bit leery of putting the church in the place of the Jews in all things, it is fair to say that we are heirs of the same promise.

2. Should it be discarded?

Jesus himself said in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:17)

  "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Futhermore, Paul - the biggest opponent of "the law" if there ever was one - even he says (Galatians 3:17):

  17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

He goes on to call the law a "pedagogica" - think of it as a nanny - that leads us to Christ. It is the thing that makes us aware of our sin

In Romans 7, he makes the same point:

  Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”[b] 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

In all these things, the OT law still has a purpose - it makes us aware of our need for God.

Frankly, it also tells us who God is.

So, in short, no, we can't discard the OT - it's the foundation without which grace makes no sense.


What is a brief history on the idea that the Pope is the Antichrist?

This answer draws extensively from Angel Pope and Papal Antichrist, Bernard McGinn, Church History 47(2):155-173, 1978. McGinn is a Catholic and an expert on medieval mysticism.

The identification of the Pope with the Antichrist of Revelation comes essentially from Joachim of Fiore, a twelfth-century mystic who was particularly interested in the pattern of history. His theology was condemned in a synod of 1260, though it was very influential - firstly, among groups in the Church who were devoted to lives of poverty, especially the Franciscans, and secondly among various schismatic the-end-of-the-world-is-nigh sects.

For Joachim and followers, contemporary power struggles over the nature of the papacy, and questions over legitimacy during periods where there were antipopes, foreshadowed a future apocalyptic showdown between a pastor angelicus, novus dux, or orthopontifex (the good guy) and an Antichrist or pseudopontifex (the bad guy).  This was a divergence from previous Antichrist theories, which tended to think he would be a (Holy) Roman Emperor.1 Joachim himself may or may not have thought that the Antichrist would be a "proper" elected pope, as opposed to someone setting himself up in mockery of the true church. He did think that the result of the conflict would be the beginning of a new era, where all people would live a simple, monastic, contemplative life, and where there would no longer be a church or pope. 2

The next generation of Joachimites certainly did believe in the pseudopontifex. From them come the Dulcinians and other millenarian sects. By the way, if you've read Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose, then you've met some of these people! Part of the problem for the Franciscans in that book is that everyone assumes they're Dulcinian. Both groups were influenced by Joachim, but people like William of Ockham stayed within the Church, while trying to promote poverty and simplicity in life, and did not want to get rid of the papacy. Even Ubertino of Casale, who called Boniface VIII and Benedict XI a pair of antichrists, didn't want anything more than to have a better pope take over.3

There is an influence on the Lollards, whose founder John Wycliffe (1330-1384) had similar views of the papacy. And from these "proto-Reformers" it is a hop, skip and jump to the actual Reformation, similarly animated by concern about the church being wealthy and corrupt. The big difference, roughly from Wycliffe onwards, was that now the institution of the papacy itself was seen as Antichrist - unlike the classical Joachimite view of a good and a bad pope fighting it out. For the Protestants there could not be a good pope! All popes, for them, were like mini-antichrists preparing the way for the final Antichrist of Revelation (the antichristus magnus). In a previous answer of mine you can find some references to Luther, Calvin, etc., discussing this idea.

Now, there have been other people, even before Joachim of Fiore, who used the word "antichrist" in relation to some pope. But these occurences are fairly sporadic and not influential. McGinn cites Arnulf (an archbishop of Reims), speaking at the synod where he was deposed in 991, calling John XV "Antichrist seated in the temple of God and showing himself as if he were God".4 Any stuff like this is just name-calling, and in any case is invariably about some specific individual pope, not the institution of the papacy or the hypothesized pseudopontifex.

In summary, the Pope-Antichrist link is in its purest form a creature of the Reformation, where the very institution of the papacy was held to be intrinsically evil. This built upon an earlier trend of criticizing the church for some combination of wealth, lack of zeal, or political disagreement: and where people looked forward to either a better pope, or the coming of a messianic golden age where the whole question was moot. The people associated with this view were necessarily "dissidents", and sometimes "heretics". I have not found any of them who are accounted "saints", and frankly I think it rather unlikely (unless we mean "saints" in a much more general sense).

1. See eg Hugh of Newcastle, De victoria Christi contra Antichristi (1319), or the Ludus de Antichristo, a mid-12th century play about an imperial Antichrist.
2. Antichrists and Antichrist in Joachim of Fiore, Robert E. Lerner, Speculum 60:3, 1985.
3. Arbor vitae crucifixae Jesu, Ubertino of Casale (1305) at 5.8 and 5.11 (f. 230rb-233ra, 237vb in the Venice 1485 printing).
4. Acta concilii Remensis ad Sanctum Basolum, Gerbert of Aurillac (aka, later, Pope Sylvester II), in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores 3, 672.


What is the difference between "belong fully to God" and "belong to God"?

I suppose you may have read Pope Francis' words. I think it means that Pope Francis just wants Christians to be active participants in church rather than loafing around and doing nothing. Inactive, non-practicing Christians are no more useful than the "fluffy bunnies" of neo-pagan religions, bordering on being false believers and utter hypocrites. One may "belong to God" by receiving the invitation of salvation, but that's easy. One must participate in the party in order to belong fully to God.

Pope Francis explains his rhetoric by alluding to the Parable of the Great Banquet. Salvation is being compared to a great delicious feast that God holds for all his invited guests. If his invited guests (people who self-identify as Christians) do not come, then God will think of them as being ungrateful and skips them; God will instead look for more grateful guests by gathering believers on the streets. Additionally, it is known that Roman Catholics baptize infants. Using the same analogy, these Catholics are put on the guest list by their parents who expect them to worship God and presumably live a holy life. Well, these Catholics claim to be Catholics but aren't real Catholics because they do not follow God or the church, or even live a moral life. Therefore, non-practicing Catholics aren't really saved at all.*

*It is NOT to say or give the impression that nonreligious people cannot ever be moral. This is just about a particular group of "Christians" that identify themselves as Christians but really do not do Christian things like praying, worshiping, attending services regularly, or at least implementing Christ's teachings in everyday life.


Does the LDS Church teach that murder is unforgivable?

Short answer: Yes, sorta.

Long answer:

Murder is a very serious sin, and while it can't be forgiven it can be pardoned. Also it will stop you from doing or holding certain church offices. See paragraph 4 of this article for more on why D&C 42 says it is unforgivable.

Now to address your scripture reference.

  Book of Mormon: Alma 24: 10) And I also thank my God, yea, my great God, that he hath granted unto us that we might repent of these things, and also that he hath forgiven us of those our many sins and murders which we have committed and taken away the guilt from our hearts though the merits of his Son.

Hopefully
this excerpt strait from the D&C study guide on chapter 42, can shed some light on the Alma scripture.

  “The second most serious sin is to commit murder—that is, to willfully shed innocent blood. Concerning this sin, the Lord has said: ‘Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.’ (D&C 42:18.) Thus this is an unforgivable sin, which means that Jesus Christ cannot pay for (or ‘atone for’ or ‘forgive’) the penalty demanded by the broken law. This sin is a pardonable sin, however; that is, the sinner can eventually make full payment himself, and be received into a state of pardon. Apparently one reason this sin is unforgivable is that forgiveness is based upon repentance, and a murderer cannot fully repent of his sin for he cannot make restitution of the life he has taken” (Daniel H. Ludlow,A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon[1976], 222).

Missionaries of the LDS Church, have to refer anyone who has confessed to murder and who wants to be baptized, or even taught!, to their direct head, the president of their mission. The president will then refer the case to the First Presidency of the Church (if warranted). The First Presidency then reviews each case and makes a determination on a case by case basis.

The LDS Church views only one sin as truly unforgivable(and unpardonable). That is the sin of Denying the Holy Ghost. This in turn is something that is extremely difficult to do. (I.E not something the average member is going to do).

In order to do this you must have a sure witness of Christ and then deny Him.

The easiest example of this is Cain, he walked and talked with God and yet denied God when he followed the devil and killed his brother. He is referred to as a 'Son of Perdition'.


Why Does Luther Translate "Alpha and Omega", in the Book of Revelation, as "A und O" (A and O)?

Yup, Luther is Spot On

Technically, Luther's A und O (= English "A and O") is quite correct or as directly literal of a translation as one could get rendering the text into German (or English) without spelling out the two letters in view.

There are different Ancient Greek manuscripts and editions of the Apokalypsis Ioannou, "Apocalypse of John" (or the Book of Revelation), from which Luther could have been working, and, rather interestingly for the purposes of your Question, not a single one of them ever spells out the letter omega in this verse. Nor do they do so in the other couple of occurrences of the "alpha and omega" expression found in the Apokalypsis (such as 1:8 & 21:6) either. (At least of the manuscripts/editions that I have encountered; perhaps there are others that I don't know about. But even if any of them do or did [spell it out] it still changes none of my points here.)

The Greek

For example, for the idiom in question in the verse you are looking at, a number of Westcott & Hort editions of the Greek, as well as the Nestle Greek New Testament (1904) and the Robinson/Pierpont Byzantine Majority Text each have

  τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ

(to Álpha kai to Ὦ), "the Alpha and the Ὦ".

The Stephanus Textus Receptus (1550), Scrivener's Textus Receptus (1894), the 1904 Greek Orthodox Church text, and the Tischendorf 8th Edition each have

  τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Ω

(to Α kai to Ω), "the A and the Ω".

The name of the Greek letter omega actually means something like "Capital O," i.e. O-Mega, literally the "Great/Big O." It is so named to distinguish it from the other O in the same alphabet, the letter omikron (Latinised as omicron), "small O," from O-Mikron, the "little O." The Greek alphabet originally did not have the O-Mega, which was introduced in the 600s BC, and when it was added thereto, it was simply tacked onto the end of the alphabet, which is how it comes to be the last letter therein. Both letters are generally transliterated into German and English as O, o, essentially the same letter in all the three alphabets (German and English ultimately deriving theirs from the Greek one). Omega is sometimes transcribed as Ō, ō.

The German

Up until recently all German Bibles, not just Luther's, have translated this expression as [das] A und [das] O, "[the] A and [the] O". The earliest one I've found which changes this up at all is the 1951 Schlachter translation, which seems to do so only hesitantly by spelling out the words in parentheses like so: das A(lpha) und das O(mega).

The Wiktionary article on A und O elaborates further on the topic and quotes one of the newer translations, saying that:

  The biblical expression is not usually translated with these words
  now. For example, in the Einheitsübersetzung verse 22:13 runs: “Ich
  bin das Alpha und das Omega, der Erste und der Letzte, der Anfang und
  das Ende.”

Many recent translations have this rendition of the idiom, but the older A und O, from what I can see, appears to be a fairly common expression in German speech, just like "alpha and omega" is in English, meaning the same thing, and perhaps each deriving from translations of the Bible into their respective languages.

The same Wiktionary article defines A und O as a colloquialism for "that which is important; that which matters; a sine qua non" and renders an example:

  Gute Kohle ist das A und O beim Grillen.
  Good charcoal is the most important part of barbecuing. [Emphases in original.]

Redensarten.net also has an article on the topic, "Das A und O sein", offering several other such examples, of which here are a few, each with what GoogleTranslate automatically (and interestingly, I think) translated them to, further suggesting that, in common usage today, German A und O is simply equivalent to English "alpha and omega".

Gerade bei Allergien ist Sauberkeit im Haushalt das A und O.
Especially with allergies, cleanliness in the household is the alpha and omega.

Um die Sicherheit in deutschen Stadien zu erhöhen, ist Deeskalation das A und O.
To increase security in German stadiums, de-escalation is the be-all and end-all.

Doch so mancher Selbstdarsteller hat vergessen, dass die Wünsche der Kunden das A und O sein sollten.
But many a showman has forgotten that the wishes of the customers should be the alpha and omega.

The First and the... Last-ish

"A and Z" (or A und Z) is indeed sort of generally and roughly equivalent in meaning to Α καὶ Ω, in both English and German, because English and German have the same basic alphabet. (Strictly speaking, at least since more recent times, German has a few additional special characters after Z.) While there is no German Bible I know of which translates the expression this way, at least two English ones do, namely, GOD'S WORD® Translation: "I am the A and the Z", and—perhaps the most colloquial mainstream English Bible translation of them all—Eugene Peterson's The Message: "I’m A to Z".

This might be too colloquial for some tastes, and to speak more strictly, to translate it this way is what would render it—based on the original meaning or the original alphabet in view—into saying something like the First and the Middle, because the Greek letter Z (zeta) is only the sixth letter in its own (24-letter) alphabet.

An English Afterword

By the way, in the 1380s-1390s, John Wycliffe published the first English translation of the entire Bible, roughly 130 years before Luther published his own German New Testament. This is how he rendered the portion of the verse you are quoting:

Y am alpha & oo, "I am alpha and oo".


Why did Daniel consider the allotment of food and wine to be wrong for him to eat?

Some possibilities why Daniel refused the King's choice of food.

Unclean animals: According to this source, pork was the choice meat of Babylonians. If this is true, it is certain that Daniel was ready to die by not eating nor touching the food.

  Leviticus 11:7-8 (NIV) And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not
  chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or
  touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

Cooking method: According to  this source, ancient Babylonians were very advanced in cooking method unlike the ancient Jews who were eating food with simple recipes prepared in a simple way. The Babylonian food might have upset the stomach of Daniel. Eating food prepared in a way other than what we are used to is not easy.
Offered to idols: Ancient Babylon was highly influenced by idolatry. They were ready to annihilate any group who did not bow down in front of their idols. The three friends of Daniel were also the victim of this. Idol worshipers have the habit of offering their foods to their idols before they eat. This is still in practice today by Hindus as this source says. Daniel was probably suspicious about the source of the food or he saw that it was offered to idols first and refused to eat it. Sacrificing food to idols was also in practice during the first century.

  1 Corinthians 8:7 (NIV) But not everyone possesses this knowledge.
  Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat
  sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god,
  and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled.

Daniel took a leap of faith towards his diet and God blessed him.


Why the difference in depiction of the cross between Catholics and Protestants?

There is a pretty clear distinction between Catholics and Protestants in that regard, though there may be Protestant denominations that do use the crucifix rather than the cross.

It seems that the main issue that Protestants today have with the crucifix is that it is specifically an image of Jesus, the Son of God.  Such an image is believed to be strictly forbidden in Scripture.

  You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of
  anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
  that is in the water under the earth.  Exodus 20:4 ESV

Throughout the Old Testament, the Israelites were distinguished from other nations by the fact that they had no idols to represent God.  God gives the reason for this commandment in Isaiah, where He indicates that He is righteously jealous for His own glory and will not share it with an idol.

  I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my
  praise to carved idols.  Isaiah 42:8 ESV

So, Protestant churches are most often decorated with only an empty Cross that is not an object of worship, but merely a symbol of remembrance.  No Protestant I know of ever prays to a cross or cares whether or not there is a cross in front of them when they pray or worship.  It is wholly decorative.

In contrast, Catholic churches do often have crucifixes, which have an image of Jesus, the Son of God.  Additionally, there is often an image of Mary as well.  These may or may not be objects of worship, but for most Protestants, these are unacceptable due to the aforementioned commandments.

Orthodox churches are often quite replete with images of Jesus, Mary, and many of the saints.  Again, I'm not sure these are used as objects of worship or not, but Protestants generally reject the use of these as they are viewed as idols--or at least could be confused as such.

As a footnote, the listing of the 10 Commandments is different between Catholic and most Protestant traditions.  In the Catholic listing, idolatry is not present, but is considered as part of the first commandment, and have two commandments that mention covetousness.  Protestants list the prohibition against idolatry as the second commandment and only list one commandment regarding covetousness.


How does the ancient Jewish Wedding tradition foreshadow Christ and the church?

As I understand it all Jewish brides are stolen, they are snatched away.

  All Jewish brides were said to be “stolen, caught up, or snatched up
  by surprise.” The bride was then led to the groom’s house by a wedding
  procession of women carrying lighted lamps, similar to the Parable of
  the Ten Virgins that we will explore in next month’s Personal Update.

Traditionally the Father of the Bride and the Father of the groom along with the groom negotiate terms for the brides hand and the covenant is sealed with wine. The groom then goes off to prepare a place in his father's house for his bride.  The groom then comes in an evening unannounced and snatches his bride away.

Bride and groom retreat to the bridal chamber prepared by the groom and the couple consummate the marriage and share their bridal week together. They then come out of the bridal chamber to celebrate the marriage feast with friends and family.

Parallels:

Christ sealed His covenant for His bride with His own blood depicted by wine
Some believe Christ will steal His bride at the rapture
Some believe that Christ like the groom is preparing a place for us as promised in John 14:2
Some believe the bridal week is likened to the seven year tribulation where the bride will be with the groom
Some believe the marriage feast will be like the millennial reign of Christ


Relative popularity of premillenialism, postmillennialism and amillennialism in North America (excluding Catholics and Orthodox)?

I don't believe that a comprehensive answer to this question is possible at this time.
Many denominations refrain from even identifying a preferred eschatological position, let alone require their adherants to support it, so adherence statistics won't cut the mustard. To answer the question properly would require professional surveying on eschatological views. The organization most likely to do have done this is the Pew Research Centre, and they don't seem to have been asking the specific questions that would pin down a person's views sufficiently; the closest related questions that I could find that they have been asking are:

Do you believe in the second coming of Jesus Christ--that is, that Jesus will return to earth someday, or don't you believe this? -- Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life/Pew Research Center for the People & the Press Survey, Jul, 2006

and

Some people say that the state of Israel is a fulfillment of the biblical prophesy about the second coming of Jesus. Do you believe that this is true, or not? -- Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life/Pew Research Center for the People & the Press Survey, Jul, 2003  & 2006

These questions are not only insufficient to pin down eschatological views into the desired categories, but they haven't been maintained within their annual survey.
This leaves more ad hoc surveys with questionable sampling methods, like this one that gives figures for Evangelicals:

A majority of evangelical leaders believe that Jesus Christ will return to earth and then reign with his followers for 1,000 years, a new survey shows.
This end times theology is called premillennialism and 65 percent of surveyed evangelical leaders identify with it.
As part of its monthly poll, the National Association of Evangelicals surveyed its board of directors, which include the CEOs of denominations and representatives of a broad array of evangelical organizations, on their eschatological beliefs.
"It’s in our human nature to want to prepare ourselves – physically, emotionally, spiritually – for what might be ahead," said NAE President Leith Anderson.
The poll, released this week, found that 13 percent of those surveyed are amillennialists – believing that the non-literal millennial reign of Christ is happening now as Christ reigns at the right hand of the Father.
Four percent believe Christ's second coming will occur after the 1,000-year period during which the nations will be progressively converted to Christianity. This is postmillennial theology.
Seventeen percent, meanwhile, identify with "other" end times theology.
-- Christian Post, Poll: What Evangelical Leaders Believe about the End Times, Christian Post Reporter Audrey Barrick, March 9, 2011 (emphasis added)


What did Calvin think about Knox's "Monstrous Regiment"?

It seems that your question is a settled part of Church History, judging from David Calhoun's lecture "Blowing the Trumpet: John Knox and the Scottish Reformation" (quoting from the transcript; see the audio recording and the study guide):

  Knox said women should not rule over men. That was a kind of call for revolution. People could read between the lines and realize that what John Knox really wanted was for men in the two countries to rise up and overthrow the women rulers and bring in Protestant rulers. John Knox wrote the book in Geneva. It was an embarrassment to John Calvin. Calvin explained that when Knox came to him with the idea of writing such a book, Calvin strongly discouraged him from doing it. Calvin pointed to Deborah and Huldah, women in the Old Testament who were legitimate rulers. Calvin was also concerned about Knox's approach, because Calvin was very conservative in his view of overthrowing kingdoms. He told the Huguenots in France that it was better to suffer than to create anarchy and revolution. Calvin did not open much of a door for any kind of revolution. John Knox did open such a door in his First Blast of the Trumpet for revolution in Scotland and elsewhere.


Must one believe that there is only one True and Living God to be saved?

When a person recognizes his sinfulness and flees to Christ for the forgiveness of their sins, they believing in God. It is this belief alone that saves:

  If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”  (Romans 10:9-11, NIV)

The basic formula for salvation, faith in Christ, might seem to allow the possibility of faith in more than one God, but properly speaking I do not think it does.  Here is why.

First Christ, which we believe is represented as a single mediator to the One God:

  For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5, NIV)

Second, faith in Christ is not to be understood as based on our human apprehension of Christ, but a knowledge that the Spirit reveals to us that we are enabled to believe. We can see this is the very first and famous confession of Christ by Peter.

  “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
   Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
   Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. (Matthew 16:15-17, NIV)

As faith is obtained not from human reason but revealed by the Father it only makes sense that the Father reveals this knowledge truthfully, that is the one mediator between man and the one God.

Third, it goes without saying that Jesus is the mediator sent from the God of Israel.  This means God the one and only who created all things.

Fourth, faith in Christ is faith in God.

  That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe. (1 Timothy 4:10, NIV)

And we notice Peter's exact confessions was “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Peter did not say your are a savior of some God, but the long awaited Jewish Messiah, who was the Son of God.

It seems a basic understanding of Jehovah in man, i.e. the Christ, must be believed in to be saved. However faith in One God without trusting in Christ can never save anyone (James 2:19)


If an Eastern Rite Catholic marries in the Western rite, does he/she need to formally change rites?

TL;DR: No one has to translate to another Church sui iuris, but in some cases one spouse can do so (without complex procedure).

(Everything under the reservation, that the Rome decreed nothing special for special circumstances your case belongs to. But I do not think there is such a decree/law/rescript/...)

The ascription to a Church sui iuris (Eastern Catholic Churches and Latin Church) is ruled in cann. 29ff. CCEO and cann. 111f. CIC. The relevant norms for us are:

CCEO:

  Can. 33 - A wife is at liberty to transfer to the Church of the husband at the celebration of or during the marriage; when the marriage has ended, she can freely return to the original Church sui iuris.

  Can. 36 - The transfer to another Church sui iuris takes effect at the moment a declaration is made before the local hierarch or the proper pastor of the same Church or a priest delegated by either of them and two witnesses, unless the rescript of the Apostolic See provides otherwise.

  Can. 37 - Every enrollment in a certain Church sui iuris or transfer to another Church sui iuris should be recorded in the baptismal register of the parish where the baptism was celebrated, even, as the case may be, in a Latin parish; if this cannot be done, it is to be kept by the proper pastor in another document in the archive of the parish of the Church sui iuris of enrollment.

CIC:

  Can. 112 - § 1. After the reception of baptism, the following are enrolled in another Church sui iuris:

  1° a person who has obtained permission from the Apostolic See;

  2° a spouse who, at the time of or during marriage, has declared that he or she is transferring to the Church sui iuris of the other spouse; when the marriage has ended, however, the person can freely return to the Latin Church;

  3° before the completion of the fourteenth year of age, the children of those mentioned in nn. 1 and 2 as well as, in a mixed marriage, the children of the Catholic party who has legitimately transferred to another Church sui iuris; on completion of their fourteenth year, however, they can return to the Latin Church.

  § 2. The practice, however prolonged, of receiving the sacraments according to the rite of another Church sui iuris does not entail enrollment in that Church

  § 3. All those transfers to another Church sui iuris have force from the moment of the declaration of the fact before the local Ordinary of the Church or the proper pastor or priest by delegation and two witnesses, unless a rescript of the Apostolic See provides otherwise; and [this is to be] noted in the baptismal register.

So we see: No one is forced to transfer to another Church sui iuris at marriage. We have to differntiate three cases [Pree/Berkmann, n. 5]:
1. A man of Eastern Church sui iuris A marries a women of Eastern Church sui iuris B: The woman can decide to transfer to Chruch A, can. 33 CCEO. The man cannot transfer.
2. A man of Eastern Church sui iuris A marries a women of the Latin Church: The women can decide to transfer to Church A, can. 33 CCEO. The man cannot transfer.
3. A man of the Latin Church marries a women of Eastern Church sui iuris B: The women can decide to transfer to the Latin Church, can. 33 CCEO. The man can decide to transfer to the Church B, can. 112 § 1 n. 1 CIC.

In all cases it is irrelevant, in which rite the wedding is celebrated. (It has to be the correct priest for the rite and the priest has to be responsible for the wedding, i.e. normally: one of the spouses is in his Church sui iuris and the wedding is in his area.)

So the information you got is not fully correct: The Latin women can, but not has to, translate to the Church sui iuris of her husband. He cannot translate to the Latin Church, even if they marry in Latin Rite. (BTW: There is no one and only "Eastern Rite".)

If one of the spouses wants to translate to another Church sui iuris, they have to make a formal declaration of this before his/her new bishop (patriarch etc.) or pastor (can. 36 CCEO, can. 112 § 3 CIC). The transfer has to be recorded in the baptismal register (can. 37 CCEO, can. 112 § 3 CIC). This can be done at the earliest during the wedding, but later it is possible too.

To show that it is very important for the Church, that a transfer to another Church sui iuris is voluntary and an extraordinary act, some more norms:

  Can. 31 CCEO - No one can presume in any way to induce the Christian faithful to transfer to another Church sui iuris.

  Can. 1465 - One who, belonging to any Church sui iuris, including the Latin Church, and exercising an office, a ministry or another function in the Church, has presumed to induce any member of the Christian faithful whatever to transfer to another Church sui iuris, contrary to can. 31 is to be punished with an appropriate penalty.

  Can. 32 - § 1. No one can validly transfer to another Church sui iuris without the consent of the Apostolic See.

  § 2. In the case of Christian faithful of an eparchy of a certain Church sui iuris who petition to transfer to another Church sui iuris which has its own eparchy in the same territory, this consent of the Apostolic See is presumed, provided that the eparchial bishops of both eparchies consent to the transfer in writing.

The consent of the Apostolic see or the bishops (can. 32 CCEO) is not needed in case of marriage (can. 33 CCEO).

  Can. 38 - Christian faithful of Eastern Churches even if committed to the care of a hierarch or pastor of another Church sui iuris, nevertheless remain enrolled in their own Church.

[Pree/Berkmann]: Helmuth Pree/Burkhard J. Berkmann: Commentary on can. 112 CIC. in: Klaus Lüdicke (Ed.): Münsterischer Kommentar zum Codex Iuris Canonici. unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Rechtslage in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. Ludgerus Verlag. Essen, Germany (state: April 2017)


When and where does the statement, "Christ paid the penalty for our sins" first appear?

The theological term for the concept you are thinking of, namely that Christ was payment for our sins and so took upon Himself the fullness of punishment due to sin, is known as penal substitution (as you identify). Penal substitution is largely originated in the Reform Movement. It is generally agreed that no Church father taught penal substitution, but rather favored the ransom theory of atonement intermixed with the moral influence view. Several Reform movement thinkers and those applying to the penal substitution theory have attempted to attribute the source of their thinking to certain Church fathers, though they have been unsuccessful in doing so. It could be said that the roots for penal substitution were birthed by St. Anselm (though the theory itself can hardly be attributed to him.) St. Anselm sought to modify the traditional ransom theory of atonement. St. Anselm ultimately contributed what is known as Anselmian satisfaction, which is the theory that the satisfaction that God the Father saw in Christ as an honorable and perfect man compensated for the due punishment that man deserved.

  The honor taken away must be repaid, or punishment must follow.

This sense of atonement illuminated upon the ransom theory of atonement; Anselm held that Christ's sacrifice was not appeasing as a ransom to Satan (as traditional ransom theory held) but rather to God. And upon this theory St. Thomas Aquinas only further modified the kinks. In progression from this, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, Christ not only fulfilled a debt of honor but also a debt of moral justice. Mankind not only fell in their honor, but also offended God by disobeying Him. So it is that Aquinas concludes the following;

  Christ bore a satisfactory punishment, not for His sins, but for ours.

Aquinas does not intend this to mean that Christ bears upon Himself a penal punishment for sin (punishment that serves a lawful purpose accorded to certain individuals, an example being eternal damnation), but rather that He bears upon Himself a satisfactory punishment (punishment that serves a restorative purpose due to its penitent nature, and that's merits can be shared).

  If we speak of that satisfactory punishment, which one takes upon oneself voluntarily, one may bear another's punishment... If however, we speak of punishment inflicted on account of sin, inasmuch as it is penal, then each one is punished for his own sin only, because the sinful act is something personal. But if we speak of a punishment that is medicinal, in this way it does happen that one is punished for another's sin.

It is generally understood that the punishment Christ went through, the satisfactory punishment, was death and suffering, the immediate and unavoidable consequences of original sin. For Aquinas recognized that Christ could not merely become perfect and eternal man in order to justify man, but rather that the completion of salvation had to include, because of fallen man's evils, some sort of necessary punishment of a penitent nature for original sin itself (similar to the penitent punishment that believers go through in order to be purified of personal sin). Christ's justifying man through the indwelling perfection of His being had to include submitting in perfect penance for the original sin of man (and to do so Christ entered the satisfactory punishment of original sin, being death). Notice that this punishment is not an appeasement of an angry God, but rather a part of Christ perfecting man. Aquinas firmly believed that the nature of such punishment was medicinal, working for a Higher Purpose of Salvation, and not the motivation or origin of Salvation itself, which was always essentially a mystery and certainly not 'legalistic'.

Nevertheless, following this strain of thought Martin Luther held that Christ not only satisfies God the Father in His perfection but also bears mankind's penal punishment on the cross.

  When the merciful Father saw that we were being oppressed through the Law, that we were being held under a curse, and that we could not be liberated from it by anything, He sent His Son into the world, heaped all the sins of men upon Him, and said to Him: "Be Peter the denier; Paul the persecutor, blasphemer, and assaulter; David the adulterer; the sinner who ate the apple in Paradise; the thief on the cross. In short, be the person of all men. And see to it that You pay and make satisfaction for them.

Similar thinker John Calvin states the following:

  God in his capacity as judge is angry toward us. Hence as expiation must intervene in order that Christ as priest may obtain God's favor for us and appease his wrath.

  We must, above all, remember this substitution, lest we tremble and remain anxious throughout life — as if God’s righteous vengeance, which the Son of God has taken upon himself, still hung over us.

And in like manner, Puritan John Owen states

  For to make satisfaction to God for our sins, is is required only that He undergo the punishment due to them; for that is the satisfaction required where sin is the debt.

John MacArthur even more radically states

  God was punishing his own Son as if He had committed every wicked deed done by every sinner who would ever believe.

Note that the concentration has moved from the focus being on Christ perfecting mankind and facing consequentially a necessary punishment to Christ solely becoming man to appease the wrath of God, and implicitly taking upon Himself not only satisfactory punishment but penal punishment also. This is because the Reform thinkers conjoined the distinct types of punishment that Aquinas rather firmly tried to keep separate. It is in light of this Reformed theology that penal substitution supporters live today. Predominant denominations that use the catchphrases 'Jesus died as payment for our sin' include most Protestant denominations, most heavily among them being Lutherans and Methodists.


Does this mean He will help us overcome difficulties in this life?

Since neither view is stated explicitly in the text nor can be inferred from the context, there's no definitive answer, however the use of present tense, and the next verse:

  21to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.

To me indicate that his ability and power are available to us now.


Is there any record of a visual method of prayer in the Bible?

Very interesting question! One thing you might want to think about specifically with regard to finding examples in the Bible is visions -- those are usually God communicating to us, but it's a similar type of thing -- what is often done with words is instead done with images. Ezekiel's vision of the valley of the dry bones, for example.

If you're comfortable going beyond "just in the Bible" I would suggest google searching "visio divina". It is based on lectio divina which is a very old technique of meditating on scripture verses, but it also incorporates visual prayer.

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Praying-with-Art-Visio-Divina.html

http://www.seeingtheword.org


What does Jesus mean regarding "Raca," and "you fool?" - is he contrasting them?

I looked at other translations than the KJV, and I found where the clauses are separated by "and" instead of "but." This indicates that Jesus is somewhat repeating himself for emphasis, and perhaps even saying that they are nearly as bad as each other.

The NIV says:

  But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Young's Literal Translation says:

  but I -- I say to you, that every one who is angry at his brother without cause, shall be in danger of the judgment, and whoever may say to his brother, Empty fellow! shall be in danger of the sanhedrim, and whoever may say, Rebel! shall be in danger of the gehenna of the fire.

In conclusion, Jesus is saying being angry at people without good reason, calling people forbidden epithets, and simply saying "you fool" are all things that should not be done.


Where can I find the text of the documents produced at the Council of Quiercy (853)?

I've found two sources online for the Latin text, but unfortunately nothing in English.  The Latin is available in Gousset's Les actes de la province ecclésiastique de Reims, page 233, as well as Hefele's Conciliengeschichte, volume IV, page 187.  The first of these includes a very brief introduction in French, while the second has more extensive commentary in German.  The Catechism's quote comes from this phrase:

  Christus Jesus Dominus noster, sicut nullus homo est, fuit, vel erit, cujus natura in illo assumpta non fuerit, ita nullus est, fuit, vel erit homo, pro quo passus no fuerit

As far as English goes, the best online version I have found is Schaff's paraphrase and commentary in his History of the Christian Church:

  Hincmar secured the confirmation of his views by the Synod of Chiersy, held in presence of the Emperor, Charles the Bald, 853, It adopted four propositions:

  God Almighty made man free from sin, endowed him with reason and the liberty of choice, and placed him in Paradise. Man, by the abuse of this liberty, sinned, and the whole race became a mass of perdition. Out of this massa perditionis God elected those whom he by grace predestinated unto life eternal; others he left by a just judgment in the mass of perdition, foreknowing that they would perish, but not foreordaining them to perdition, though he foreordained eternal punishment for them. This is Augustinian, but weakened in the last clause.
  We lost the freedom of will through the fall of the first man, and regained it again through Christ. This chapter, however, is so vaguely worded that it may be understood in a Semi-Pelagian as well as in an Augustinian sense.
  God Almighty would have all men without exception to be saved, although not all are actually saved. Salvation is a free gift of grace; perdition is the desert of those who persist in sin.
  Jesus Christ died for all men past, present and future, though not all are redeemed by the mystery of his passion, owing to their unbelief.

A more direct translation may be available in Gottschalk and a Medieval Predestination Controversy, based on the book's description, but I haven't been able to confirm that these four propositions are included.


Well, many verses in the Bible don't refer to any kind of ranking, so I would think not. All of the verses in the famous Roman Road apply to everyone and one even makes it clear that Jews and Gentiles are equivalent.

  Romans 10:13 (NLT)
  12 Jew and Gentile are the same in this respect. They have the same Lord, who gives generously to all who call on him. 13 For “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Hence, even though there ARE differing levels of rewards (see here), everyone is equally saved.


What is the controversy/issue surrounding Jerusalem as Israel's capital?

This issue isn't really anything to do with Christianity, although it's an issue which Christians sometimes take sides on.

When the State of Israel was created in 1947-48 Jerusalem was given a special status, not a part of Israel proper:  "The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations." The Israeli capital was established as Tel Aviv

Israel took effective control of West Jerusalem in 1948 and the rest of it in 1967, and has retained it ever since, declaring it to be their capital. Many nations, including until now the US, retain their diplomatic missions in Tel Aviv and consider it to be the capital, avoiding the implied recognition of the legitimacy of Israel's control over Jerusalem.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positions_on_Jerusalem


What is the biblical basis for a Flat Earth?
Wikipedia makes the claim that St. John Chrysostom and Archbishop of Constantinople, explicitly espoused the idea, based on scripture, that the Earth floats miraculously on the water beneath the firmament.

Diodorus of Tarsus, a leading figure in the School of Antioch and mentor of John Chrysostom, may have argued for a flat Earth; however, Diodorus' opinion on the matter is known only from a later criticism. Chrysostom, one of the four Great Church Fathers of the Eastern Church and Archbishop of Constantinople, explicitly espoused the idea, based on scripture, that the Earth floats miraculously on the water beneath the firmament. Athanasius the Great, Church Father and Patriarch of Alexandria, expressed a similar view in Against the Heathen. - Flat Earth

Nowhere in Scripture does it state that the earth is flat. Interpretation at times, by various individuals may tend to imply a flat earth.

The biblical texts most often cited in the claim that the Bible teaches a flat Earth are Job 38:5, 12-14, Isaiah 11:12, 40:22, and Revelation 7:1, 20:7. Of these passages, the most cited is Isaiah 40:22.  The relevant part of Isaiah 40:22, referring to God, states, “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.” Whether the “circle of the earth” refers to a human on Earth or God looking down on Earth from above, in both cases the phrase would be consistent with a spherically shaped Earth. It is worth noting that only a sphere always looks like a circle when seen from above.
The Isaiah 11:12 and Revelation 7:1, 20:7 verses all refer to the “four corners of the earth.” However, even today, astronomers, physicists, and educated people around the world recognize and use the “four corners of the earth” as phenomenalogical language referring to the most distant parts of Earth from the standpoint of an observer at a specific location on Earth. It is clear from an examination of the context for all three of these passages that the most distant parts of Earth is the intent implied by the use of the idiom, the four corners of the earth. As the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament points out, the Hebrew word for “corners” used in Isaiah 11:12, kanap, in most of its appearances in the Old Testament is used figuratively.
The passage in Job 38:5 referring to Earth states, “Who fixed its dimensions? Certainly you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?” The inference made by those claiming that the Bible is a flat-earth book is that the “measuring line” is a straight line which would be suitable for measuring a flat disk but not a sphere. This is an overinterpretation. Lines can be straight or curved. Also, it is customary to measure the diameter of a sphere with a straightedge ruler.
Job 38:12-14 refers to the dawn seizing “the edges [or ends] of the earth” and Earth taking “shape like clay under a seal.” What is interesting here is that for a spherical Earth the arrival of dawn first shows up at the most distant horizon, end, or edge of the point of view of a human at a fixed point upon Earth’s surface. The taking shape like clay under a seal would apply to either a disk or a sphere and may be saying more about Earth’s rotation or its manufacture than its actual shape.
The irony of choosing Job 38:5, 12-14, Isaiah 11:12, 40:22, and Revelation 7:1, 20:7 to sustain the claim that the Bible is a flat-earth book is that these biblical texts better fit a spherical Earth than they do a flat Earth. While it would be an overinterpretation to conclude that these texts explicitly teach that Earth is a sphere, nowhere in the Bible do we find any text saying that Earth is flat. The Bible remains the only holy book for which we can say that it contains no provable errors or contradictions. - Is the Bible a Flat-Earth Book?

So no versus in Scripture states that: “The earth is flat.” Flat earth clearly might be implied in Scripture: ”The devil took Jesus to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world.”  (Matt 4:8)
Some might have thought that since the Bible says (50 times) that the Earth has ends; it must be flat:

But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have
chosen, descendant of Abraham My friend, you whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called from its remotest parts [Ur]. Is 41:8-9
Abraham from Ur (S. Mesopotamia) Gen 11:31 Ur at shoreline of the circumferential sea
Jesus: The Queen of the South [Sheba] will rise
at the judgment with this generation & condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth
to listen to Solomon’s wisdom. Matt 12:42
Sheba in the SW corner of Arabia - The Bible and Ancient Science (University of Alberta)

One of those issue concerns the second day of creation (Genesis 1:6-8), where God made the “expanse” or the “firmament.” The Hebrew word for this is raqia. Biblical scholars understand the raqia to be a solid dome-like structure. It separates the water into two parts, so that there is water above the raqia and water below it (v. 7). The waters above are kept at bay so the world can become inhabitable. On the third day (vv. 9-10), the water below the raqia is “gathered to one place” to form the sea and allow the dry land to appear.
Ancient Israelites “saw” this barrier when they looked up. There were no telescopes, space exploration, or means of testing the atmosphere. They relied on what their senses told them. Even today, looking up at a clear sky in open country, the sky seems to “begin” at the horizons and reaches up far above. Ancient Israelites and others in that part of the world assumed the world was flat, and so it looked like the earth is covered by a dome, and the “blue sky” is the “water above” held back by the raqia. The translation “firmament” (i.e., firm) gets across this idea of a solid structure.
Biblical scholars agree on this understanding of raqia. For some Christians, however, this is troubling. How can the Bible, which is the inspired, revealed word of God, contain such an inaccurate piece of ancient nonsense? Hence, some invest a lot of time and energy to show that the raqia is not solid but more like the atmosphere. Often, the word “expanse” is the preferred translation because it does not necessarily imply something solid.
Arguing for a non-solid raqia in Genesis is extremely problematic, for two reasons. First, the biblical and extrabiblical data indicate that raqia means a solid structure of some sort. The second problem is a much larger theological issue, but is actually more foundational. Regardless of what one thinks of the raqia, why would anyone assume that the ancient cosmology in Genesis could be expected to be in harmony with modern science in the first place? - The Firmament of Genesis 1 is Solid but That’s Not the Point

Here follows a few sites that some may wish to peruse at their leisure:

Does the Bible Teach that the Earth is Flat?
What does the Bible say about: Flat Earth
The Flat-Earth Bible


What is the origin of the Christmas tree and is it accepted in all Christian traditions?

The origin of the Christmas tree is very well documented elsewhere, including Wikipedia.

There are some Christians that disapprove of the use of a Christmas tree (one reason documented also at wikipedia, and further discussed (with rebuttal) here).

There are some groups that do not use Christmas trees, for various reasons.

Some Amish do not use Christmas trees (although others do)
Although not considered "Christian" by many, Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Christmas at all
Many other Evangelical groups reject some or all Christmas celebrations, on the grounds that it was originally a pagan holiday (Larger discussion on this matter here).


Is suffering a proof against intelligent design?

No
I don't really have references for this I will just answer it by logic alone. The atheist is making quite a few assumptions to make the leap from suffering to no Intelligent Designer (or indeed God).
e.g.

The Designer's morals are the same as his, and by extension the Designer's desire is to have no unnecessary suffering (from a mortal point of view).

Actually, we have no idea what the motives of the Designer is. We have our own idea of what is right and wrong but it might not be the same as the Designer's. There is no reason to be sure that they don't want people to suffer. It certainly doesn't preclude their existence.

Life on Earth is a major part of existence

However, assuming that there is an afterlife, an eternal one in fact, one's life on Earth is just an insignificantly tiny part of our overall existence, being less than a 100 years out of, well, infinity! Trillions of epochs from now, that short period of suffering will seem like less than that itch you scratched when you were 3.

It is within the Designer's ability to prevent suffering.

But the Designer might not be the almighty/all-knowing God of the Bible that we're so familiar with. The point of Intelligent Design "theory" is that it's more of a generic theory stating that an entity powerful and intelligent enough to create a planet or universe and life, did so. They may have been able to invent sophisticated life-forms, but not been able to rid them of all "bugs", as it were. Just because they can create life doesn't mean they can wave a magic wand and make all disease disappear.


Are there explicit statements in the New Testament about the purpose of life?

Here are just a handful of New Testament verses relating to life purpose (based on Rick Warren's The Purpose Driven Life):

  Revelation 4:11 (NLT):
  “You are worthy, O Lord our God, to receive glory and honor and power. For you created all things, and they exist because you created what you pleased.”

  Hebrews 2:10A (NCV):
  God is the One who made all things, and all things are for his glory. He wanted to have many children share his glory

  Colossians 1:15 (MSG):
  We look at this Son and see God’s original purpose in everything created.

  John 17:4 (MSG):
  I glorified you on earth by completing down to the last detail what you assigned me to do.

  Acts 20:24 (NCV):
  The most important thing is that I complete my mission, the work that the Lord Jesus gave me — to tell people the Good News about God’s grace.

These respectfully correspond to the 5 purposes that we've been given (based on the book mentioned above):

You were planned for God's pleasure
You were formed for God's family
You were created to become like Christ
You were shaped for serving God
You were made for a mission

The verses above are, of course, a very incomplete list. There are apparently 350 references to the Bible in The Purpose Driven Life which point to many more verses.

It's well worth the read for any that are interested in a more complete answer to the question of purpose from a Christian worldview, and it includes a great number of verses to support it.


According to the Catholic Church, is belief in trinitarianism required for salvation?
Most certainly yes, as from even before the Nicene creed was formulated, candidates for baptism were required to answer several questions to profess belief in the Trinitarian God.
From today's Rite of Catholic Baptism (Parents and Godparents answer on behalf of the infant; same answers are expected for adult initiates):

...
CELEBRANT: Do you believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth?
PARENTS AND GODPARENTS: I do.
CELEBRANT: Do you believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was born of
the Virgin Mary, was crucified, died, and was buried, rose from the dead, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father?
PARENTS AND GODPARENTS: I do.
CELEBRANT: Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting?
PARENTS AND GODPARENTS: I do.
...

Also, the Catholic Catechism clearly teaches this:

232 Christians are baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"⁵³ Before receiving the sacrament, they respond to a three-part question when asked to confess the Father, the Son and the Spirit: "I do." "The faith of all Christians rests on the Trinity."⁵⁴
⁵³ Mt. 28:19
⁵⁴ St. Caesarius of Arles, Sermo 9, Exp. symb.:CCL 103,47.

Yes, but even if the wording of the a baptism involves holding to trinitarianism (I'm not sure it does given the wording above, TBH) most Catholics are baptized as infants, and so their beliefs aren't the ones being verified. (from comment)
Correct, but if we examine the whole context of the Rite of Baptism linked above, there is an expectation from the Parents to teach the child the Catholic faith:

CELEBRANT: You have asked to have your child baptized. In doing so you are accepting the responsibility of training him (her) in the practice of the faith. It will be your duty to bring him (her) up to keep God's commandments as Christ taught us, by loving God and our neighbor. Do you clearly understand what you are undertaking?
PARENTS: We do.

Therefore, when the child is old enough to take first communion, a common way for Catholic parents to discharge their promise is to give the child a mini catechism such as what this article describes using a popular text such as Saint Joseph First Communion catechism containing clear teaching of the Trinity suitable for 1st-2nd grade kids.
From Lesson 3 titled "The Blessed Trinity":

10. Is there only one God?
Yes, there is only one God.
 There cannot be more than one God.
 There never will be more than one God.

11. How many Persons are there in God?
In God there are three Persons -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost
 The Father is God.
 The Son is God.
 The Holy Ghost is God.
 But they are all ONE God.
 The Father is the First Person.
 The Son is the Second Person.
 The Holy Ghost is the Third Person.
 There are THREE Persons in ONE God.

12. What do we call the three Persons in one God?
We call the three Persons in one God the Blessed Trinity.
[there is even a picture, see page 16]

13. How do we know that there are three Persons in one God?
We know that there are three Persons in one God because we have God's word for it.
 The Father sent His Son to us on earth
 The Son told us what the Blessed Trinity is like.
 The Blessed Trinity is God's family.
 But it is a family which is all one God.
 In this family all is love.
 They never fight.
 They always agree.
 They are always happy.

 Say this prayer often: O God, make my family holy.

Can you clarify how these aspects of baptism impinge on the question of whether one must believe in trinitarianism for salvation?  (from comment)
I understand that as adults we can ask theologically and philosophically complicated questions and I do appreciate how great Christian theologians cum philosophers like St. Thomas Aquinas can develop whole systems of thoughts to plumb the depth of the Trinitarian doctrine from God's side (as mystery) and from our side (through reason).
But when it comes to salvation it is a highly PRACTICAL matter to undertake the LIFE of faith through the sacraments of the church, and in order to fully incorporate those sacraments (the primary being the Eucharist) into someone's spiritual life, the most basic assumption about God needs to be there for those sacraments to even make sense.  For example: if Jesus is not in essence God, the Catholic eucharist rite is tantamount to idolatry!  Hence the custom of First Communion catechism that I deliberately quoted at length above to show how even the most uneducated person should have no problem understanding it.
As you can see in the Catholic Order of Mass there is the reciting of the creed (step 18) prior to the Communion Rite (starting at step 124).  The expectation is to prepare our hearts to receive communion properly, which includes regarding the host to be the real presence of Jesus.  If we do not believe in Trinitarianism, then taking communion would amount to sacrilege which is mortal sin.  Reciting the creed with doubts is okay as long as we give the church a chance to explain.
Similarly, even someone baptized as an adult might change their views.  (from comment)
The moment a baptized Catholic deliberately refuses to believe that God is Trinity, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, the person has committed the sin of heresy or apostasy.  See my answer to another question.  As I explained in the answer, there is a big difference between having doubts and acting on them.  It is fine asking difficult questions about the Trinity (as I do myself), but while asking those questions, the PRACTICAL matter (the one that the Catholic Church sees as very important to shepherd her faithful) is whether the spiritual LIFE is healthy.  She does it through issuing and enforcing practical regulations on church practice.


Why is the miracle of raising the dead often noted as being done privately?

Answering from a Charismatic Arminian perspective of Scripture:

This is an aspect of God's Glory being veiled. We see this principle in operation throughout scripture beginning with the expulsion from Eden in Genesis (the Paradise of God being 'veiled' - barred - to mankind, cf. Genesis 3:23-24) through to the exclusion from the New Jerusalem of

  ...dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie. - Revelation 22:15 NKJV

This is one of the principles that lie behind:

  Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces. - Matthew 7:6 NKJV

Why does the Lord veil His Glory in this way? There are two main reasons:

1. God is looking for men and women of faith - veiling His Glory gives scope for faith to be exercised by those who diligently seek Him and press in through and beyond 'the veil'.

  It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,
  But the glory of kings is to search out a matter. - Proverbs 25:2 NKJV

  The Lord is constantly watching everyone, and he gives strength to those who faithfully obey him... - 2 Chronicles 16:9a CEV

  Faith makes us sure of what we hope for and gives us proof of what we cannot see...without faith no one can please God. We must believe that God is real and that he rewards everyone who searches for him. - Hebrews 11:1,6 CEV

Contrast Moses and his attitude to draw close to God versus the Israelites he was leading and their attitude to shrink back from God's presence (cf. Exodus 20:18-21) - the latter had seen many amazing miracles, but rather than draw nearer to the Lord in faith, they kept focusing on problems, grumbling and complaining and hanging back from the God that they feared but did not love; while the former was called a friend of God and encountered the Glory of God to such an extant that his own face shone with the reflected Glory which had to be veiled because the Israelites couldn't bear to look at it either. Referring to this incident, Paul encourages the Corinthian believers that:

  But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. - 2 Corinthians 3:16 NIV

ie it is the inward circumstances of the heart (particularly whether it is believing or unbelieving) that determine what someone 'sees', not the outward circumstances of miraculous signs and wonders.

2. The Lord is merciful, and tends not to give us revelation beyond our capacity to steward appropriately (with consequent judgment for failing to do so).

  20 Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.” - Matthew 11:20-24 NIV

  47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.” - Luke 12:47-48 NIV

  The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. - 2 Peter 3:9 NIV

Peter was a man that received the incredibly significant revelation that Jesus was the Christ (both internally from the Father through the Holy Spirit, together with external corroboration on the mount of Transfiguration), but he initially wasn't equipped to steward this revelation effectively - he needed to be sifted and effectively broken (somewhat akin to Jacob's identity changing encounter with the Lord at Peniel - cf. Genesis 32), before he was ready to respond appropriately to what had been revealed to him.

Contrast Peter's faith journey with that of Ananias and Sapphira or Simon the Sorceror who you can see as people who were caught up in the excitement of God doing great things (through the believer's extravagant giving and the outpouring of the Spirit on the Samaritans), and wanting 'a piece of the action', but failing in their attempts and being judged, because their focus on the outward mechanics of what was happening around them was no remedy against the unbelief and consequent self-focus that was in their hearts.

Similarly - and I believe of most relevance to the cases you're referring to - the situation in Acts 19:13-17 with the sons of Sceva is another example of people who focused on the outward mechanics (using the name of Jesus) and neglected the interior necessity of faith (in the one whose name was being used) with drastic consequences.

Now given this background, imagine if you will, an average person's response to seeing a manifestation of God's Glory through someone being raised from the dead without previously cultivating a heart to diligently seek God as per Hebrews 11:6, they like pre-sifted Peter will want to camp in the Glory, grab a piece of the action like Ananias and Sapphira or Simon Magus, or focus on the mechanics like the sons of Sceva and try to reproduce the same results without undergoing the necessary refinement of faith. It will only bring them judgment not blessing.

This is why in today's age most of the more notable miracles such as the dead being raised, the blind seeing, the deaf hearing, the lame walking etc. are happening in the 'third world' amongst people of sincere and desperate faith rather than those from 'developed' nations with their modern medicine who are largely rich and in need of nothing (cf Revelation 3:17). In particular, those who have developed theologies to explain the lack of miracles they see are largely shielded by the providence of God from witnessing outbreaks of His Glory in this manner as they are ill-equipped to deal with them - they would be at risk of adding to their unbelief the faith-(what measure they have)-shipwrecking-sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

edit: A further excellent reason is suggested through comment and I include it as well: Even though God does sometimes (nearly always? - cf. Amos 3:7) use human agents as part of the process of working His mighty works amongst us, it is right and proper for those human agents to downplay and even obscure their own part in the process in order that all honour and praise goes to the only One worthy of it. This particular aspect of veiling the Glory was not necessary of course in Jesus' case as he could say quite frankly:

  that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. - John 5:23 NIV