How do nontrinitarians view Jesus? (overview)

Until the third century, the dichotomy of trinitarians and non-trinitarians just did not exist. Jesus was the Son of God, and that was as far as it went. The concept of the Trinity began to provide for the divinity of Jesus within a monotheistic framework. Around the beginning of the fourth century, a Libyan priest, Arius, began to teach that the Trinity was wrong - Jesus, the Son of God, was not co-eternal and consubstantial with his Father, but was rather a created being, subordinate to the Father. Bishop Alexander of Alexandria excommunicated Arius and had the Council of Nicaea declare for the Trinity.  However, the Christian world remained divided on the issue until Emperor Theodosius made belief in the Trinity mandatory for Christians at the end of the fourth century. Throughout much of the fourth century, it remained possible, in spite of successive ecumenical councils, that Arianism would win the day and that it would be Trinitarianism that would be declared heretical.

In terms of number of adherents, nontrinitarian denominations  comprise only a small minority of modern Christianity. By far the two largest nontrinitarian denominations are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("Mormons") and the Jehovah's Witnesses. According to Wikipedia, other denominations include the Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, Dawn Bible Students, Friends General Conference, Iglesia ni Cristo, Living Church of God, Oneness Pentecostals, Members Church of God International, Unitarian Universalist Christians, The Way International, The Church of God International and the United Church of God. Nontrinitarian views differ widely on the nature of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Some important nontrinitarian views are:

Jehovah's Witnesses teach that God the Father, Jehovah, is the one true almighty God, even over his Son, God's only direct creation, and the very first creation by God. They give relative "worship" or "obeisance" (homage, as to a king) to Christ, pray through him as God's only high priest, consider Jesus Christ to be Mediator and Messiah, but that only the Father is without beginning.
Mormons believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct beings that are not united in substance, a view sometimes called social trinitarianism. The three individual deities are 'one' in will or purpose, as Jesus was 'one' with his disciples, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute a single Godhead or a Divine Council, and are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. Mormons believe that God created Christ, who is subordinate to God the Father and that Christ created the universe.
Oneness Pentecostalism teaches that Jesus was 'Son' only when he became flesh on earth, but was the Father prior to his being made human.
Swedenborgianism holds that the Trinity exists in one person, the Lord God Jesus Christ. Thus Jesus Christ is the one God; the Father as to his soul, the Son as to his body, and the Holy Spirit as to his activity in the world.
Some traditions say that Christ the Son and God the Father are co-eternal, but do not teach that the Holy Spirit is a being or person. This teaching is characterised as Binitarianism.


According to Protestants, what "new" things has the Eastern Orthodox Church acquired over time?

In Eastern Orthodox Christianity certain paintings of Jesus or one of the saints are called Icons. Depending on the church these are venerated to a lesser or greater degree, and such veneration is rejected by Protestants. In and of themselves the paintings are not sinful, but if they are venerated that is considered sinful, just as veneration of relics in the Roman Catholic Church is considered sinful by protestants. Additionally there are associated beliefs which would be rejected by Protestants, like that some of the icons weren't painted by humans but instead appeared miraculously.

It's not certain when icons were first used by Christians, but Irenaeus (c. 130-202) argues against Gnostic use of them. In the Spanish Synod of Elvira (c. 305) the bishops concluded that "Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration."

Icons were used before the Great Schism and so could be argued not to be strictly an Orthodox innovation, but today they are very characteristic of the Orthodox church as the other branches of Christianity don't use them.

(Sourced largely from the Wikipedia page on Icons)


Is the OT translation in "The Apostolic Bible - Polyglot" based strictly on the LXX or MT text?

Charles Van der Pool does not specify in the introduction whether his translation included Masoretic influences, but from what he does say, it is doubtful. He makes a concerted effort throughout the introduction to express that there is value in the Greek Old Testament that cannot be had with any other translation. I've included his words below from page v of the second edition. Emphasis is the author's, strong text is mine.

With the incorporation of the Greek Old Testament Scriptures into the Greek New Testament via quotes, surely this puts the Greek New Testament in a unique position, as these Greek Old Testament words have become engrafted into the Divine Word of the New Testament. For hundreds of years after the Christ, during the formation of the apostolic age, the Greek Scriptures were consistently read and quoted by the Church Fathers. These all-Greek Scriptures are still in use in Eastern Christendom today, although the Canon is different. The Apostolic Bible continues this tradition of The Apostolic Age Greek Scriptures, and is this named the Apostolic Bible.
With the fact of the Greek Old Testament partly being grafted into the  "inspired" Greek New Testament, it is inconceivable to think one can truly understand the deep meanings of the Greek New Testament without first having knowledge of the Greek Old Testament. For example, consider the following passage in the King James Bible, "he hath made him to be sin for us..." 2 Corinthians 5:31. The word for "sin" is #266 "ἁμαρτία," where in Numbers 6:14, and many other places in the Greek Old Testament, is translated "sin offering." "Offering" denoted by the Italics, is implied by the context, as it was talking of animals as a sacrifice for sin. Jesus becoming the "sin offering" opens a whole new aspect of understanding for this verse. That the Greek Scriptures were designed for the Church is a strong argument, but this is not to demean the Hebrew Scriptures of the autographs. Seeing that God saw fit to communicate mainly through the written Word, it ts to one's advantage to diligently search both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.

He also states on page xiii that "The translation was done by one person, rather than a group of individuals." This clarifies that this work is his own translation, not another translation printed alongside the Greek OT. He goes on to say that "...a continuity of the English words is attained when one individual is doing the translating of the whole, as compared to a group of individuals in which each may be translating only one book of the Bible."


How do Jehovah's Witnesses explain John 8:58-59 in a way that accords with their doctrine?

I actually do not see a problem here. The Jehovah's Witness group teaches that God the Father created Jesus first (source), then Jesus created everything else (source). So they do believe that Jesus existed before his incarnation.

To the Jews, this is an irrelevant distinction. It is blasphemous either way.

"Jesus is God" = blasphemy - stone him
"Jesus was created by God before everything else" = blasphemy - stone him.

Anything about "I am" being in reference to God the Father, explicitly, is simply denied and translated accordingly in their New World Translation. Whether their translation is valid or not is a question for the Hermeneutics site.


History of the age restrictions in the Priesthood in the LDS Church

Originally there was no age requirements mentioned when Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received the Aaronic Priesthood on May 15, 1829.1 Doctrine and Covenants also do not mention a specific age.2 It was a custom early on in the church to generally only ordain adult males, only allowing a small number of youths, but there was no specific doctrine or regulation.4

The first age requirements came about in 1909. At the request of President Joseph F. Smith a General Priesthood Committee was organized in 1906 (which lasted until 1922) to prepare lesson outlines for the various quorums.

  The committee initially included Rudger Clawson and David O. Mckay of
  the Council of the twelve, plus Charles W. Nibley, Orrin P. Miller, and
  David A. Smith of the Presiding Bishopric. It was soon enlarged to nearly
  twenty members, half of whom brought with them valuable experience
  as general board member of the Sunday school, the YMMIA(Young Men's Mutual Improvement Association...eliminated 1974), and religion
  classes.

  ...

  But before appropriate lessons could be written for each quorum, the
  Committee found it necessary to establish age groupings for the lesser
  priesthood. After 1877 it had been customary in the Church for boys at age
  twelve to be ordained deacons. But standard age practices for ordaining
  teachers or priests, or for advancing young men through the priesthood
  were lacking. The Committee therefore suggested specific ages at which
  specific Aaronic Priesthood ordinations should occur. Bishops were then
  instructed by the Presiding Bishopric to advance boys when worthy,

    and unless there are special reasons to the contrary they should be advanced
    in the priesthood from deacon to teacher and from teacher to priest. There
    can be no set age when persons should be ordained to the various offices in
    the Aaronic Priesthood, but we suggest that as near as circumstances will permit
    boys be ordained as follows: Deacons at twelve, Teachers at fifteen and
    Priests at eighteen years of age.3

Further age changes can be seen through 1970 where they have remained unchanged to present.4

            Table 1
Changes in Age of Ordination, 1908-70

Year Deacon Teacher Priest Elder
1908   12     15      18    21
1925   12     15      17    20
1934   12     15      17    19
1953   12     15      17    20
1954   12     14      16    20
1960   12     14      16    19
1970   12     14      16    18

--EDIT--

A slight change in age requirements starting in January 2019. This will allow someone to be ordained potentially up to eleven months earlier than they would have normally been ordained.

  In addition, young men will be eligible for ordination to the appropriate priesthood office in January of the year they turn 12, 14, and 16.5

1 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.68-73?lang=eng#p67 and https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/13?lang=eng

2 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/84 and https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/107

3 The Priesthood Reform
Movement, 1908–1922
 https://byustudies.byu.edu/file/1889/download?token=iei-ow_X (pdf download)

4 From Men to Boys: LDS Aaronic Priesthood Offices, 1829-1996 https://www.jstor.org/stable/23287418 or https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=mormonhistory

5 https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/multimedia/file/age-group-announcement-january-2019.pdf


What denominations use gender-inclusive hymnology?

I have seen Congregationalists and Episcopals do this most frequently (I've also seen Episcopals do the opposite). The modern Catholic abominations hymnals will often do things like that, but that can vary from parish to parish. When I was a singer in a PCUSA church the practice was to manually update, even though the hymnal didn't include it. I have seen similar updates in Lutheran and Baptist hymnals...

I think that my answer has to be, "most denominations do this to some extent." I hadn't originally started to say that, but I don't think I have an option.

Not to politicize this, but this happens to be a practice particularly common in the denominations and parishes to the left of center. I know a couple of Catholic parishes which use the right old words. I know that the Orthodox Pres. Church sticks with the old ones, as does the LCMS (very conservative Lutherans). Anglican Catholics use the old words as well (the most conservatives among the Episcopals generally fall in that category).


In Calvinism, is there any correlation with the elect and the "blessed" in the Beatitudes of Matthew 5?

I'll handle these questions in two parts: first, the connection between the words blessed and elect (including, as you request, a definition of blessed), and second, if the qualities listed are somehow indications of whether someone is elect or not.
Connection between blessed and elect
It's very clear to Calvinists, and, I suspect, to at least most Christians, that Jesus here is referring to people who are saved, and to Calvinists, that means that they are elect.  There are a couple reasons for this:

The definition of "blessed"
The promises given, like "the kingdom of heaven" and "they shall see God"

Regarding the definition of "blessed," the Reformed Study Bible writes:

This means more than the emotional state represented by the word "happy." It includes spiritual well-being, having the approval of God, and thus a happier destiny (Ps. 1).

The "blessedness," then, is a single idea that the passage describes in several complementary ways.  Similarly, Calvin identifies the point of this passage to be "true happiness": not the happiness as understood by the world, but a happiness that looks to the promise.  Matthew Poole writes regarding verse 3:

true happiness lieth not in worldly possessions, but in the favour of God, and a right to the kingdom of heaven, and that these men have. (source)

The promises, then, are the spiritual blessings that are inherent in being "blessed," and are indicative of salvation. For example, Poole writes regarding those who mourn "their own sins" in verse 4:

They shall be comforted, either in this life, with the consolations of the Spirit, or with their Master’s joy in the life that is to come

Regarding verse 3's "poor in spirit," Calvin understands these to be those who rely on God alone:

It deserves our attention, that he only who is reduced to nothing in himself, and relies on the mercy of God, is poor in spirit. (source)

John Gill writes that for these, "[eternal glory] is prepared for them, and given to them; they are born heirs of it, have a right unto it, are making meet for it, and shall enjoy it." (source)
Qualities indicative of election?
Calvinists take two similar but distinct approaches on the universal applicability of the qualities listed in this passage.
Qualities are responses to affliction
The first approach, taken by Calvin, is to understand these qualities as primarily responses to affliction.  Thus, the poor in spirit and those that mourn are suffering under some trial, and the promise is that they will be blessed for it.  By extension, then, these qualities will not necessarily be visible at all times, since the life of the Christian is not constant suffering.  As Calvin explains:

But if, at any time, the Lord spares our weakness, and does not permit the ungodly to torment us as they would desire, yet, during the season of repose and leisure, it is proper for us to meditate on this doctrine, that we may be ready, whenever it shall be necessary, to enter the field, and may not engage in the contest till we have been well prepared. As the condition of the godly, during the whole course of this life, is very miserable, Christ properly calls them to the hope of the heavenly life. (source)

Thus, to Calvin, periods of respite from affliction are times when the opportunity to display some of the qualities listed here may be diminished.  That doesn't call into question one's election, rather, it serves as a time of preparation for future trials.
Qualities are universally applicable
Other Calvinists more universally apply many of the qualities listed in the passage.  For example, John Gill writes that those who mourn are mourning "for sin, for their own sins [...] the unbelief of their hearts [...] [and] the sins of the world" in addition to mourning "under afflictions." (source) Thus, the quality of being "mournful" more generally applies to all of the Christian life, not merely during trials.
Similarly, Charles Spurgeon understands the "poor in spirit" to be "not those who boast themselves of spiritual riches and personal goodness, but the lowly, the meek, the trembling, the humble." (source) Again, the qualities are not limited to trials.
Sanctification
It's worth mentioning that both groups of Calvinists recognize that Christians will continue to sin, and will not always display the qualities described in this and other passages.  Failing to have these qualities would thus not necessarily be an indication of not being elect, but growth in them would be expected.
Summary
Calvinists view Matthew 5 as referring to the elect and the qualities that they will develop more and more as they grow spiritually.  Some emphasize that these qualities will be visible primarily during periods of affliction, while others suggest that most of them apply generally to the entire Christian walk.


In evangelicalism, how are Christians free from sin?

Apologize for the length, the question is so good that I am answering not just for you but digging up worthy references for myself.
A good place to start for an evangelical answer is with two evangelical theologians famous for having an acute sense of the sinfulness of man and the nature of God's grace in the Christian.  John Owen and Jonathan Edwards both wrote extensively on the subject.
The main idea expressed by both of these writers is that a Christian is free from sin because in Christ they are translated from the rule of Law to the rule of Grace. Freedom from sin ultimately means freedom from Law because it is God's holy law that condemned man into a totally depraved sinful nature.  Unless this curse of the Law for Adam's sin is removed in Christ's death, on whom our sin is made to be Christ's, so that he both bears the guilt and penal wrath of God for it, then we are not free.  Therefore this freedom primarily means free from the consequences of sin from the legal standpoint under God's holy law.
However this freedom from the Law necessarily means new birth into the rule of grace, which means that inwardly the Christian is no longer under the dominion of law and sin but under grace leading to a more and more holy life. This 'holy life' is considered the life of the Spirit as contrasted with the life of the 'flesh' and although the Christian has this dual nature causing intense struggle with sin, the spiritual life is said to 'have dominion' over the flesh.
It is this subject of 'dominion' where evangelicals do not all agree, the split primarily resting between Calvinistic views and Arminian views of perfection. I will focus on Calvinistic views in my post as I consider Arminian views on this subject as a weakness of faith. As far as the final state in heaven, of course all Christians believe it is absolute freedom forever, so the question amounts to how much sin can we still have in our life and yet still claim to have faith in God and still claim that grace has dominion in our life. Put another way, 'How much freedom from sin can we experience on this side of heaven?' Or again, 'What does it mean that we are no longer under the dominion of sin but under the dominion of grace, when we have so much sin still in our lives?'
First let's look at typical thoughts by John Owen in his TREATISE
of THE DOMINION OF SIN AND GRACE; wherein sin’s reign is discovered, in whom it is, and in whom it is not; how the law supports it; how grace delivers from it, by setting up its dominion in the heart.
This treatise is based on:

For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. (Romans 6:14, NIV)

First we should take note that the Christian struggle with sin is not a proper cause for our faith to shrink but for it to take consolation for the fact that we have two natures warring with one another. This confirms we are a Christian and means we have the Spirit. The Spirit, accordion to Ephesians Ch 1 is a 'seal'. this seal that both proves we are God's children and is a down payment, or first fruit, guaranteeing the whole future glory of heaven.
Under this comforting aspect, Owen also provides similar comforting words:

Where men are engaged in a constant conflict against sin; where they look upon it and judge it their chiefest enemy, which contends with them for their souls and their eternal ruin; where they have experience of its power and deceit, and through the efficacy of them have been often shaken in their peace and comfort; where they have been ready to despond, and say they shall one day perish under their powers,—it is a gospel word, a word of good tidings, that gives them assurance that it shall never have dominion over them. The ground of this assurance is, that believers are “not under the law, but under grace.”  (John Owen's Works, Vol 7, P542)

But to now directly answer the question.  John Owen also asks:

But the inquiry hereon is, how it follows from hence that sin shall not have dominion over us, that sin cannot extend its territories and rule into that state, and in what sense this is affirmed. (P545)

He answers:

This, then, is the present case supposed and determined by the apostle: “You that are believers are all of you conflicting with sin. You find it always restless and disquieting, sometimes strong and powerful When it is in conjunction with any urgent temptation, you are afraid it will utterly prevail over you, to the ruin of your souls. Hence you are wearied with it, groan under it, and cry out for deliverance from it.” All these things the apostle at large insists on in this and the next chapter. “But now,” saith he, “be of good comfort; notwithstanding all these things, and all your fears upon them, sin shall not prevail, it shall not have the dominion, it shall never ruin your souls.” But what ground have we for this hope? what assurance of this success? “This you have,” saith the apostle, “ ‘Ye are not under the law, but under grace;’ or the rule of the grace of God in Christ Jesus, administered in the gospel.” But how doth this give relief? “Why, it is the ordinance, the instrument of God, which he will use unto this end,—namely, the communication of such supplies of grace and spiritual strength as shall eternally defeat the dominion of sin.” (P546)

Fine, we have said that a Christian has many sins, but they do not have dominion over him. In other words that is he is not really enslaved to sin as he once was before. What does this mean? A common confusion here is to think in terms of percentages.  A Christian is (some may think) someone whose heart is 80-90 percent pure, or at least more than fifty percent pure, otherwise he can never say Jesus is his 'Lord'.  Some may actually imagine that a Christian can be 100% without sin for maybe even a whole day, but this imagination is quite contrary to the truth of every Christian experience and this type of thinking is not held at all by great evangelical theologians such as John Owen, or Jonathan Edwards. In fact men who really know themselves would never claim to love God even one half as much as they ought to at any given moment, not even for a second.
Here is a good place to watch how Edwards handles the concept in his work on Original Sin. First he argues that even though a Christian is not under the dominion or Lordship of sin, the best of Christians have more of their heart still in a sinful state than a holy one:

The sum of our duty to God, required in his law, is love to God; taking love in a large sense, for the true regard of our hearts to God, implying esteem, honor, benevolence, gratitude, complacency, etc. ...It therefore appears from the premises, that whosoever withholds more of that love or respect of heart from God which his law requires, than he affords, has more sin than righteousness. Not only he that has less divine love, than passions and affections which are opposite; but also he that don't love God half so much as he ought, or has reason to do, has justly more wrong than right, imputed to him, according to the law of God, and the law of reason; he has more irregularity than rectitude, with regard to the law of love. The sinful disrespect or unrespectfulness of his heart to God, is greater than his respect to him.
But what considerate person is there, even among the more virtuous part of mankind, but what would be ashamed to say, and profess before God or men, that he loves God half so much as he ought to do; or that he exercises one half of that esteem, honor and gratitude towards God, which would be altogether becoming him; considering what God is, and what great manifestations he has made of his transcendent excellency and goodness, and what benefits he receives from him? And if few or none of the best of men can with reason and truth make even such a profession, how far from it must the generality of mankind be? (Jonathan Edwards on Original Sin, Page 140)

However when we look at Romans 8 we must feel that there needs some explanation to be made in Edward's assertion for how can the majority of our heart still be under sin, when we are no longer under its dominion? This seems so foolish to the carnal mind!  For example what about these verses:

1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:1-4, NIV)

and

Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.
14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. (Romans 8:12-14, NIV)

Edwards get very much into fine detail in his own answer: (I quote him in entirety for my own future reference as it was hard for me to find again and is really a rare gem that expresses the depths of authentic evangelical faith with unusual clarity of mind).

The Objection is this: That the argument seems to prove too much, that it will prove, that even good men themselves have more sin than holiness; which also has been supposed. But if this were true, it would follow, that sin is the prevalent principle even in good men, and that it is the principle which has the predominancy in the heart and practice of the truly pious; which is plainly contrary to the Word of God.
I answer, If it be indeed so, that there is more sin, consisting in defect of required holiness, than there is of holiness in good men in this world; yet it will not follow, that sin has the chief government of their heart and practice, for two reasons.

They may love God more than other things and yet there may not be so much love, as there is want of due love; or in other words, they may love God more than the world, and therefore the love of God may be predominant, and yet may not love God near half so much as they ought to do. This need not be esteemed a paradox: a person may love a father, or some great friend and benefactor, of a very excellent character, more than some other object, a thousand times less worthy of his esteem and affection, and yet love him ten times less than he ought; and so be chargeable, all things considered, with a deficiency in respect and gratitude, that is very unbecoming and hateful. If love to God prevails above the love of other things, then virtue will prevail above evil affections, or positive principles of sin; by which principles it is, that sin has a positive power and influence. For evil affections radically consist in inordinate love to other things besides God. And therefore, virtue prevailing beyond these, will have the governing influence. The predominancy of the love of God in the hearts of good men is more from the nature of the object loved, and the nature of the principle of true love, than the degree of the principle. The object is one of supreme loveliness; immensely above all other objects in worthiness of regard; and 'tis by such a transcendent excellency, that he is God, and worthy to be regarded and adored as God, and he that truly loves God, loves him as God. True love acknowledges him to be God, or to be divinely and supremely excellent, and must arise from some knowledge, sense and conviction of his worthiness of supreme respect. And though the sense and view of it may be very imperfect, and the love that arises from it in like manner imperfect; yet if there be any realizing view of such divine excellency, it must cause the heart to respect God above all.

Another reason, why a principle of holiness maintains the dominion in the hearts of good men, is the nature of the Covenant of Grace, and the promises of that covenant, on which true Christian virtue relies, and which engage God's strength and assistance to be on its side, and to help it against its enemy, that it may not be overcome. The just live by faith. Holiness in the Christian, or his spiritual life, is maintained, as it has respect by faith to its Author and Finisher, and derives strength and efficacy from the divine Fountain, and by this means overcomes. For, as the Apostle says, "This is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith" [I John 5:4]. 'Tis our faith in him who has promised, never to leave nor forsake his people, and not to forsake the work of his own hands, nor suffer his people to be tempted above their ability, and that his grace shall be sufficient for them, and that his strength shall be made perfect in weakness, and that where he has begun a good work he will carry it on to the day of Christ.   (Jonathan Edwards on Original Sin, Page 145-146)

Conclusion: Only as Christians are we really aware of our many sins and have a mournful daily struggle against them, even to the occasional doubting of the very genuineness of our own faith. However as the Spirit has been given to us to give us comfort and assurance of our salvation, we, bumbling along in our many failures, are aware that we are actually being swept along powers of grace along an unbreakable mighty rule of Christ as our high priest, ensuring our absolute certain arrival into glory where we will forever be free of all effects of sin forever. Even as we doubt this grace as it is 'too good to be true' we are being formed into objects of grace meant to reveal this gracious quality of God to the praise of its excellence, which is the entire purpose of life and salvation. Death is no longer a fearful unknown answering our condemned conscience for the punishment of sin. Rather our daily struggle is a hopeful one, looking at the grave as a curtain behind which everlasting joys are waiting, even as we doubt it. Even in the midst of our doubts of God's grace, his grace will be a dominion that will overcome into everlasting praise.
Note: This is the second time I wrote this answer as just after my first version someone pickpocketed my iPhone which had my un-posted answer. Needless to say I was all the more determined to re-post this a few hours later as I was not willing that the Devil so easily take away the fruit of my effort ;)


How was circumcision practiced in Jesus' time?

I got some interesting discussion in the comments when I asked this question at Mi Yodeya.

The comments reflect various thoughts on whether it would have been practiced the same in Jesus' time as compared to today, according to the Jewish law (halacha), and why it matters (or doesn't).  There were also some incomplete answers in the comments, such as quotes of prayers or blessings that might be said and indications of who is qualified to perform the circumcision.

There was a link for an informative article about how circumcision is practiced today.  I accepted the answer at Mi Yodeya.  You can view it at this link:

https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/86533/how-was-brit-milah-practiced-during-the-first-century


Is there any historical record of Elizabeth the First's reaction to John Knox's tract on 'the monstruous regimen'?

While in Geneva, John Knox’s work ‘The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women’ was published (anonymously) in 1558.  It appears that his book was written against the female sovereigns of his day, particularly Mary of Guise, Dowager and Queen Regent of Scotland, her daughter Mary (Stuart), who became Queen of Scotland, and Queen Mary (Tudor) of England.  It was published a few months before Elizabeth (Tudor) became Queen of England in 1558.
That is significant because his stance against female rulers backfired when Elizabeth Tudor succeeded her half-sister Mary (Tudor) as Queen of England.  Knox wanted to return to Scotland but Elizabeth denied him permission for passage through England on the way back from Geneva to Scotland.  He was obliged to take the more dangerous route to Leith.

In 1558, Mary Tudor’s half-sister, the Protestant-leaning Elizabeth Tudor, succeeded to the throne of England. Though not the intended target of Knox’s First Blast, Queen Elizabeth took great offense at the publication, and in 1559, repeatedly refused Knox passage to Scotland through England. Knox attempted to apologize to the queen, writing a series of letters to her chief advisor, Sir William Cecil, but again managed as much criticism as praise. Like Mary of Guise before her, Elizabeth Tudor became more agitated with the reformer.
Even Calvin became a guilty party in the eyes of Queen Elizabeth, who rejected his homage, made to her in a republication of his Commentaries on Isaiah, owing to a perceived connection with The First Blast. In truth, Calvin did not approve of Knox’s views and had even advised him against publishing them. In his own letter to William Cecil, Calvin expressed his extreme displeasure with Knox: “By reason of the thoughtless arrogance of one individual, the wretched crowd of exiles would have been driven away, not only from this city [of Geneva] but even from almost the whole world.”
Having endured the controversy of The First Blast, Knox went on to play a key role in Scotland’s opposition to the Catholic monarchy, solidifying Scotland as a Protestant, and Presbyterian, nation for centuries to come. As for his second and third blasts, it would seem that the "Trumpet of the Scottish Reformation" learned an important lesson. Neither was ever sounded.
Source: https://www.history.pcusa.org/blog/2014/10/john-knox-and-monstrous-regiment-women

When Knox heard that Mary (Stuart) Queen of Scotland was looking for scholars to refute his anathema against women rulers he attempted to counter this by writing to Elizabeth, suggesting Mary was aiming at the English throne.  Source: http://tudortimes.co.uk/people/john-knox-life-story/knox-mary-queen-of-scots
20th July 1559 - John Knox’s Declaration to Queen Elizabeth - https://biblehub.com/library/knox/the_first_blast_of_the_trumpet/20_july_1559_john_knoxs.htm
5th August 1561 - John Knox’s Second Defence to Queen Elizabeth - https://biblehub.com/library/knox/the_first_blast_of_the_trumpet/5_aug_1561_john_knoxs.htm
Although various articles suggest that Queen Elizabeth took offence at Knox’s words about female sovereigns and never forgave him, no evidence is provided to support that claim.  None of the articles I found gave any clues as to what Queen Elizabeth might have written to John Knox, either in response to his “First Trumpet Blast” or to both of his subsequent letters.  Although Queen Elizabeth supported the Protestant cause, her refusal to allow Knox passage through England to return to Scotland became an obstacle to Knox’s direct involvement with the Protestant cause in England.  That is possibly the only evidence of what Queen Elizabeth though of John Knox’s views of female rulers.  Nonetheless, both the fiery preaching of John Knox and Queen Elizabeth’s political and religious ambitions eventually resulted in a Protestant King (James VI of Scotland and I of England) being established on the united throne of Scotland and England.


Paul's knowledge of Jannes and Jambres the magicians of Egypt

It's  in the Babylonian Talmud.

Torah comprises the Pentateuch in the main, but also the rest of the OT, as well as the commentaries, ie Talmud.

See also:

Who were Jannes and Jambres?


Why isn't the virgin birth of Jesus mentioned in all of the gospels? Does it matter?

The birth of Jesus is also only mentioned at all in Matthew and Luke.  Following the logic, since only half of the Gospels mention that means we should discard the theory that he was ever born at all.

In 100% of the cases where a birth narrative is present, the miracle of God becoming man is mentioned. Indeed, in John, even where the birth narrative isn't present, the incarnation - that God became man - is explicit.

Neither John nor Mark say anything about the birth of Jesus at all, so it is not surprising at all that there is nothing about the virgin birth.


Which regional rules of lent fasting or holy days of obligation should a Catholic follow?

The rule for fasting is "when in Rome, do as the Romans do." This is exactly the case where that saying derives. Where you are on the particular day determines whether you must abstain or fast regardless where you are from.
A typical occurrence for this would be in parts of the United States when St. Patrick's day falls on a Friday in Lent. Some bishops especially where the population has Irish heritage will dispense from the obligation to abstain from meat. It's entirely permissible for one to cross diocese boundaries to be able to have meat on that Friday.
Holy days of Obligations bind based upon where one has "domicile" (or quasi-domicile), which basically means based upon where one primarily resides and intends to return if absent. If you move to a new country and intend to reside there long term, you must follow the local rules for Holy Days. If you visit a country, you follow your home region's rules. See Holy Days of Obligation


Does the incorrupted body of St. Cecilia still exist?

Here is an article on the saint St. Cecilia | New Advent. It mentions the saint's body, but does not give an indication as to whether it is corrupt or not.

This may also be of interest: St. Cecilia

Mystics of the Church has:

Cases of incorruptibility go back a long way. The first saint whose body was found to be incorrupt was St. Cecilia, who was martyred in AD 177. Her remains were moved to a new site in 822, and in 1599 an exhumation revealed her body to be incorrupt. Over the centuries more than 100 cases of saints whose bodies have remained incorruptible have come to light, sometimes, as with St. Cecilia, many years after their death.

This photo in The crypt of St.Cecilia | The Christian Catacombs of Rome depicts he statue of St.Cecilia a copy of the celebrated work sculptured by Stefano Maderno in 1599.

From this artice Santa Cecilia in Trastevere - Rome, Italy - Sacred Destinations and this St Cecilia | MADERNO, Stefano, the statue represents the position in which St Cecilia's body was found. A section in the former has:

  In front of the choir is a moving sculpture by Stefano Maderno of Cecilia's incorrupt body as it was found when exhumed in 1599.
  Contorted and yest somehow graceful, the statue is hignly unusual and
  has great emotional impact.

Long answer short: no display of the body itself and no pictures of the body itself for obvious reasons, should the body continue to be incorrupt [has cuts in the neck], the body would be as the statues depict it. Her relics are in Trastevere, in the basilica dedicated to her, since they were transferred there in 821.

St. Cecilia is a Patron Saint of Musicians, a good saint to be invoked in a family where say, the children are learning music.

PS You could also write to the Basilica.


According to the Catholic Church, did Jesus have faith or hope?

1. Jesus enjoyed the Beatific Vision from his conception.

From the moment of his conception Jesus enjoyed the Beatific Vision, i.e. his human soul saw the divine essence with an intuitive vision and face to face, and in this vision his soul enjoyed the divine essence.

2. As a consequence, Jesus did not need faith.

Believing, an act whose enabling virtue is propositional faith, is assenting to the truth of a proposition which is not seen, either directly or by logical inference from first principles which are seen, on the basis of the authority of God Who revealed that proposition and Who cannot deceive.

But by seeing the divine essence, Jesus saw directly everything He needed to know about God, Himself as man, his mission and the world, so that for his human intellect there was no "unseen" proposition that He had to believe. Therefore He did not have propositional faith (usually called just "faith").

This point is treated by St. Thomas Aquinas in ST III, q.7, a.3 [1].

3. As another consequence, Jesus did not need hope.

Since this point is explained so briefly and clearly in the next ST article (ST III, q.7, a.4) [1], I will just quote its answer:

  As it is of the nature of faith that one assents to what one sees not,
  so is it of the nature of hope that one expects what as yet one has not; and as faith, forasmuch as it is a theological virtue, does not
  regard everything unseen, but only God; so likewise hope, as a
  theological virtue, has God Himself for its object, the fruition of
  Whom man chiefly expects by the virtue of hope; yet, in consequence,
  whoever has the virtue of hope may expect the Divine aid in other
  things, even as he who has the virtue of faith believes God not only
  in Divine things, but even in whatsoever is divinely revealed. Now
  from the beginning of His conception Christ had the Divine fruition
  fully, as will be shown (Question [34], Article [4]), and hence he
  had not the virtue of hope. Nevertheless He had hope as regards such
  things as He did not yet possess, although He had not faith with
  regard to anything; because, although He knew all things fully,
  wherefore faith was altogether wanting to Him, nevertheless He did not
  as yet fully possess all that pertained to His perfection, viz.
  immortality and glory of the body, which He could hope for.

[1] OF THE GRACE OF CHRIST AS AN INDIVIDUAL MAN (THIRTEEN ARTICLES)


Assuming the Gospels are eye-witness accounts, how were certain events recorded where Jesus was alone?

Using Occam's razor, there is no reason to expect a supernatural medium for the transmission of this information to the disciples. Jesus spent three years with his disciples. They had plenty of time to sit around the campfire, telling stories.


Does everything happen for a reason, and what is the biblical support for the different views?

@Martin.kv Good answer! I would only add Romans 8:28

  And we know that all things work together for good to them that love
  God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

All things, whether good or bad, work together for good to those who love God and follow His plan for them.

Like Joseph said in Genesis 50:20 to his brothers

  But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good,
  in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people
  alive.

It wasn't God's plan for his brothers to work evil against him and sell him as a slave, that was the enemy's doing. But God USED this opportunity for good, and in the process, perfected Joseph's character so that he would be ready to do what God had planned for him to do.

In the same way, God has plans for us. Even if sometimes things happen that we do not understand, God plans to use these to prepare us to carry out the plans He has for us. Nevertheless He does not violate our free will, so this only happens if we so choose to submit our will to His.


What arguments are given that Ephesians was not written by Paul?

I am aware of four lines of evidence frequently adduced:

Greek syntax and vocabulary

Even a casual read through Ephesians in Greek shows it to be different from the undisputed Pauline letters.1 Despite their sometimes complex argument structure, the Greek of the other letters tends to minimize the complicated subordinating syntax of Classical Greek. Ephesians, on the other hand, is known for its extraordinarily long sentences, especially one encompassing verses 3-14 of the first chapter.2  The vocabulary is also different. There are 116 words in Ephesians not found in the undisputed letters (Furnish).

Of course, one can argue that Paul used different styles for different occasions. Scholars have quantified things like sentence length and comparisons of vocabulary to show that the difference between Ephesians and the undisputed letters is greater than the difference typically seen among works by the same author. This becomes very technical and beyond the scope of this answer (and beyond the grasp of this writer), but the conclusions are generally seen to favor distinct authorship.
Theological viewpoint

These arguments are manifold. The most substantial concern elements of the eschatological perspective presented in Ephesians which are seen to be in conflict with Paul's stated views elsewhere:

In Ephesians, there is no mention of Christ's expected return.
In Ephesians, believers have already been "saved" and resurrected with Christ (contrast Eph. 2:4–8 with Rom 6:5).
The concern for social order in Ephesians (5:21-6:9) has been considered inconsistent with 1 Cor 7:31 and Rom 13:11–12, in which the end of the age is imminent.

There are many other minor points. A sampling of those which can be exemplified succinctly:

Christ is viewed in Ephesians as the "head" of the church, distinct from other members of the "body" (contrast Eph 1:22 and 1 Cor 12:21)
Ephesians seems to work with a presupposition that controversy over the law is a thing of the past (2:15), a clear and present concern in other letters, one considered by some to have not been overcome within the career of Paul.

Portrayal of Paul

The basic idea is that Ephesians portrays Paul as a particularly holy man among the apostles (contrast "earthen vessels" 2 Cor 4:7). He is also seen as the apostle to the Gentiles. (Eph 3:8 is apparently interpreted as a bit of false modesty, as opposed to 1 Cor 15:8-9.)
Dependence on Colossians

Ephesians appears to borrow heavily from Colossians.  If Paul wrote Colossians (not universally accepted by any means, but generally considered in the relevant circles to be more likely than Pauline authorship of Ephesians), it is seen as unlikely that he would borrow from himself in this way. This is considered evidence for an imitator.

The summary above is organized according to and largely dependent on the references included below. For those who find it relevant, the author of the first concludes that the evidence is

  neither strong nor harmonious enough to invalidate the judgment of tradition.

The author of the second finds the evidence inconclusive.

References

Markus Barth, Ephesians 1-3 (AYB; YUP, 1974), 36-41.

Victor Paul Furnish "Ephesians, Epistle to the" in Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary Ed. David Noel Freedman (Doubleday, 1992), 2:539-544.

 1. Here I include: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon. I'm sure there's no such thing as "undisputed", but this is standard use of terminology.

2.  The beauty of which should constitute adequate motivation for all interested parties to learn Biblical Greek.


You are exactly right. The conclusion you have drawn is based on a commonly made premise. Far too many Christians do not even realize the non sequitur on which they based their understanding of Jesus's time on earth. It is however, a false premise. I hope I can explain why.

For someone with the power and strength that we claim Jesus commanded, the actual process of death on the cross was a small thing. Even ordinary men could and did endure that. It was a particularly arduous and painful death, but some of Christ's later followers were fed to lions or burned alive and did it with a song on their lips. Yet Jesus sweat blood just THINKING about the ordeal he was going to go through on the cross1. Does this mean that Christ's followers had more stamina than he did? That the creator of the universe was scared of a little physical pain? No. There was something else at work.

What made Christ's death different was what happened behind the scenes. While the Romans were busy crucifying his body to a cross, something much more serious was going on. As he hung there, God measured out on him the full force of his collected wrath against sin and sinners. This was the infinite wrath of an infinitely holy God against an infinitely great offence. With this wrath God CRUSHED his own Son2. No mere mortal could ever bear that wrath even pared down to the punishment for his own deeds, much less those of another. And another and another.

That's a lot of infinites I just used. The infinitely holy part is hard to even fathom, but that's what we say God is. Just as he is pure, holy, and 100% loving, he must be 100% hating of anything that is not worthy of love. We have committed an infinite sin because our offense in refusing to obey God is an offence against an infinitely good being, hence deserving the ultimate consequence.

However the value of the sacrifice offered was also infinite. The person that who bore the infinite wrath was himself of infinite value, making his death valuable enough to pay the debt. The very person of God himself give himself up to death. That death was not just a physical terminating of his bodily functions either. That part happened as well at the hands of the Romans, but much more importantly he was separated from the Father. On the cross he cried out that he had been forsaken3. In that moment he experienced the death (separation from God) we deserve.

In doing so he conquered it and in rising he demonstrated his power over it.4,5

As for the second part of your question, it wasn't the measly 30 something years that made it a big deal, it was his position and stature. If I give you an hour of my time that's not much to you. If a friend gives you an hour that's something more. If some celebrity gives you an hour that might mean something more. If the President of the US gives you an hour (however not hard that is for him) that becomes a significant event -- even if you don't like that president.

Now who this God is -- is nothing less than the King of kings and LORD of lords6. His time and attention are of infinite value.

  Luke 22:44 (ESV) And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

  Isaiah 53:10a (ESV) Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt,...

  Matthew 27:46 (ESV) And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

  Romans 6:9 (ESV) We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.

  Acts 2:24 (ESV) God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.

  Revelation 19:16 (ESV) On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.


Did Mary die, or was she translated like Enoch and Elijah?

According to the Bible, Mary is not explicitly mentioned after Acts. There is no record of her death or non-death. Further, since she was very young when she gave birth, it is conceivable that she would have outlived many of the original authors. Either way, any information about Mary after about 40 AD cannot rest on Biblical justification.

And I think that an important point to emphasize: There is no outright biblical justification that Mary did *anything* after Acts. Anyone who claims otherwise is presenting not scripture, but an interpretation of scripture.*

Strictly speaking the Church's teaching is ambiguous as to whether Mary was assumed into heaven in the manner of Elijah, or if her body was taken to heaven afterwards (as was the case with Moses). Neither opinion is excluded specifically, but the general thought in the West was that Mary was assumed just before she would have died normally.

This thought is based on several facts. One is the authority of the Church — while this is not something that was held to be official dogma until relatively recently, the consistent and near unanimous opinion of the church Fathers was that Mary's body is currently in heaven. This is no doubt supported by the fact that there is no tomb and no shrine which claims to hold the bone of Mary (this is conspicuous because all of the Apostles had such sepulchers). Further, it was promulgated as doctrine by the Pope resting on Papal authority. In addition, there is an ancient document which actually relates the death of Mary and the assumption of her body.

So you have several sources who agree:

Ancient legends

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0832.htm

Theological consensus
No physical tomb
Papal authority

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

Now, while it is possible to disagree with one or more of these, it is beyond the scope of this question to address such issues.

* While it may be reasonable to believe that Mary breathed, ate, drank, and eventually died, there is no commentary on these in the Bible. If we exclude all evidences outside of the Bible, there is no way to say that she did not join the Judaizers or that she performed miracles as great as the signs in the Gospels.


How is ignoring clear Biblical instructions in Leviticus justified?

The typical reformed answer on this is that the Old Covenant is fulfilled in the the Death and Resurrection of Jesus and that we are now living under the New Covenant.
Lets look at this specifically point by point.
Leviticus 11:7-8 and Leviticus 11:11-12 have been fulfilled by by Acts 11:6-9

6I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles and birds. 7Then I heard a voice telling me, ‘Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.’
8“I replied, ‘Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’
9“The voice spoke from heaven a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’ 10This happened three times, and then it was all pulled up to heaven again.

as far as Leviticus 11:19 is concerned this is pretty much the same line of thinking as above, its less explicit, but its essentially the same thing.


When were "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" in Colossians 3 first argued to refer only to the Book of Psalms?

The earliest I know of is in the late 1500s, where several English Puritans took this position.

John Cotton (1584-1652), New England Congregationalist theologian:

  In both which places (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16), as the apostle exhorteth
  us to singing, so he instructeth us what the matter of our song should
  be, to wit, Psalmes, hymnes, and spirituall Songs. Now these three be
  the very titles of the Songs of David, as they are delivered to us by
  the Holy Ghost himself: some of them are called Mizmorim, that is
  Psalmes; some Tehillim, that is Hymnes; some Shirim, that is Songs,
  spirituall Songs.  Now what reason can be given why the apostle should
  direct us in our singing to the very titles of David’s Psalms, if it
  were not his meaning that we should sing them? … The words of David
  and Asaph, as they were the words of Christ in the mouth of David and
  Asaph: so they were the words of Christ also in the mouths of the
  sonnes of Corah, or any other singers in the Temple.

George Swinnock (1627-1673), English Puritan, commenting on Colossians 3:16:

  The Holy Ghost when he commandeth that the word should keep house with
  us, doth also enjoin us to ‘teach and admonish one another in psalms,
  and hymns, and spiritual songs.’ (which are the titles of David’s
  Psalms, and the known division of them, expressly answering to the
  Hebrew words, Shurim, Telhillim, and Mizinurim, by which his Psalms
  are distinguished and entitled, as the learned observe.) ‘singing and
  making melody with grace in our hearts to the Lord,’ Col. 3:16, Eph.
  5:19, Jam. 5:13.

I have heard that Jerome speaks in the matter but I don't have an English translation of his writings, so I cannot confirm it.


How do Protestants against the use of alcoholic wine explain 1 Timothy 3:8?

Good points. Not all of us subscribe to the view that all the people drank back in those days were pure grape juice. Sometime it was (a symbol of Jesus' blood), but sometimes it contained small amounts of alcohol. After all, the pasteurization process was not even invented then. Grape juice simply will start fermentation after a period of time, and without refrigeration, it was the only way to store longer periods. Right after the flood, Noah even became seriously drunk, and based on his character, it was probably not intentionally so.

Even during the middle ages, there was nutritional value in grape juice that poorer people would not otherwise had access to. Also, potable water was not always available, and wine and beer were sometimes the only means of getting access to water free of bacteria and disease.

However, none of these issues exist today, at least not in the developed world. And if we believe that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, why would we want in anyway to cloud our minds, and give Satan an advantage in any shape or form?

Jesus when he was dying on the cross was offered vinegar to numb his pain, but he denied it, because a sober mind is more precious than temporal relief.

The emphasis 1 Timothy 3 places on bishops to be "not given to wine" and deacons to be "not given to much wine" actually show instead that alcohol has a negative effect and should be avoided if possible.


Why did Paul say "I am pure from the blood of all men"?

In the NLT, it's quite straightforward:

  Acts 20:26 (NLT)

  26 I declare today that I have been faithful. If anyone suffers eternal death, it’s not my fault,

I was actually amused by the "it's not my fault" part; reminds me of a child. :P

Anyway, other more-literal translations give variations of the following:

  Acts 20:26 (NIV)

  26 Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of any of you.

Okay, we can see where the "it's not my fault" part comes from; "innocent".

With more context, the meaning becomes clearer.

  Acts 20:25-27 (NIV)

   25 “Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again. 26 Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of any of you. 27 For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God.

Jews would have recognized the reference to (at least) Ezekiel:

  Ezekiel 33:8 (NIV)

  8 When I say to the wicked, ‘You wicked person, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak out to dissuade them from their ways, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood.

Thus, Paul was saying that because he had been preaching God's word to everyone, he couldn't be held accountable for failing to warn someone about their sins and its consequences.


Is praying the rosary, heard when our attention is difficult to maintain?

Is my rosary prayer heard when my attention is difficult to maintain?
The short answer is yes!
Distractions during prayer is actually very common. This thing about this subject is not to dwell on the fact that we get distracted or to ”deliberately prolonging our distractions.” Unwanted distractions are neither sinful or freely willed. Once one is aware of a distraction, it is important to simply recall what you are meditating and drop the distraction in question. Do not give the Devil any leeway here.
The Catholic Encyclopedia explains this as following:

Distraction
Distraction (Latin distrahere, to draw away, hence to distract) is here considered in so far as it is wont to happen in time of prayer and in administering the sacraments. It hardly needs to be noted that the idea of mental prayer and mind-wandering are destructive of each other. So far as vocal prayer is concerned, the want of actual interior attention, if voluntary, will take from its perfection and be morally reprehensible. Distractions, however, according to the commonly accepted teaching, do not rob prayer of its essential character. To be sure one must have had the intention to pray and therefore in the beginning some formal advertence; otherwise a man would not know what he was doing, and his prayer could not be described even as a human act. So long, however, as nothing is done outwardly which would be incompatible with any degree whatever of attention to the function of prayer, the lack of explicit mental application does not, so to speak, invalidate prayer. In other words, it keeps its substantial value as prayer, although, of course, when the dissipation of thought is wilful our addresses to the throne of mercy lose a great deal of efficacy and acceptability. This doctrine has an application, for example, in the case of those who are bound to recite the canonical Office and who are esteemed to have fulfilled their obligation substantially even though their distractions have been abundant and absorbing. Voluntary distractions, that is the conscious deliberate surrender of the mind to thoughts foreign to prayers, are sinful because of the obvious irreverence for God with Whom at such times are presuming to hold intercourse. The guilt, however, is judged to be venial. In the administration of the sacraments their validity cannot be assailed merely because the one who confers them fails to, here and now, think of what he is doing. Provided he has the required intention and posits the essentials of the external rite proper to each sacrament, no matter how taken over he may be by outside reflections, his act is distinctly a human one and as such its value cannot be impugned. Such as state of mind, however, when it is wilful, is sinful, but the guilt is not mortal unless one has thereby laid himself open to the danger of making a mistake in what is regarded as essential for the validity of the sacrament in question.


Why aren't there any examples of a child or teen conversion in the NT?

We do know of a youth ("νεανίας" in Greek, "adulescens" in Latin) called Eutichus who fell off the third floor window in Acts 20:9. He was a disciple of St. Paul, so presumably he or his parents had been converted previously.

  9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.

This is, of course, just to illustrate the point that the sacred authors did not think it relevant to stress whether any of the converts were young or old. We also know of the man who was healed by St. Peter in Acts 3:6–7, that in Acts 4:22 it is said:

  22 For the man was above forty years old, on whom this miracle of healing was shewed.

Now, at that time, forty was quite old, and he was older than that when he became a disciple after being healed. However, it doesn't matter. His age is merely mentioned to reinforce the fact that the people of Jerusalem long knew him and knew that he was not faking either his disability or his cure.

So we can assume that, of the people who heard in Acts 4:4 of this miracle and became believers, there were indeed young and old men and women within that number — note, however, that the number of five thousand refers only to the number of men (ἀνδρῶν). The number of women and children was probably a like amount.

  4 Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.


Did John Wesley admire and learn from Arminias or did he just have a couple similiar ideas?

John Wesley was a five-point Arminian, but he accepted Calvinists as true Christians. He welcomed Calvinist preacher George Whitefield into the Methodist movement and sent him out to preach throughout the American colonies.

In much of Wesley's own preaching he focused on the things that we have in common as Christians, but you can see examples of his Arminianism in these sermons:

On Predestination: Wesley argues for free will; God's foreknowledge is simply a way of saying God is outside time and doesn't see past, present and future as we do.
On Working Out Our Own Salvation: Wesley describes the synergistic nature of salvation.
Justification by Faith: Wesley argues that justification is conditional on our faith.
Free Grace: Wesley asserts that grace is available to all, and that predestination is not a biblical doctrine.
Christian Perfection: Wesley's own contribution to Arminian theology, Christian Perfection is the doctrine that God wants to transform our lives completely until our sinful nature falls away and we willingly obey God in everything. Few people ever reach this state in this life.

Wesley also wrote a treatise entitled What Is an Arminian? Answered by a Lover of Free Grace, defending Arminius against Calvinist charges and calling for peace between Calvinists and Arminians.


Was Charles Russel, Founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, a Freemason?

Charles Taze Russel (or Russell) is reported to have said, in a Convention discourse "The Temple of God"

  Although I have never been a Mason, I have heard that in Masonry they have something which very closely illustrates this ...  Many Masons shake hands with me and give me what I know is their grip; they don't know me from a Mason.  Something I do seems to be the same as Masons do, I don't know what it is; but they often give me all kinds of grips and I give them back, then I tell them I don't know anything about it except just a few grips that have come to me naturally.

Russel appears not to have been an entirely honest man, but nevertheless is unlikely to have been hiding a secret allegiance to the Freemasons, as he talks of such societies consuming valuable time in foolish, senseless rites and ceremonies.


How has war been justified within Christianity, with respect to the New Testament and preferably the Gospels?

On war: how has it been justified within Christianity, with respect to the New Testament, preferably the Gospels?

Many Christians believe they have the right to defend themselves against an open aggressor, even to go to war if necessary. See: Here.

We can notice in the Gospels that Our Lord never once condemned a soldier for being a soldier. In fact he once actually healed a Centurion’s servant.

  The Faith of a Centurion

  5 When he had entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, 6 “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly.” 7 And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” 8 But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 10 When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith. - Matthew 8:5-10

If Jesus thought that war carried on by soldiers was unjustified; why then did he heal the centurion’s servant?

Romans tells us we should be subject to civil authorities at all times.

  Submission to the Authorities

  13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. Romans 13:1-5

Let us not forget that St. Michael the Archangel fought the evil angels in the Book of Revelation.

The Book of Revelation demonstrates that the Angels fought Satan and his legions. Now if the Angels can fight against evil, it stands to reason man can fight in order to protect himself from being killed, pillaged and women from being raped!

  Satan Thrown Down to Earth

  7 Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back. - Revelation 12:7

Remember too that peace is to be sought out when possible. Let us recall the words of Jesus himself in the Gospel of St. Luke.

  31 Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. - Luke 14:31-32

Never once did Jesus openly condemn being a soldier or making war on an enemy.

I really do not see how it is not possible to not fight forces of evil. Hitlers and Stalins must the be defeated. Surely others will arise and we must be ready.


Gregory XII resigned by proxy at the Council of Constance. He had appointed Cardinal Giovanni Dominici of Ragusa and Carlo Malatesta to represent him, and Malatesta announced the resignation which was accepted by the Council. That Council deposed Antipope John XXIII and excommunicated Antipope Benedict XIII. Gregory's resignation was necessary to end the Western Schism, and was probably at the request of the Council. However, he was not deposed by the Council of Constance.

Martin V was consecrated Pope a month or so after the death of Gregory XII, who lived two years after his abdication. The sede vacante period was quite lengthy.

Pope Celestine V ruled that a pope had the right to resign the papacy, and he did so after only seven months in office in 1294. In the early church, Pope Pontian resigned in 235 after being exiled to the salt mines of Sardinia. Other popes who abdicated are John XVIII in 1009 and Benedict IX in 1045, together with Benedict XVI in 2013.

In addition to the above, the Catholic Encyclopedia also lists Pope Gregory VI who was held to have procured Benedict IX's resignation and was persuaded to resign to avoid accusations of simony.

There are also the doubtful cases of Marcellinus and Liberius; and the non-resignation of Pius VII — he had signed a deed of resignation which would only take effect if he were to be imprisoned in France during his trip there for the coronation of Napoleon in 1804.

Pope Benedict XVI visited the tomb of Pope St Celestine V in 2009, laying his pallium on it and pausing for devotion. He visited again in 2011.


Why does the Son have a source of existence?

... his Son, with an origin,....

This is one of the classic misconception of Trinity. Jesus is not begotten in a particular point in time by The Father. As you have mentioned Jesus is eternally begotten. That is, in the very nature of God's existence, Jesus was/is/will-be begotten by the Father for eternity. This is same as how holy spirit was/is/will-be proceeding from the father (and the son). That is being eternally begotten is not an event in the past, rather the state of existence (being) of second person of the Trinity in the Trinity.


How could Adam and Eve lose their just standing before God if it was given to them as a Grace and not earned?

Reformed Protestant theology, which includes the doctrines of justification by faith alone and the perseverance of the saints (the inability to lose said justification) regard salvation to be necessary for mankind as a result of the sin of our "first parents".

That is to say, Adam and Eve did not receive "salvation" nor were they "justified" before the fall, because justification refers to the forgiveness of transgressions and the restoration of right standing with God, and salvation refers to that from the wrath of God that results from sin and is accomplished solely by the atoning work of Messiah. Adam and Eve did not "lose" salvation by their sin- they had not received salvation because before their sin, there was no condemnaiton from which they required salvation and no atoning sacrifice was called for. Likewise, they had not been justified because they, unlike their descendants, were not in a state where they were separated from God because of sin but alternatively already occupied the very state of perfection to which justification restores the sinner.

From Luther's commentary on Genesis 3:

  In the preceding chapter [of Genesis], we were taught the manner in which man was created on the sixth day; that he was created in the image and after the likeness of God, that his will was good and perfect, and that his reason or intellect was also perfect, so that whatsoever God willed or said, that man also willed, believed and understood... Universal experience indeed shows us all these calamities [caused by the fall]; but we never feel the real magnitude of them until we look back to that unintelligible but real state of innocency,
  in which there existed the perfection of will, the perfection of reason and that glorious dignity of the nakedness of the human body. When we truly contemplate our loss of all these gifts and contrast that privation with the original possession of them, then do we, in some measure, estimate the mighty evil
  of original sin...

  Wherefore, as I said, let us never extenuate, but rather magnify that
  mighty evil, which human nature has derived from the sin of our first parents; then will the effect he that we shall deplore this our fallen state and cry and sigh unto Christ our great Physician, who was sent unto us by the Father for the very end that those evils, which Satan has inflicted on us through sin, might by him be healed, and that we might be restored unto that eternal glory, which by sin we had lost.

To utilize Luther's analogy, salvation and justification are the forms of healing and results of the treatment of our Divine Physician, Jesus Messiah. Before the fall, Adam and Eve were not saved or justified, but they were perfectly healthful in both the physical and spiritual sense, not yet requiring the work of that Physician until after sin had inflicted upon them its grave injury.

So, to say that Adam and Eve lost salvation or justification in the manner of speaking meant by the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints or to ask how such were lost is to commit a categorical error. It is only after the fall that the human race needed to be saved from the incurred wrath and restored into right standing with God.


Both Genesis 6:5 and 1 Chronicles 28:9 (and myriad other passages) indicate God can understand our thoughts.

So, can God "hear" our silent prayers? Of course!

Is it better to pray out loud than to pray silently? Since there seem to be no instances in the Bible of a recorded silent prayer (other than in the Epistles where Paul writes how he prays for people, or even writes a prayer to the Lord) - I don't think you could make the argument that praying silently is "better" than praying out loud.

However, I also think that since God looks at our motives, and we are told to "pray in secret", that silent prayers are going to be as effective if they are of the same heart as our aloud ones.


Is modern technology part of the Divine Intention?

I know this is closed without likelihood to reopen but I forgot out this most revealing verse on the topic:

  Proverbs 25:2 NIV
  It is the glory of God to conceal a matter;
  to search out a matter is the glory of kings.

I cannot really answer this without it being mostly opinion, but here it goes anyway.

I would say that maybe the Amish think technology is not God's intention. I don't think we will get many Amish on this site, however.

I don't see how anyone who takes the Bible can say anything is not God's intention. There are just too many verses indicating and even straight up saying that nothing happens without God knowing about it and either letting it happen or intervening. So I would say that if there is a Christian sect that actually preaches this, they are likely small and do not fully take the Bible.

I have this picture of those old crotchety men complaining about those darn kids today and their fandanggeled e-lec-tronics. Then they go on to say that God never intended us to do this and that with such and such technology. I have to say that he just must be speaking out of ignorance.

I think it is clear that God very much intends for us to understand His creation and that is all supported in the Creation story in Genesis. The first is that man is made to be like God, who is a creator, and we are charged with ruling over (caring for) the earth and all that is in it.

  So God created mankind in his own image,
      in the image of God he created them;
      male and female he created them.
  God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” Gen 1:27 NIV

Here it says that man is made in God's image then immediately blesses man and charges him with the care of the entire Earth. Holy Cow! Do you see what just happened here? God gave man some of His own spectacular abilities then gave him all of creation. That sounds like a licence to do. A licence to do like God and create, and build and 'see that it is good'. This sounds to me that no only does the Bible want us to be 'scientists' (which comes from the Latin word for knowledge), and not only encouraged it, but He charged us with it. We are to rule over all of creation as He rules over us. That means we are to know His creation as he knows us, and also care for it and cherish it, and add to it when we can so that 'it is good'.

Later God brings every animal to Adam to name.

  Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. Gen 2:19

This has a lot going on when you include what is before and after, but what is often missed is that naming something has often been the symbol of your authority over it. This is saying that creation is the same a belonging to us as it does to God because He gave it to us. This also shows that God forced Adam to know His creation before it was even complete; before Eve was made. God very clearly wants us to explore and know His creation.

Now as for knowledge that God meant for us to have, I think actually the knowledge is in question is wisdom, at least in full. It was the wisdom gained from eating of the Tree of Knowledge that brought about the fall. The fall did not come because Adam made a scientific discovery. The fall did not come because Adam learned something magnificent about Creation and then applied it in some way. No. The fall came because Adam and even gained spiritual knowledge, or wisdom; they gained knowing what was good and evil. Without this knowledge they could only do good. They were blameless. So if they could only do good then any scientific thing they might have done would also only be good. They would be doing their holy charge: Ruling over the Earth.

Now about technology today. All of that only exists because someone used their God given ability to create like He does. Someone learned something magnificent about Creation, applied it to something specific, then created something good. At least we hope it is good. I am not the type to condemn something simply because it exists, but I think it is clear that knowledge and scientific discovery can lead to nasty inventions. Nuclear weapons are the first that come to mind. The point is that we can create and are meant to do so, and we only have the ability to create evil because of the spiritual wisdom that the Tree of Knowledge gave us. So you see that this spiritual knowledge combined with our ability to create can make us pretty nasty, but if we can be true to God we can also create some awesome things that add to Creation's goodness instead of take away.

So in summary, we were made to be creative like God. For us to be creative like God we must first be intelligent, innovative, exploring, and inventive. Science is the Christian thing to do. Embracing discovery and inventions that glorify God and add to Creation's goodness is the Christian thing to do.


Are there any documented instances of anyone moving a mountain in faith?

I doubt anyone has.  I think this is either because there is no one who has faith the size of a mustard seed, or those who do have faith large enough have no need to move a mountain.


During communion, when does the wafer stop being Jesus' body?

To complement Belinda’s answer, although the Church does not descend in so much detail, St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa theologiae makes the following commentary in III Pars, q. 77, a. 4, responsum.

  But if the change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ's body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.

In other words, once the Eucharistic species suffer a change sufficiently great that they no longer have the properties of bread or wine, then the sacramental presence ceases.

Hence, in essence, for the host, the Presence remains until it has been dissolved into a paste or divided into minuscule particles; for the wine, the Presence remains until it is diluted or divided into minuscule droplets.

(That is why, for example, the priest, deacon, or acolyte uses water to purify the vessels after Communion: this action dissolves any remaining particles of the host and dilutes any remaining drops of the Precious Blood. Although minuscule particles of the Host technically do not retain the Presence, out of reverence for the Presence that was once there, care should be taken lest these fall to the floor. Thus, for example, any breaking of the host should always be done over the corporal—the white cloth on which the species are consecrated—and when Communion is given out, someone should generally hold a paten or other receptacle underneath to catch any falling hosts or particles.)

It is hard to pinpoint the exact moment after receiving Communion that the Presence ceases, but these reflections should give the general idea.