Why do (at least some) Messianic Jews celebrate the birth of Jesus on the 15th of Tishri?

All the Jewish feasts that are described in the book of Leviticus were fulfilled, (or will be fulfilled,) by Christ.

Think not that I am come to destroy  the law, or the prophets:  I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
[Matthew 5:17, 18]

Jesus fulfilled the Passover as the Lamb of God without spot or blemish (sinless).

Jesus fulfilled the Feast of Unleavened Bread by His being broken and buried. The Passover seder included the ceremony of taking 3 sheets of unleavened bread; breaking the middle piece and distributing to the guests, the other half of this piece is hidden (buried) somewhere in the house to be found (resurrected) later.

Jesus fulfilled the Feast of the Fisrtfruits of Harvest by rising from the dead.

*But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

[1 Corinthians 15:20 KJV]*

Jesus fulfilled the Feast of Tabernacles by being born on that day. The first day of the Feast of Tabernacles is the start of the rainy season in Israel. The Old Testament prophets said that Messiah would drop down like the rain:

*My doctrine [God’s Word] shall drop as the rain,
[Deuteronomy 32:2a]

Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD:  his going forth is prepared as the morning; and He shall come unto us as the rain,  as the latter and former rain unto the earth.  [Hosea 6:3 KJV]*

Jesus was incarnated and born in a tabernacle (Probably built by his carpenter father around a stone manger):

And the Word was made flesh, and tabernacled among us,
[John 1:14a]

Messiah Jesus was born on the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles, as its fulfillment on the 15th day of the 7th month, known as Tishri on the Biblical, Hebrew calendar, as prophesied and promised by God through many Old Testament prophets.

I would be interested to hear of any Biblical prophecies that anyone has found that say that Messiah will come in the dead of winter, or of any feasts in winter that He could be the fulfillment of. Some have suggested Hanukka, but that occured after the canon of Old Testament scripture was complete; only 168 years before Jesus' birth, and was never part of the Law. The Levitical Feasts had been in effect for over 1500 years. Jesus didn't accept "It's just tradition," as a legitimate reason for belief:

And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. [Mark 7:9 KJV]

Neither should you. Don't just take my word for it; study for yourself to find the truth.

Appended in regards to the following questions:
"Is it a widespread belief in Messianic Judaism or only held by a minority? Is there any historical evidence that this belief was held prior to the 19th century?"

The rabbis that I have had discussions with when regarding when they got started all claim to be a continuation of the earliest founding of the church, the body of Christ:

When Peter gave the sermon on Pentecost, all 3000 souls that were baptized were Messianic Jews: that is, Jews who received Jesus as their Messiah:

And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. ... Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. [Acts 2:5, 38-41 KJV]

There were 1000’s of Messianic Jews in Jerusalem who believed, which also kept the Law, which were in the church under James,.

And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: [Acts 21:17-20 KJV]

Peter even felt that he had to act like a Jew when James sent some of the Jewish brethren to him:

For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. [Galatians 2:12 KJV]

After the stoning of Stephen, the persecution of the Messianic Jews became so great that they were scattered abroad to many countries:

And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles. ... Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word. [Acts 8:1, 4 KJV]

But they used this dispersion to reach even more people with the good news of their messiah, but they still preached to other Jews only:

Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. [Acts 11:19 KJV]

The book of James was addressed to the dispersed Messianic Jews:

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. [James 1:1 KJV]

It is said that the book of 1st Peter was also addressed to the scattered Messianic Jews, but it seems a little odd to call them strangers:

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, [1 Peter 1:1 KJV]

You can’t get much farther back than that. All the Messianic rabbis and other teachers that I have spoken to all believe that the Feast of Tabernacles is the fulfillment of the Messiah’s birth, they all celebrate The Passover on the same day that it is celebrated in Jerusalem. And many other teachings that come right out of the Bible. These were all in Orange County, California, there may be other beliefs in other places.


In John 17:19, what is Jesus referring to specifically regarding His sanctification, and how does this then apply to us being sanctified?

Jesus' ultimate sanctification occurred at the cross. The cross was the primary reason Jesus came to earth: to die, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God (1 Peter 3:18).

Unlike all the members of the human race who are born to live (though ultimately they will one day die), Jesus as the God-Man was born to die. We know, of course, his death was not the end of the story; rather, it was just the beginning. After his resurrection and ascension to heaven, the Scripture tells us that Jesus

  ever liveth to make intercession for [us] (Hebrews 7:25).

Jesus as the Son of God could simply not die. Along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, Jesus is eternal. His priesthood, likewise, is eternal, and it was not based on his genealogy, since Jesus came not from the priestly line according to the flesh, but from the tribe of Judah (Hebrews 7:14). His priesthood, we are told, resembles the priesthood of Melchizedek, who the book of Hebrews tells us was

  Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but [was] made like the Son of God [and therefore] he remains a priest perpetually (v.3).

In verse 16 of the same chapter, the writer tells us Jesus became this perpetual high priest

  by virtue of the power of an indestructible life (Hebrews 7:16)

Jesus as the Son of Man, however, could die if he chose to do so. When Governor Pilate foolishly said to Jesus on the day he was crucified,

  "Do you not know I have the authority to release you, and I have authority to crucify you?" (John 19:10),

Jesus told Pilate,

  "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above, for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin" (v.11).

Jesus' sanctification by his Father from eternity past meant that no one could take Jesus' life from him. Of a truth, Jesus said

  "I lay down my life--in order to take it up again" (John 10:17).

Jesus' willingness to lay down his life pleased his Father. The prophet Isaiah tells us,

  But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring; He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand (53:10).

Jesus' willingness to lay down his life for the sheep--you and me--not only demonstrated his love for sinners, but it demonstrated his love for his Father, and in turn it engendered anew the Father's love for him (see John 10:17a).

Sanctification, of course, is the process of being set apart by God for a specific purpose. The prophets, priests, judges and kings of the Old Covenant were set apart by God for a specific calling or purpose. Prophets foretold and forth-told God's will and word; priests interceded for themselves and the people through their service within Israel's sacrificial system; judges often delivered God's people from threatened extinction at the hands of their enemies; and kings reigned over the people in righteousness--that is, when their hearts were committed to God and God alone.

Today, God's will for his children is that they, too, be sanctified,  in the sense that they separate themselves from sin and become useful in the service of their king. As Paul tells us in 2 Timothy,

  . . . if anyone purifies himself from these things, he will be a special instrument, set apart, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work (2:21 CSB, my emphasis).

Jesus, on the other hand, did not need to separate himself from sin, since there was no sin in him (see John 8:46). However, at the cross

  [God] made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21).

In gratitude to God, then, for what Jesus has done on our behalf at the cross, the least we can do is to consider ourselves dead to sin and alive to God and to his good and acceptable and perfect will for us (Romans 12:2). As we submit ourselves to God, his sanctifying work in our hearts will progress, albeit sometimes in fits and starts, until one day it culminates in our glorification (see Romans 8:29-30).

In conclusion, from eternity past, Jesus was set apart by God to become the one and only Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29, 36). In so doing, Jesus fulfilled the roles of both prophet and priest. Moreover, one day he will fulfill his roles of both judge and king: the judge of all mankind, and the King of kings and the Lord of lords,

  so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:10, 11).


A Question Regarding the Variation of Doctrines within Christendom

There are a number of reasons for the various denominations (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant).

1) Different groups believe and don't believe in a thing called Tradition that they use for their members.

2) Different groups accept and reject some parts of a variety of Councils over the centuries.

3) Different groups have different "lines of authority" to determine what the Bible says.

4) Different groups do not believe there was a "faith once delivered", but rather it developed and needed defining.

5) Different groups believe there are false teachers, but not in their group.

6) Different groups have different canons.

What should a new believer do?  It is you after all, not your priest, patriarch, pastor, or prophet who will have to stand in front of God and give an account.

  Romans 14:12 YLT- so, then, each of us concerning himself shall give reckoning to God;

If one has a vertical relationship with God reconciled in Christ, then also a horizontal relationship that involves brothers/sisters in Christ.  One should be mindful not to be a stumbling block.

Remember it is the teacher, not necessarily directly the student, who has the burden to face greater judgment.

  James 3:1 YLT- Many teachers become not, my brethren, having known that greater judgment we shall receive,

So, those teachers in a denomination who, for example, teach baby baptism as necessary for a baby's salvation apart from which he/she goes to hell versus those who teach, say, 1 Cor. 7:14, then it is those teachers who will answer.  One is right; the other wrong.

In the meantime, I'd suggest focusing on the seven fundamentals that are given at Hebrews 6:1-2.


Hermann Gunkel's psalm commentary lets us know this: "The metaphor of the horn, originally used by God (cf. the Babylonian crown of horns) was then transferred to the king, and finally to the normal prayer."1

In the accompanying intruction to the psalms, he calls the horns a "symbol of God's power".2

Spurgeon basically says the same. I quote: "It pleased holy David more that God was his strength than that He gave him strength [...] that God was his fortress, his buckler, his horn, his hight tower" etc.3

You might be suprised, but: that's all that's known.

1: Hermann Gunkel, Die Psalmen (61986), p410
2: Hermann Gunkel, Einleitung in die Psalmen (41985), p148
3: Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The treasury of David (2004), p78


Where did the idea that Cherubs were baby Angels originate?

You are correct that the Bible does not consider angels to look like babies with wings. Angels sometimes appear in human form, or in some inexplicable and terrifying guise. Also, Cupid/Eros is part of classical mythology - and he is more typically an adolescent rather than a baby, though both images are possible. Generic "flying baby" images may represent nature spirits of some kind. This iconography was known to Renaissance artists via the survival of classical statuary, and adapted into Christian art. Its popularity at this time is largely due to the influence of Donatello, although there are many examples prior to him (Inventing the Renaissance Putto, Charles Dempsey, UNC Press 2001).

Properly speaking, the flying baby is a putto (plural putti). There are variants, like panisci who are the compatriots of the god Pan; spiritelli who are general nature spirits or fairies; and so on. They all generally play a supporting role, doing things like holding up garlands of flowers, playing miniature musical instruments, carrying important people on clouds, or just flitting around the edge of a painting; though there are also works where they are the subject. Important variants include the flying baby head (maybe with six wings, maybe with just two), and the cloudy/ghostly/translucent putto.

Here are a couple of examples of these. My first example is Madonna and Child with Seraphim and Cherubim by Andrea Mantegna, c. 1460. You can see that the background of the painting is entirely full of winged baby heads. They function here like an aureole (a sort of whole-body halo that surrounds particularly holy people); instead of abstract glowing rays, we have a mass of angels. Another incredibly famous example is the Sistine Madonna of Raphael, 1512. In an enlarged version of the image, it can be seen that the cloudy background is actually composed of angelic faces. The two putti at the bottom are more "conventional", and probably immediately recognizable. The background angels are part of the heavenly vision - transcendent and immaterial - while the foreground pair are a playful bridge between the painting-world and the exterior world. So in these examples, we see a spectrum of uses of the image, from alien to friendly.

Theologically - if there is any real theological justification behind artistic appropriation of classical myth - the portrayal of angels as children emphasizes their benevolence and innocence (ie, lack of sin). Simply put, they are meant to look cute. On the other hand, the flying heads are quite un-cute to my eyes: the adorable baby head is in an odd context, creating a striking dissonance which is suggestive of the sheer incomprehensibility of the Biblical angel, even if it's not a literal depiction. I'm thinking of the Ezekiel/Revelation kind of thing, which actually are cherubim, כְּרוּבִים. We can probably point to Donatello for the habit of showing angels as winged children, though to be fair his putti aren't as schmalzy as some more recent examples.


What happened to Jesus' physical body after his death and resurrection?

The body of Christ ascended with him into heaven, as was witnessed by his disciples and many others.

Luke 24 (ESV):

  50 Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. 51 While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven. 52 And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53 and were continually in the temple blessing God.

Acts 1 (ESV):

  6 So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” 9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. 10 And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, 11 and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”

And lastly, the Apostles Creed:

  I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth;
  and in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord,
  Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
  He descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead;
  He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
   I 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.
  Amen.

Most modern Christians believe that Christ's body ascended with his presence into heaven after his period of ministry following his resurrection. This is borne out clearly in Luke's accounts in Luke and Acts, and is affirmed in the Apostles Creed (which many modern Christians recite regularly).


To our Muslim friends, please do not be offended:

Christianity has no official view on Mohammed or the Quran, nor could it because Mohammed and the Quran came about hundreds of years after Christianity.

Christians do have opinions though. To most Christians, Mohammad is no different than any other non-christian who started a religion. They are false prophets and their revelation was a lie from Satan, a delusion, or non-existent.

There are reasons for this. The primary one is the Muslim view on Christ, right in your question. Plenty of Christian Theologians have evaluated Mohammad as a prophet. As far as I know, he has always been found wanting. Mohammad claimed in his writings, the Quran, that Jesus didn't even die. The death and resurrection of Christ is the central point to 99.999% of the various forms of Christianity. This Muslim claim alone is enough for most Christians to reject Mohammad as a prophet. After hearing that, there is very little chance for a committed and educated Christian to take anything from the Quran seriously.

Additionally, most Christians hold the Bible in as high regard as most Muslims hold the Quran. It is the word of God and is without error. The Quran and the Bible stand in contrast on quite a few points other than Christ. They cannot both be from the same God, and since the Bible was first and is already believed to be from God, the Quran, therefore, cannot be from God. That leaves Mohammad as a false prophet.

Similarly, Jews view Christians and Jesus this way. Some teach that Jesus had some good things to say, but he was not even close to what Christians say he was and he certainly was not the Messiah. The revelations of his disciples who started his religion after his death were either lies from Satan, delusions, or non-existent.

There may be a few groups that call themselves Christian that have a favorable view of Mohammad, but I do not know of any. If they exist, they are small in number and it is likely that your average Christian would not consider them Christians.


What is the Biblical basis for the belief that God cannot be manipulated?

The attribute of God closest to what you describe is probably unchangeability.1  In addition to the verses you cite, we might consider what James writes when he says that in the Father of lights there is no variableness neither shadow of turning (1:17).  Additionally we might consider:

I am the Lord, I change not (Malachi 3:6)
As a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same (Psalm 102:26-27)

1.  John of Damascus, Complete Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, I.XIV, "The properties of the divine nature"


What is the official Roman Catholic opinion on Swedenborg?

The Catholic Church directly contradicts many of the teachings of Swedenborg, but as best I can tell has not directly addressed Swedenborg himself. I am unaware of any documents from the Magisterium directly addressing Swedenborg. Thus, in that sense, the Catholic Church does not have an official position on Swedenborg. However, many of Swedenborg's teachings directly contradict the doctrines of the Catholic Church and so would be condemned as heresy.

So, to state it a different way, we cannot talk about the Catholic position on Swedenborg as a whole (because one has not been taken), but we can talk about the Catholic position on his individual teachings. It is completely possible that some of his teachings are in direct alignment with the Catholic Church while others are heretical according to the Catholic Church.

Let's take a look specifically at the teachings listed in the Heaven and Hell article.  I've attempted to be brief and so only touched on the major points.  Please feel free to ask questions on anything I didn't cover and I will do my best to answer.

Trinity

The Catholic Teaching is that God is three distinct persons in one nature.  Swedenborg contradicts this teaching, claiming that there is only one person.

Angels

Swedenborg teaches that angels used to be men and women and still live quite a bit like humans on earth.  This, again, is a direct contradiction to the Catholic teaching.  The Catholic teaching is that Angels are pure spirits (no corporeal bodies whatsoever) and are a separate nature from human nature.  Angels were created separately from humans and humans never become angels.

Marriage

Both Swedenborg and the Catholic Church agree that marriage is between one man and one woman and "what God has joined, let no man put asunder." However, they disagree on the nature the marriage bond.

Swedenborg taught that marriage continues after death. Catholic teaching is that marriage is for life, not afterlife. This is witnessed by the marriage vows, "till death do us part."

Heaven and Hell
(Thanks to Lee Woofenden for helping write this section)

The first difference between Swedenborg and the Catholic Church is the nature of judgment after death. Swedenborg teaches the concept of a "World of Spirits" in which a person's "true nature" is revealed over time after they die. Everyone enters this World of Spirits at death and over time whether or not Heaven or Hell is a better match for their nature is revealed to them. They then naturally choose the better match.

Catholic teaching is that when we die we are immediately judged and enter Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory.  There is no reveal over time of our "true nature" but a direct judgment.  Those who have rejected God are sent to Hell and those who have not attain Heaven. (Possibly going through Purgatory on the way to Heaven. Purgatory is a place for those who have gained Heaven, but first need to purge a remaining attachment to some earthly thing).

There is an interesting distinction between these two viewpoints.  In Swedenborg's teachings, those in hell don't want to be in heaven. In the Catholic teaching, the desires of those in hell are completely irrelevant, they simply cannot enter heaven. They have rejected God and so cannot attain the beatific vision (see below).

The other major difference appears to be in the definition of heaven and hell itself.  The Catholic Church defines Heaven and Hell primarily in terms of the gaining or the deprivation of the beatific vision. That is, the beholding of God's glory and seeing him face to face. Heaven is the attainment of the beatific vision, Hell is the deprivation of this glory. While the Catholic Church does teach that we will be active and doing "stuff" in heaven, the focus and definition is on the beatific vision as that is the greatest glory and dwarfs all other occupations of heaven.

Swedenborg thought of heaven, not as a beatific vision of God, but as a realm in which people live in community and engage in acts of love and service toward one another. His vision of heaven was closer to that of a good society here on earth, though in a spiritual rather than a material way.
He described various occupations in heaven, most of which today would be considered "service industries," such as education, child-raising, preaching, and so on. Though he did describe periodic worship services in heaven, he rejected the idea that angels spend eternity in unceasing worship, praise, and contemplation of God.


Atheism is the default position. Isn't the burden of proof on the Christian to assert that God exists?

Christian apologetics often employ a form of presuppositional logic. In fact, the wikipedia page for Presupposition (philosophy) specifically addresses this issue:

  A variety of Christian apologetics, called presuppositional apologetics, argues that the existence or non-existence of God is the basic presupposition of all human thought, and that all men arrive at a worldview which is ultimately determined by the theology they presuppose. Evidence and arguments are only marshalled after the fact in an attempt to justify the theological assumptions already made.

It is difficult or impossible to coherently reason with someone who makes different presuppositions than you, and sometimes the best course is to first lay out your presuppositions. After you have a place to stand on, you can look back and defend those views.

The Biblical witness on this point is fairly straightforward. God exists. In addition to this testimony it claims that there is no possible excuse for men not knowing at least some basic facts about his identity.

  Romans 1:20-21 (ESV)
  20  For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21  For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

After asserting in verse 20 that there is clear evidence in the world pointing to some attributes of God, verse 21 goes on to state that all men knew God and that it is through willfully not honoring him As God that they become unable to reason properly. Without a worldview informed by the presupposition that God exists, as well as certain attributes about him, men are unable to see clear reason.

The writer C.S. Lewis applies this idea to practical belief and frames it in layman's terms rather graphically when he wrote:

  "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

To Christian reason, no further proof of God's existence is required but that, knowing he does exist, we can finally make sense out of the world around us.


What problems, if any, do Jehovah's Witnesses have with the Apostles' Creed?

Jehovah’s Witnesses beliefs kind of line up with the text of the Apostle’s Creed, but their interpretation of it largely diverges from common trinitarian interpretations.

Here is the ELLC translation of the Apostles’ Creed, phrase by phrase:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,

Watchtower teaches that God is omnipotent and omniscient, but not omnipresent. g05 3/8 p. 21

creator of heaven and earth.

Watchtower teaches that the days of creation lasted, “many thousands of years.” Creation, Awake!, January 2014

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,

Watchtower teaches that Jesus is a created being, the Archangel Michael. w10 4/1 p. 19
They would disagree with any use of the word, “Lord” as the divine name. w08 8/1 p. 18-19

who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,

This is accepted. w02 12/15 p. 3-4

born of the Virgin Mary,

This is accepted. They take issue with revering her. Reasoning p. 254-255

suffered under Pontius Pilate,

This is accepted. w05 9/15 p. 11-12

was crucified, died, and was buried;

This is accepted. Jesus—The Way, the Truth, the Life, ch 131-133
Witnesses teach that Jesus was executed on a stake, not a cross.

he descended to the dead.

Witnesses teach that death is a state of non-existence and that there is no Hell.
Bible Teach, ch 6.5
Myth 2: The Wicked Suffer in Hell, The Watchtower, November 2009
If not rejected, I suspect this phrase would be reinterpreted as simply meaning that Jesus died.

On the third day he rose again;

Watchtower teaches that Jesus’ body was not raised from the dead, but his spirit. - After Jesus’ Resurrection, Was His Body Flesh or Spirit?

he ascended into heaven,

Watchtower teaches that Jesus began his ascent to heaven in a physical form, then switched to a spiritual form when the disciples lost sight of him. Insight, Volume 1 p. 187

he is seated at the right hand of the Father,

Watchtower teaches that Jesus has not been sitting at the right hand of the Father since World War I. Jesus—The Way, the Truth, the Life, Ch 138

and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

Watchtower teaches that judgement day will be a thousand year period during which everyone will be resurrected. Sin prior to death is forgiven. During this period, all will given an opportunity to learn and conform to God’s laws, and those who continue to sin will be destroyed.
Bible Teach p. 214-215

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

Watchtower teaches that the Holy Spirit is “God’s active force,” not a person. Insight, Volume 2 p. 1019

the holy catholic Church,

Watchtower teaches that there is not a universal body of believers that spans churches or denominations; Jehovah’s Witnesses is the only true church. One True Christian Faith—A Reality

the communion of saints,

This phrase is directly related to the previous one; it refers to a spiritual union of believers that spans life on earth, purgatory, and heaven.
Witnesses rarely use this phrase; I can't find anything. I think it would be rejected or reinterpreted because they teach that believers who have died are in a state of non-existence (see “he descended to the dead” above).

the forgiveness of sins,

Watchtower teaches that God’s forgiveness is a free gift, but that steps such as baptism and preaching are necessary for salvation. The Wikipedia article Jehovah’s Witnesses and salvation has a number of citations for this, copied below:

  The Watchtower 6/1/00 p. 11 par. 6 Keep Your “Hope of Salvation” Bright!
  The Watchtower, March 15, 1989, p. 31 Call on Jehovah’s Name and Get Away Safe! “The Way of Salvation”
  "James Urges Clean and Active Worship,", The Watchtower 3/1/83 p. 13, "Faith that does not 4. prompt us to do good works is not genuine and will not result in our salvation."
  "Meetings to Help Us Make Disciples", Our Kingdom Ministry, January 1979, p. 2.
  The Watchtower, May 15, 2006 pp. 28-29 par. 12
  "Young Ones—Are You Ready to Get Baptized". The Watchtower: 4. March 2016. It is a great privilege to get baptized as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Moreover, baptism is a requirement for Christians, and it is a vital step toward gaining salvation.
  The Watchtower 2/15/83 p. 12 You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth—But How?

the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

Watchtower teaches that there are two different resurrections; a heavenly resurrection for a limited number (144,000) of the most devoted followers, and resurrection on a restored earth for both the rest of the Witnesses and those deemed worthy of being given a choice to serve Jehovah. Bible Teach, ch 7


Do any church writers compare or contrast Jesus and the burning bush?

Following the example of St. Justin Martyr (c.100 – 165 AD) who identified the Angel of the Lord with the Logos, theophanies in the Old Testament are said to have been the preincarnate appearances of Christ.

Please see:

Chapter 56. God who appeared to Moses is distinguished from God the Father - Dialogue with Trypho | St. Justin Martyr.
Chapter 13.— The Appearance in the Bush. - On the Trinity (Book II) | Augustine of Hippo, Saint and Doctor of the Church.
The Blessed Trinity | New Advent

  Later controversy
  (2) Justin (Dialogue with Trypho 60) Irenaeus (Against
  Heresies IV.20.7-11), Tertullian ("C. Marc.", II, 27; Against
  Praxeas 15-16), Novatian (On the Trinity 18.25), Theophilus
  (To Autolycus II.22), are accused of teaching that the theophanies
  were incompatible with the essential nature of the Father, yet not
  incompatible with that of the Son. In this case also the difficulty is
  largely removed if it be remembered that these writers regarded all
  the Divine operations as proceeding from the Three Persons as such,
  and not from the Godhead viewed as one. Now Revelation teaches us that
  in the work of the creation and redemption of the world the Father
  effects His purpose through the Son. Through Him He made the world;
  through Him He redeemed it; through Him He will judge it. Hence it was
  believed by these writers that, having regard to the present
  disposition of Providence, the theophanies could only have been the
  work of the Son. Moreover, in Colossians 1:15, the Son is expressly
  termed "the image of the invisible God" (eikon tou Theou rou aoratou).
  This expression they seem to have taken with strict literalness. The
  function of an eikon is to manifest what is itself hidden (cf. St.
  John Damascene, "De imagin.", III, n. 17). Hence they held that the
  work of revealing the Father belongs by nature to the Second Person of
  the Trinity, and concluded that the theophanies were His work.


What did John Wycliffe teach about the fate of infants who die?

John Wycliffe's views on this subject don't seem to be quite as straight forward as was portrayed in the movie you refer to, but he did tend in this direction more than those of his day.
We must begin by putting the question in its historical context: there was little debate at the time over the fate of baptized infants.  The fate of unbaptized infants who died was more controversial.  Many church fathers wrote that unbaptized infants would be damned, but Wycliffe was more cautious.  Albert Henry Newman writes:

While he believed in baptismal regeneration, he thought it possible that God might save such infants as died without it, but denied that any injustice would be involved in case he should damn such. (Manual of Church History, 607)

William Wall says that Wycliffe "suspends all opinion" on the matter, and provides several direct quotes from Wycliffe:

When an infant of believers is brought to church, that according to Christ's rule he may be baptized, and the water or some other requisite is wanting, and the people's pious intention continuing, he dies in the mean time naturally by the will of God, it seems hard to define positively the damnation of such an infant; when neither the infant nor the people have sinned, that he should be damned.  Where then is the merciful liberality of Christ? [...]
[I]t is not clear to me whether such an infant shall be saved or damned; but I know that whatever God does in it will be just, and a work of mercy, to be praised of all the faithful.  (History of Infant Baptism, II, 164–65)

This is further than many church fathers were willing to go, but still not the same thing as "all those dying in infancy will be saved."
B. B. Warfield summarizes Wycliffe's view and connects it to that of his followers:

John Wycliffe (d. 1384) had already with like caution expressed his unwillingness to pronounce damned such infants as were intended for baptism by their parents, if they failed to receive it in fact; though he could not, on the other hand, assert that they were saved.  His followers were less cautious, whether in England or Bohemia, and in this, too, they approved themselves heralds of a brighter day. ("The Development of the Doctrine of Infant Salvation," in Works, IX, p. 416)

Thus Warfield sees Wycliffe as taking cautious steps away from the traditional understanding and toward the possibility of infant salvation without baptism.  His followers went further, and ultimately infant salvation came be accepted by some reformers (notably Zwingli) and from there more widely to Protestantism (for more on this, see Schaff, History, VII, 559–60).


The custom during the time was that men would prepare and study to become a rabbi. Throughout the New Testament Jesus is referred to as "rabbi" and "teacher" such as in John 3:2

  2The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

Jesus was preparing himself to become a rabbi so that he could lead His people to salvation.


Is the idea that God can erase His memory a common understanding?

The best explanation of this I have ever heard is by Jay Adams in his book on forgiveness. God does not change, and His memory does not change. Instead, Adams argues that God is not-remembering, instead of forgetting. That is, God is promising not to bring these sins against you ever again.

Adams goes on to say that forgiveness in general is a three-fold promise. When you forgive someone, you are making three promises:

You will not bring the offence up again to the person who offended you.
You will not bring the offence up again to anyone else.
You will not bring the offence up again to yourself.

I have found this definition of forgiveness to be extremely helpful.

I do not think the majority of Bible-believing, gospel-preaching denominations believe that God forgets anything. God is omniscient, and will always be omniscient. Now your Open Theists might believe that God can forget things, or that He doesn't know everything; and some of your mainline denominations that have departed from Scriptural teaching might also believe this.


What is difference between God and Jesus Christ in Mark 10:17-19?

No one is good except God;Jesus wanted this man to realise that if truely believes that Jesus is good then He is God,therefore Jesus proved to this man that Himself was God.


How do you define a Christian or a brother in Christ?

1 Corinthians 5:11  But now I have written unto you not to keep
  company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or
  covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an
  extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

If someone professes faith in Christ AND is aligning their behavior with the Bible, they are my brother. As the verse indicates, they have to both be called a Christian and behave like one.


Catholic orders controlling diocesan territory

It is very common for mission territory to be evangelized by religious orders; up until the end of Communist rule in Yugoslavia, for instance, only Franciscan friars were allowed to minister to Catholics in that country, so all parishes in Croatia and Slovenia (which are Catholic majority) were staffed by Franciscans. After that, a secular Bishop has been installed and secular Clergy are being implanted, and this sometimes causes friction with the pre-existing Franciscans. This is one of the reasons for the reported "dislike" of the Bishop of Mostar-Duvno for the apparitions at Medjugorje.

Regarding the Colonial Americas, the mission in the New World was mostly given out to religious orders: the Jesuits kept mostly to the Portuguese Americas and the Plata river valley, Dominicans took care of the Andes and the Caribbean, and Franciscans evangelised in Mexico and what is now the West/Southwest of the United States. Until the 19th Century or so, there were few dioceses and the Bishops had precious few secular priests to minister to the faithful concentrated in the colonial capitals like Salvador, Buenos Aires, Lima, San José, México and New Orleans. The ministering to the indians and their evangelisation out in the country required special training (even linguistic), which the Orders were usually best at providing.

Eventually, as the lands were evangelised and colonised, the Orders passed the baton to the secular priests, as they changed their focus to other underEvangelised places like Africa and Southeast Asia. Obviously, the "Enlightened Despotism" of the mid-18th Century saw the Orders have much of their possessions confiscated by the secular governments of Portugal and Spain — the Jesuits were even suppressed by the Pope at the insistence of the Marquis of Pombal, Portugal's prime minister — and the secular priesthood stepped up to fill the void.

Finally, regarding Canon Law, there is nothing in it that forbids Orders from having possessions like monasteries and associated land; it's more or less the point for Cloistered orders like the Benedictines, and the famous Jesuit and Franciscan missions were also organised in a like manner.


How does the doctrine of the URC differ from its predecessors?

The "Basis of Union" can be found here: http://www.urc.org.uk/what_we_do/the_manual/the_basis_of_union

For me, understanding any denomination usually hinges on two issues - salvation and governance.  In my head, most any other distinctive could be chalked up to a peculiar practice or worship style, with its own concomitant theology.  The comparatives are usually in salvation or governance.

Salvation

So, from the beginning it should be said that Presbyterians descend from a Calvinist tradition (in Scotland), whereas Congregationalists and Puritans descend from a decided mixture of Calvinistic and Arminian traditions.  In practice, I would assume that any already-in-the-minority free will positions that some Conrgegationalists held would have been further de-emphasized, but I couldn't find anything in the URC statement of belief to corroborate this.

Governance

  Statement 2: Identity The URC will be a Church where every local congregation will be able to say who they are, what they do and why they do it.

In terms of church governance, Congregationalists stress the complete autonomy of the local church, although in practice many (like the Baptists) will come together in association in order to maximize their effectiveness. Presbyterians are very close to this - individual churches hire their own pastors, for example, but the power of the association and synod is a little greater.  (Its nothing like say, a Catholic church, but there is some governance!)  In practice, then, governance would have been a fairly easy compromise.


Please explain how the Israelites were supposed to keep the Sabbath year

Following the commandments of God requires faith and commitment. While God forbids them to plough the land on Sabbath Year(shemiṭṭah), God also promised them to bless abundantly on the sixth year.

  You may ask, “What will we eat in the seventh year if we do not plant
  or harvest our crops?” I will send you such a blessing in the sixth
  year that the land will yield enough for three years.
  (Leviticus 25:20-21, NIV)

This is the same case for Tithe. While giving 10% of our income to God may seem to be a lost, we are actually gaining. All we have to do is test Him in this.

  Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in
  my house. Test me in this,” says the Lord Almighty, “and see if I will
  not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing
  that there will not be room enough to store it. I will prevent pests
  from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not drop
  their fruit before it is ripe,” says the Lord Almighty. (Malachi
  3:10-11, NIV)

It was also not easy for the Jews who settled in Palestine during the Zionist movement to observe the Sabbath Year but they somehow managed to observe it.

  Since the Zionist movement began to encourage agriculture in
  Palestine, the observance of shemiṭṭah has become a problem for
  solution. The leaders of the movement, who had the interest of the
  colonists at heart and feared that the shemiṭṭah might jeopardize
  their existence, claimed that the law is now obsolete. (source)

There are also some practical stories where those who observed the Sabbath Year were blessed miraculously.

  Haredi Jews tell stories of groups of Israeli Jews who kept the
  Shmitta and experienced remarkable agricultural events which they
  describe as representative of miracles in fulfillment of the Biblical
  promise of bounty. One famous story is told about the
  then-two-year-old village of Komemiyut during the 1952 Shmittah. The
  village was one of the few who refrained from working the land that
  year. At the end of the Shmittah, farmers searching for seed to plant
  found only wormy, inferior seed that had been rotting for years in an
  abandoned shed. Rabbi Binyamin Mendelson advised them to sow this seed
  anyway, saying "The Almighty who causes wheat to sprout from good seed
  will bless your inferior seed as well," even though it was three
  months after neighboring villages had planted their fields. They did.
  That year the fall rains came late, the day after the Komemiyut seed
  was sown. As a result, the neighboring villages had a meager harvest,
  while the village of Komemiyut, who sowed from the old store, had a
  bumper crop. (source)

As for the 49 or 50 years cycle, Jewish Encylopedia says

  There is a difference of opinion in the Talmud as to whether the
  jubilee year was included in or excluded from the forty-nine years of
  the seven cycles. The majority of rabbis hold that the jubilee year
  was an intercalation, and followed the seventh Sabbatical year, making
  two fallow years in succession. After both had passed, the next cycle
  began. They adduce this theory from the plain words of the Law to
  "hallow the fiftieth year," and also from the assurance of God's
  promise of a yield in the sixth year sufficient for maintenance during
  the following three years, "until the ninth year, until her fruits
  come in" (Lev. xxv. 22), which, they say, refers to the jubilee year.


God's foreknowledge according to the Calvinist?

As a former Calvinist, I hope I can help provide more light than confusion. To caveats: (1) at the outset you should know that there is diversity even within 'Calvinism' so several answers are possible on each point, and (2) I'm not entirely certain I understand you questions but I will do my best to help on each of the four points you note.

1. In brief, a Calvinist believes neither of these statements.

1.A. GotQuestions is correct when they say Christians cannot infer from the bible that there is such thing as a pre-existence of souls. Because of this, Calvinists do not believe that God had a loving relationship with pre-existent souls. Verses that GotQuestions cites bear this out (e.g. Zech. 12:1) and this is the standard Calvinist position.

1.B.I. Of course 1.A. depends logically on 1.B. in assuming that to 'fore-know' means to 'fore-love'. The reference offered by Ligonier ministries shows that the concept of 'knowing' throughout the bible is often (but not always) a relational term. This is true. However, this does not rule out cognitive knowing as one potential meaning of 'knowing'. E.G. in one sense I cognitively know information about you from your question, the sources you cite, and use of language. In an another sense, in as much as you are a real person who wrote this question, I know you relation-ally - but only insofar as I cognitive-ly understand your question. Because of this, Calvinists do not have to say, and to my knowledge most do not say, that God had a loving-relationship with pre-existent souls. Because, per 1.A. they do not believe in pre-existent souls and per 1.B. knowledge of persons and their future within your mind (i.e. cognitively previous to their existence/creation) fulfills the basic meaning of foreknowing.

1.B.II. I hypothesize that when Ligonier Ministries tries to say that God 'fore-loved' they don't intend that connotation to be used in reference to predestination but in contrast to the Arminian view which bases God's cognitive "knowledge" on the choices of individuals. Therefore, they want to avoid a type of foreknowledge that is cognitive and potentially based on the choices of free human persons, and they opt to argue that knowledge is relational not cognitive. (On their part this is a false dichotomy but that is another issue entirely)

Conclusion of 1. You may be correct in pointing out a contradiction between what Calvinists believe and what they logically should believe, but they do not believe either of these things. Alternatively, you could be using Calvinist definitions of words like 'fore-knowledge' in an overly mathematical way which is confusing you (1=A, A=/=B, a=B, therefore A=B AND a=/=B). Calvinists do not believe in a pre-existent soul nor in a pre-creation relationship of God to the 'elect'. Except in the case of Jesus. Jesus is both pre-existent and eternally loved by the Father through the Spirit. The corporate Arminian explanation from this point disagrees with Calvinists by saying God has eternally elected only Jesus and through his actual fore-loved-ness he elects others.

2. I don't think you understand what Ligonier Ministries is trying to say in their post.

2.1. (1) The pot analogy is an analogy is an analogy designed to say one thing not a description of reality that should be pressed beyond its original purpose. (2) In the Calvinist view, it is a reference to God's free determination of certain groups and/or persons (i.e. Israel in Rom. 11) to be saved from their sins or punished for their sins. This strong use of the word fore-knowledge (+determination/predestination) is what Calvinists mean and in their post, Ligonier Ministries says this is the correct view as opposed to the weaker view of fore-knowledge held by some Arminians in which God simply fore-knows (-determination) what will happen.

Conclusion of 2. Because Calvinists believe in a stronger, deterministic, type of fore-knowledge (i.e. writing, directing, visualizing, and then watching a movie) which also means predestination, they believe Arminians view of simple-foreknowledge (i.e. just watching a movie someone else wrote) is incorrect because is DOES NOT leave God as Sovereign. You seem to be quoting what Calvinists DO NOT believe, but this seems to be more the fault of the writer who puts this where a conclusion usually is. In reality Arminians do not necessarily believe this, rather that God writes, directs, visualizes, watches and himself acts/participates in a story where he has created real actors besides himself.

3. Per discussion under question 2.1. you are correct in believing this is NOT consistent with the sovereignty view of Calvinists. They believe God isn't forced to love pre-existent souls, and they believe, like the potter, he is free to make people things for good or bad purposes. However, some moderate Calvinists will allow along with Arminians that God can sovereign-ly choose to create a world where he includes the free choice of creatures (at minimum Adam and Eve had free will) in his designation.

Sources: IVP's Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views would give you far more context about the overall perspectives possible, but I hope this has been helpful.

Conclusion: At the back of this is the deterministic view of Calvinism where God exists beyond time, and actually created time itself. At the end of the day, your question revolves around the paradox of a a-temporal God relating to temporal (time-bound) creatures. I'd consider exploring William Lane Craig's Time and Eternity for a better answer on this count, although it is a very dense debate in the philosophy of religion.


What's the normal term for a Catholic priest that works in a parish under another one?

In Catholic parishes the priest in charge is commonly known as the pastor. He is normally addresses as Father in everyday conversation. The priests that aid a pastor in the administration of a parish are called either assistant pastors or associate pastors.

Years ago, the term assistant pastor for a priest helping in the administration of a parish was universally the only term used. Nowadays, associate pastor is quite common in certain regions. In everyday conversation, they simply called Father.

Sometimes, assistant pastors are called parochial vicars.

A priest who is residing at a parish and who on occasion helps out in the administration of a parish is known as a priest in residence. These priests are not pastors or assistant pastors because they normally will have some sort of ministry that takes up a large portion of their day. They often are ministering to hospitals or prisons and are called Chaplains.


What does "the Lord opened her heart" (Acts 16:14) mean, according to Calvinists?

Calvinists consistently hold that Lydia, at the time Paul met her, followed the Jewish religion and was not a believer in Christ.  But then God worked in her heart so that she would respond to Paul's teaching of the gospel.

At first, in "time frame 1," as you call it, Lydia "was a Jewess" (Calvin) or "a proselyte to the Jewish faith" (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown).  Whether she is Jew or Gentile is rather uncertain, says John Gill, as her name doesn't clearly indicate her ancestry.  Either way, however, she worshiped "the true God, the God of Israel" (Gill).

However, Gill continues, that even in this state, her heart "was shut and barred, with the bars of ignorance, hardness, and unbelief."  Calvin notes that Luke "commended her godliness" yet shows "that she could not comprehend the doctrine of the gospel, save only through the illumination of the Spirit."

Thus Calvinists argue that she was not saved in "time frame 1," as you suggest, and instead that in "time frame 2," "the Lord opens [her] heart to hear the word which is preached" (Geneva Study Bible).  This passage is seen as evidence for the distinction between the "inward call" of God and the "external call" of the preacher.  Calvin writes:

  We see that not faith alone, but all understanding and knowledge of spiritual things, is the peculiar gift of God, and that the ministers do no good by teaching and speaking unless the inward calling of God be thereunto added.

And in reference to Lydia in verse 14, the Reformation Study Bible (2015) states:

  Divine illumination and persuasion is necessary for the heart blinded by sin to respond to the gospel.  This effectual call of God ensures that all who have been chosen by God will believe.

Calvin on Acts 16:11–15
Geneva Study Bible on Acts 16
Gill on Acts 16
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown on Acts 16


According to Catholic Church, did King Solomon find grace with God after his death?
Most Christians, whether Catholics and other denominations would think it more than a little strange for God to allow the writings of a damned person to become inspired Sacred Scripture (Proverbs, Eccles., Song of Songs).
I am glad you never limited this question to the Latin Rite because in the Byzantine Catholic Church, he is recognized as a saint who’s feast day is celebrated on December 11. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, Solomon is commemorated as a saint, with the title of "Righteous Prophet and King". His feast day is celebrated on the Sunday of the Holy Forefathers (two Sundays before the Great Feast of the Nativity of the Lord).

Holy Prophet King Solomon
Feast Day - December 11
The biblical King Solomon was known for his wisdom, his wealth and his writings. Solomon was the son of King David and Bathsheba. Solomon was not the oldest son of David, but David promised Bathsheba that Solomon would be the next king. When David’s elder son Adonijah declared himself king, David ordered his servants to bring Solomon to the Gihon spring where the priest anointed him while David was still alive. Solomon inherited a considerable empire from his father.
Although he was a ruler at a young age, he soon became known for his wisdom. The first and most famous incident of his cleverness as a judge was when two women came to his court with a baby whom both women claimed as their own. Solomon threatened to split the baby in half. One woman was prepared to accept the decision, but the other begged the King to give the live baby to the other woman. Solomen then knew the second woman was the mother.
People from surrounding nations also came to hear Solomon’s wisdom. He composed 3,000 proverbs and 1,005 songs. He wrote the Song of Songs, the Book of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.
Once Solomon’s empire was tranquil, he began to build the Holy Temple. He received wood from King Hiram of Tyre and imposed a compulsory labor service on both the Israelites and the foreign nations that were under his control. Solomon was also renowned for his other building projects in which he used slave labor from the Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. He spent 13 years building his own palace, and also built a city wall, a citadel called the Millo, a palace for the daughter of Pharaoh (who was one of his wives) and facilities for foreign traders. He erected cities for chariots and horsemen and created storage cities. He extended Jerusalem to the north and fortified cities near the mountains of Judah and Jerusalem.
Solomon’s downfall came in his old age. He had taken many foreign wives, whom he allowed to worship other gods. He even built shrines for the sacrifices of his foreign wives. Within Solomon’s kingdom, he placed heavy taxation on the people, who became bitter. He also had the people work as soldiers, chief officers and commanders of his chariots and cavalry. He granted special privileges to the tribes of Judah and this alienated the northern tribes. The prophet Ahijah of Shiloh prophesied that Jeroboam son of Nebat would become king over ten of the 12 tribes, instead of one of Solomon’s sons.
Solomon died in Jerusalem after 40 years as ruler of Israel. He was buried in the City of David. His son, Rehoboam succeeded him as king. Under Rehobaum’s rule, Solomon’s empire was lost and his kingdom was divided into two parts.

In the West, I can not find Solomon being honoured as such. But the fact that Rome allows the Eastern Rite Catholics to honour him as such speaks volumes.
When a small portion of the Ethiopian Orthodox faithful came into union with the Catholic Church, certain of their feast had to be suppressed.
For example: The Commemoration of the Twenty-Four Priests (The Twenty-Fourth Day of the Blessed Month of Hatour: 24 Hatur).
The Catholic Encyclopedia speaks highly of Solomon, although falls short of naming him a saint.

The fact that Solomon's reign was passed in tranquillity, except for the attempts of Edom and Damascus to regain their independence, testifies to the care he displayed for the defence of the realm. That he showed no ambition to undertake foreign conquests redounds to his credit; after the exhausting wars of David the nation needed repose. And if he spent his people's wealth lavishly, his commercial policy may have helped to produce that wealth, and perhaps even given to the Jewish people that impulse towards trade which has been for centuries so marked a trait in their character. Nor can the indirect effects of the commerce he fostered be overlooked, inasmuch as it brought the people into closer contact with the outside world and so enlarged their intellectual horizon. And in two other respects he profoundly influenced his nation's after-history, and thereby mankind in general. In the first place, whatever the burdens which the construction of the temple entailed upon the generation that saw it erected, it eventually became the chief glory of the Jewish race. To it, its ritual, and its associations, was largely due the stronger hold which, after the disruption, the religion of Jehovah had upon Judah as contrasted with Northern Israel; and when Judah ceased to be a nation, the reconstructed temple became in a still higher degree the guardian of the Hebrew faith and hope. And secondly, the Book of Proverbs, though parts are expressly ascribed to other authors than Solomon, and even those sections which are attributed to him may be complex of origin, is nevertheless the product of Solomon's spirit and example, and much that it contains may actually have proceeded from him. And as Proverbs served as a model for many works of a similar character in later times, some of which, as has been said, were popularly ascribed to him (Ecclesiastes, Wisdom), the debt which the world of literature indirectly owes to the Hebrew king is considerable. The works named do not exhaust the list of productions with which Solomon's name is connected. The Song of Songs is attributed to him; two of the Canonical psalms are entitled his; and a book of Psalms of quite late date also goes by his name.

The wisdom of Solomon is universally honoured. Just recall the story involving the two women and the one baby who he ordered to be cut in two. In fact, during the coarse of the liturgical year, this very biblical story is read at Mass in both the Ordinary Form of the Mass and the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.
The wisdom of Solomon will always be praised, not only by Catholics, but by the Orthodox Churches and Jews alike.

The Judgement of Solomon is a story from the Hebrew Bible in which King Solomon of Israel ruled between two women both claiming to be the mother of a child. Solomon revealed their true feelings and relationship to the child by suggesting the baby be cut in two, each woman to receive half. With this strategy, he was able to discern the non-mother as the woman who entirely approved of this proposal, while the actual mother begged that the sword might be sheathed and the child committed to the care of her rival. Some consider this approach to justice an archetypal example of an impartial judge displaying wisdom in making a ruling.
Biblical narrative
1 Kings 3:16–28 recounts that two mothers living in the same house, each the mother of an infant son, came to Solomon. One of the babies had been smothered, and each claimed the remaining boy as her own. Calling for a sword, Solomon declared his judgment: the baby would be cut in two, each woman to receive half. One mother did not contest the ruling, declaring that if she could not have the baby then neither of them could, but the other begged Solomon, "Give the baby to her, just don't kill him!"
The king declared the second woman the true mother, as a mother would even give up her baby if that was necessary to save its life. This judgment became known throughout all of Israel and was considered an example of profound wisdom.

Fresco of the Judgment of Solomon, Wallfahrtskirche Frauenberg [de] Frauenberg, Styria


Where did the formula, "Good works are the fruits of faith," originate?

Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, and Didymus the Blind said things that could be mistaken for the formula, but don't fit all the criteria. The first one to use it unmistakably is Origen, in passing, followed by Augustine, also in passing, though he frequently says other things that are near-hits. It's not until the Protestant Reformation that the formula becomes ubiquitous.

Early approximations and misses

Clement of Rome (d. c. 100), in his letter to the Corinthian church, commends them by stating a connection between their faith and virtue. At least two English translations (Lightfoot and Hoole) have Clement say that their faith is "virtuous," while one (Keith; ed. Donaldson, Roberts) has him phrase it as "fruitful of virtue." I don't believe the Greek justifies the latter translation, or at least not for our purposes in this question, but I thought it worth a mention since Keith's translation seems at first glance to apply so strikingly (if one grants a correspondence between "virtue" and "good works").

Clement of Alexandria (150 - 215) implies that neither love nor good works could exist without faith as their "foundation":

  Love, on account of its friendly alliance with faith, makes men believers; and faith, which is the foundation of love, in its turn introduces the doing of good.
  Stromata, Book 2, Chapter 6

According to Didymus the Blind (313 - 398), faith accomplishes two things, salvation and good works:

  A person is saved by grace, not by works but by faith. There should be no doubt but that faith saves and then lives by doing its own works, so that the works which are added to salvation by faith are not those of the law but a different kind of thing altogether.
  Commentary on James 2:26b via the Ancient Christian Commentary series, page 34; no full English translation is available

Origen

Origen (185 - 254), contemporary of Clement of Alexandria, explicitly identified faith as the root out of which the fruit, good works, grows:

  This faith, when it has been justified, is firmly embedded in the soil of the soul like a root that has received rain, so that when it begins to be cultivated by God's law, branches arise from it that bring forth the fruit of works. The root of righteousness, therefore, does not grow out of the works, but rather the fruit of works grows out of the root of righteousness, that root, of course, of righteousness that God also credits even apart from works.
  Commentary on Romans 4.1.18

Augustine

Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430) uses the formulation at least once, seemingly borrowing from Origen, and close variants a number of other times.

In one place he speaks of faith as having "fruits," but does not explicitly identify them:

  Each one sees his own faith in himself. He does not see but believes faith to be in another. And he believes all the more firmly, the more he sees faith's fruits that it is accustomed to work through charity.
  On the Trinity, Book 13, Chapter 2 (link is to a different translation)

In another place, he states that good works "proceed from" faith (and that both faith and good works come from God), but does not use the word "fruit":

  Works proceed from faith, and not faith from works. Therefore it is from Him that we have works of righteousness, from whom comes also faith itself
  On Grace and Free Will, Chapter 7

But elsewhere he borrows two images from Origen: that of good works as a structure rising from the foundation of faith (Origen, Romans, 4.1.5) and the one that chiefly concerns us, good works as the fruit which spring from the root of faith:

  I have nothing but praise for the superstructure of action, but I see the foundation of faith; I admire the good work as a fruit, but I recognize that it springs from the root of faith. ... If faith is devoid of the will to love, it will equally be devoid of good actions. But do not spend too much time thinking about the works that proceed from faith: add hope and the will to love to your faith, and you will have no need to ask yourself what kind of works you should perform.
  Exposition 2 of Psalm 31:3-5

Reformation

Just as Augustine borrowed the image from Origen, the reformation leaders undoubtedly borrowed it from Augustine. A sampling of the earliest uses in Protestant confessions will follow.

The Augsburg Confession (1535), Article 20, and Scots Confession (1560), Chapter 13, both say that the cause of good works is our reception of the Holy Spirit by faith. These two, according to the parameters of the question, do not use the formulation.

But later confessions would use the formula explicitly, while demonstrating their substantial agreement with the previous two. The Belgic Confession (1561), Article 24, compares good works to fruit and says that they proceed "from the good root of faith," which "regenerates us and makes us new creatures, causing us to live a new life and freeing us from the slavery of sin." The much later Westminster Confession (1646), Chapter 16, calls good works "the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith," and states that the ability to do them is "wholly from the Spirit of Christ."

Similarly, the Second Helvetic Confession (1564), Chapter 16, says that faith "brings forth good fruit of all kinds, and good works," (the distinction, if any is intended, is unclear) and that "good works grow out of a living faith by the Holy Spirit" and "are done from God's grace through the Holy Spirit."

The characteristically terse 39 Articles (1563), Article 12, says without elaboration that good works "are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification."

Conclusion

Origen was the first to use the formula, building on Biblical teaching and imagery. It was then picked up by Augustine, whom the Reformation leaders consciously emulated, using it frequently. Since then, it has been widely used by Protestants.

However, it is also clear that whenever such authors were given the chance to expound on their meaning, they say "that good works are the fruits or result of salvation, or of love for God, or of God working within a person, and so on," often within sentences of using the formula.

I'm heavily indebted to We Believe in the Holy Spirit, ed. Joel C. Elowsky, particularly the section "The Giver of Life: In Justification," from which I got most of the church fathers quotes.


Which translation of Augustine's Confessions is the easiest to read in English?

If I were, for some strange reason, compelled against my will to read Confessions aloud before a crowd, I would choose F. J. Sheed’s translation.

In my mind, Sheed not only sufficiently translates the originals into English, but also does the best job with the electrifying high poetry of Augustine's writing.

For example, compare Sheed’s translation of Book I, Chapter III with the examples in the body of your question:

  But if you fill heaven and earth, do they contain you? Or do you fill
  them, and yet have much over since they cannot contain you? Is there
  some other place into which that overplus of You pours that heaven and
  earth cannot hold? Surely You have no need of any place to contain You
  since You contain all things, and fill them indeed precisely by
  containing them.

Notice that, unlike the other more technical translations, the last sentence in the above excerpt is molded into an imperative sentence rather than an interrogative.  This appears to be a subtly significant attempt to convey both the theological, as well as the emotional dynamism that St. Augustine is canonically known for. This also breaks up the monotony of questions by giving some intelligible credit to a philosophical giant such as Augustine.

When reading Sheed’s translation of Confessions (as well as his other works) I often catch myself reading the passages with a sort of rhythm, almost like I’m reading one of C. S. Lewis’ works of poetry. It combines just the right amount of the post-Elizabethan, King James-ish English with a more modern Chesterton-like prose, both of which I am truly fond of.

Here I have loosely rearranged a passage of Sheed’s translation in order to illuminate the rhythmic structures of sentences that help me to stay zeroed in on what Augustine is actually saying:

  And if You are already in me,

  Since otherwise I should not be,

  Why do I cry to You,

  To enter into me?

  Even if I were in Hell You would be there,

  For if I go down into Hell, Thou art there also.

  Thus, oh God, I should be nothing,

  Utterly nothing,

  Unless you were in me,

  Or rather unless I were in you,

  Of whom and by whom and in whom,

  Are all things.

  Book I, Chapt. II

Sheed’s translation is thoroughly saturated with a kind of seamlessness, that of which other translations I have read (or have attempted to read) seem to lack.  As in all of his theological works, (which I very highly recommend every single one of them) Sheed does an incredible job of efficiently manipulating the English language into transporting eternally understandable truths to simple minds like mine.

Give Sheed a chance…you won’t regret it.


In Psalms 2:7, does the expression 'this day' forbid the thought that Jesus is eternal?

The Bible suggest otherwise. In the New Testament this passage was viewed as a prophecy of the resurrection.

Acts 13:32-34 NLT

“And now we are here to bring you this Good News. The promise was made to our ancestors, and God has now fulfilled it for us, their descendants, by raising Jesus. This is what the second psalm says about Jesus: ‘You are my Son. Today I have become your Father. ’ For God had promised to raise him from the dead, not leaving him to rot in the grave. He said, ‘I will give you the sacred blessings I promised to David.’


What are the Biblical arguments against man having an immortal soul separate from the body?

I am answering from the perspective of Jehovah's Witnesses.
In the Bible, the word for soul is ne'phesh in Hebrew, and psy'khe in Greek. Their definitions generally convey the concept of "a breathing creature" or "a living being". Many of the scriptures I mention in this answer may not use the word "soul" in their English translations, but will use one of these similar terms such as "life", "person", "creature", or "body". I've denoted these words with the word "soul" in brackets next to them.
Adam wasn't given a soul, he became a soul.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. - Genesis 2:7 (KJV)
So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. - 1 Corinthians 15:45 (ASV)

The soul can die.

... the soul that sinneth, it shall die. - Ezekiel 18:4 (KJV)
He must not enter a place where there is a dead body ["soul"]. He must not make himself unclean, even for his father or mother - Leviticus 21:11 (NIV)
All the days that he separateth himself unto Jehovah he shall not come near to a dead body ["soul"]. - Numbers 6:6 (ASV)
And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them: there was not any left to breathe: and he burnt Hazor with fire. - Joshua 11:11 (KJV)
Samson said, “Let me ["my soul"] die with the Philistines!” Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived. - Judges 16:30 (NIV)
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. - Matthew 10:28 (NIV)

Animals are souls, and die the same way.

Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures ["souls"], and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” - Genesis 1:20 (NASB)
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures ["souls"] after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. - Genesis 1:24 (NASB)
For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity. - Ecclesiastes 3:19 (NASB)
8 The second angel sounded his trumpet, and something like a huge mountain, all ablaze, was thrown into the sea. A third of the sea turned into blood, 9 a third of the living creatures ["souls"] in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed. - Revelation 8:8-9 (NIV)

There is also a non-biblical argument against the immortality of the soul, and that is that the teachings originated from Socrates and Plato, and was later incorporated by Christian Greek philosophers.
For more information, there is What Is the Soul? and Insight, Vol. 2.


According to Catholicism, does the Old Law justify?

Those who lived before Christ waited for Christ in "Abraham's Bosom"—also called the "Limbo of hell or of the Patriarchs" (limbus inferni seu patrum), and Christ conducted them to heaven at His Ascension.

The Council of Trent was convened in order to combat the errors and heresies of Protestantism. The Council's Sixth Session (13 Jan. 1547) was on justification. It affirms that not even the Old Law could justify (ch. 1):

  The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary that each one recognize and confess, that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam,—having become unclean [Isa. lxiv. 6] and as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, [Ephes. ii. 3] as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,—they were so far the servants of sin, [Rom. vi. 17, 20] and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although freewill, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.

but Christ is necessary (ch. 2):

  Whence it came to pass, that the heavenly Father, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort, [2Cor. i. 3.] when that blessed fullness of the time was come, [Gal. iv. 4] sent unto men, Jesus Christ, his own Son—who had been, both before the Law, and during the time of the Law, to many of the holy fathers announced and promised—that he might both redeem the Jews who were under the Law, [Gal. v. 4] and that the Gentiles, who followed not after justice, might attain to justice, [Rom. ix. 30] and that all men might receive the adoption of sons. Him God hath proposed as a propitiator, through faith in his blood, [Rom. iii. 25] for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world. [1 John ii. 2.]

The Council of Trent in this session famously condemns Protestants' sola fide ("faith only") teaching on justification:

  CANON IX.—If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified, in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will: let him be anathema.

Thus, the Old Law did not justify.

Christ, faith (cf. Heb. 11:6 quoted in ch. 8), and works (cf. James 2:24 quoted in ch. 10) are necessary for justification.


Do JWs believe the water canopy theory and do they think it will be restored?

The belief of Jehovah's Witnesses and other religions regarding a water canopy that existed at the time of earth's creation is not a concept that is a result of doctrine but one that is advanced in the Bible itself. Genesis 1:7 says: "So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so." The Jewish Tanach agrees with this same concept saying, "And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so."

Jehovah's Witnesses recently published a series of articles on creation which affirms the belief in a canopy of vapor that existed in the pre-flood era (see Awake! March 2014). Additionally an article from the January 1, 2004 Watchtower magazine says this: "Where did the water causing the global Flood come from? During the second creative period, or “day,” when the earth’s atmospheric “expanse” was formed, there were waters “beneath the expanse” and waters “above the expanse.” (Genesis 1:6, 7) The waters “beneath” were those already on earth. The waters “above” were huge quantities of moisture suspended high above the earth, forming a “vast watery deep.” These waters fell upon the earth in Noah’s day."

In regards to whether that canopy will ever exist again has not been officially discussed in recent Jehovah's Witnesses literature.


Why is the Gospel of John said to present Jesus distinctively as "the Son of God"?

This idea comes primarily from the presentation of Jesus throughout the Gospel, which is summarized nicely by the Biblical author himself:

  Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. -John 20:30-31

For example, consider the closing statement in the first section (1:1-18):

  No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. -John 1:18

...or the climactic statement of John the Baptist at the end of the second section (1:19-34):

  I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God.” -John 1:34

...or the climactic testimony of Nathanael at the end of the third section (1:35-51):

  Nathanael answered Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.” -John 1:49

The trend continues throughout the Gospel.


In Catholicism, why can deacons not celebrate all sacraments, but only Baptism (and Matrimony)?

Confession and Mass (specifically, confection of the Eucharist) are the two sacraments where the priest (under the bishop) stands in the person of Christ. That is, in these two sacraments the priest is acting as if he were Christ, using the powers given by Christ to the apostles and handed down to today's bishops and priests.
A deacon, though he is ordained, does not have the call to ministry that priests (and bishops) do, though he does have the call to service:

"At a lower level of the hierarchy are to be found deacons, who receive the imposition of hands 'not unto the priesthood, but unto the ministry.'" At an ordination to the diaconate only the bishop lays hands on the candidate, thus signifying the deacon's special attachment to the bishop in the tasks of his "diakonia."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1569. The quote is from Lumen Gentium, section 29.)

Thus, a deacon, though ordained, does not have the God-given call, and is not given the ability, to stand in persona Christi, "in the person of Christ".
In Confession, the priest is using the power delegated by Christ to the apostles to forgive sins:

[Jesus] said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you."
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."
John 20:21–23, NABRE

Thus, the priest is, as it were, Christ to the penitent. He is standing here in the person and the ministry of Christ; the deacon is unable to do this.
Similarly, Jesus gave to his apostles the power to confect the Eucharist:

Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
1 Corinthians 11:23–24

Again, this is a delegation to the apostles (and thus to their successors, the bishops and priests) alone; deacons are not called to this ministry.
Finally, it might appear that Anointing of the Sick is a sacrament that may be conferred either by a deacon or by a priest. This sacrament, however, always includes at least an offer for the sick person to confess their sins; and its first description specifies that "the presbyters", that is, the priests, are to do this:

Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders [presbyters] of the Church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.
James 5:14–15, NABRE; emphasis added

You don't mention the Sacrament of Holy Orders. This ordaining of priests is creating a man a delegate of his bishop. Thus only a bishop has this capacity. In much the same way, Confirmation can only be administered by the bishop; he is the direct successor of the apostles who received the Holy Spirit, and he alone has the capability of directly conferring this gift on others.
The remaining sacraments are Baptism and Matrimony. In an emergency, any human being (theoretically even an atheist!) has the capability of baptizing another. A deacon is given this permission even under ordinary circumstances, as part of his "ministry of service".
Finally, in the sacrament of marriage, the spouses are the ministers of the sacrament to each other. The Church merely desires to have an ordained person there as a witness on behalf of the Church. Any ordained man, therefore, can witness to a marriage.


The problem of Jesus telling others not to reveal his identity is known as the 'Messianic Secret' and is a motif primarily found in the Gospel of Mark. According to William Wrede (Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien, 1902) the messianic secret is a prohibition to make known the messianic character of Jesus.

The following essay: 'Mark Essay 3: Is there a Messianic Secret in Mark?' says that Wrede rules out from history any theory such as a progression in the revealing of Jesus' personality, on the correct grounds that the time-framework of the gospels is imposed on the material by the evangelist, and must therefore be attributed to his theology rather than to historical reality.

The essay author concludes that the secret is a function of Mark's irony. If Mark is to maintain the dual level of discourse which is the basis of all irony, he cannot allow the actors in the drama to come too quickly to a realisation of Jesus' identity. Hence his insertion on various occasions of the secrecy commands (stylistically shown to be his own work) and of the parable-secret, which originally had a quite other import. Ian Wilson says, in Jesus: The Evidence, page 29, that while not necessarily giving this idea their full endorsement, most modern scholars accept that Wrede may well have been right in regarding Mark’s author as more concerned with putting over theology than with writing straight history. As the first narrative account of the mission of Jesus, Mark was often read to gentiles who had not yet become Christians, and the Secret added suspense and drama to the story, also perhaps explaining why this knowledge was not so widely circulated in the decades prior to authorship of the Gospel.

Matthew is a synoptic gospel and often follows Mark quite closely, including some references to the Messianic Secret, although fewer than in Mark itself. On the other hand, John's Gospel is further removed from Mark's Gospel and developed along different lines. In John, Jesus is not at all concerned with keeping his true identity secret. Scholars generally refer to the intended audience of John as the 'Johannine community', a group of Christians already familiar with the story of Christ. For them, the Messianic Secret would have made little  sense, whereas they may have found Jesus' bold assertions of his identity, as in John 5:39, to be inspirational.


Do any denominations besides the United Church of God commemorate Jesus' death on a Wednesday?

The Bible does not say on which day of the week Jesus was crucified. There are therefore  three views  of crucifixion day held currently: Wednesday, Thursday and Friday with Friday being the most commonly held view. Some Christians believe Wednesday was the day of Jesus crucifixion , and a few held the Thursday view.

That said, beside United Church of GodIA, the Restored Church of God also denies the 'Good Friday-Easter Sunday' chronology along with other Christian scholars of note (and presumably their followers) among whom are: Grady Daniel, and a Baptist deacon; late Charles Halff, a Messianic; and Roy A. Reinhold. This site gives an elaborate and informitive support of Wednesday conclution.


Has the Categorical Imperative ever been denounced by the Catholic Church

Kant's categorical imperative is very similar to the Protestant view that everyone is his or her own highest authority.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia article "Categorical Imperative":

  The merits of Kant's categorical imperative are said to consist in this: that it firmly establishes the reign of reason; elevates the dignity of man by subjecting in him sensibility to reason and making rational nature free, supreme, and independent; overcomes egoism by forbidding action from self-interest; and upholds morality by the highest authority. But the theist philosopher and the Christian theologian must needs take another view. Man is not an end in himself, but is essentially subordinate to God as his ultimate end and supreme good; nor is he autonomous, but is necessarily subject to God as his supreme Lord and lawgiver. Man, conceived as a law unto himself and an end in himself, is emancipated from God as his master and separated from Him as his supreme good; conceived, moreover, as autonomous and independent of any higher authority, he is deified. This is not building up true and lofty morality, but is its complete overthrow; for the basis of morality is God as the ultimate end, highest good, and supreme lawgiver. Kant utterly ignores the nature of both intellect and will. Human reason does not enact the moral law, but only voices and proclaims it as the enactment of a higher power above man, and it is not from the proclaiming voice that the law derives its binding force, but from the majesty above that intimates it to us through our conscience.


What did kids of polygamous Mormon parents call their half-sibling's moms?

A partial answer (I don't know the complete answer yet):

Henry Eyring, famed chemist and father of President Henry B. Eyring, currently the second counselor in the Church's First Presidency, grew up in a polygamist family.  His father was married to two women, who were sisters.  According to the biography "Mormon Scientist", authored by Henry J. Eyring (Henry Eyring's grandson), Henry referred to his half-siblings' mother as "Aunt Emma" (see page 93-94 of the biography, published by Deseret Book).

This may seem trivial, to call your aunt "aunt", but I think it does show that, in at least this one case, the child's aunt-nephew relation took precedence in title than the half-siblings' mother relation.

Obviously this answer is only one case, and doesn't apply to cases where the mothers are not already related.


Hesychasm is foundational to Eastern Orthodox Christianity and is one of the things that distinguishes it from Roman Catholicism and the Protestant confessions that arose out of Roman Catholicism.

The watershed event in Orthodoxy regarding hesychasm was the so-called "Hesychastic Controversy", that occurred on Mt. Athos in the early 14th century.  Gregory Palamas, a monk originally from Constantinople, helped define the Orthodox tradition as a result of the controversy.

The Orthodoxwiki entry on Gregory Palamas describes the event as follows:

  [Gregory] He was initially asked by his fellow monks on Mount Athos to defend them from the charges of Barlaam. Barlaam believed that philosophers had better knowledge of God than did the prophets, and he valued education and learning more than contemplative prayer. He stated the unknowability of God in an extreme form, having been influenced by a reductionist interpretation of the writings of St. Dionysius the Areopagite. As such, he believed the monks on Mount Athos were wasting their time in contemplative prayer when they should instead be studying to gain intellectual knowledge.

  When St. Gregory criticized Barlaam's rationalism, Barlaam replied with a vicious attack on the hesychastic life of the Athonite monks. Gregory's rebuttal was the Triads in defense of the Holy Hesychasts (c. 1338), a brilliant work whose teaching was affirmed by his fellow Hagiorites, who met together in a council during 1340-1341, issuing a statement known as the Hagioritic Tome, which supported Gregory's theology.

  A synod held in Constantinople in 1341 also supported St. Gregory's views, condemning Barlaam. Later, in 1344, the opponents of hesychasm secured a condemnation for heresy and excommunication for Gregory, the saint's theology was reaffirmed at two further synods held in Constantinople in 1347 and 1351. Collectively, these three synods in Constantinople are held by many Orthodox Christians and several prominent theologians to constitute the Ninth Ecumenical Council. Between the latter two synods, Gregory composed the One Hundred and Fifty Chapters, a concise exposition of his theology.

This latter work - One Hundred and Fifty Chapters - can be found in English translation in Volume 4 of the Faber and Faber edition of The Philokalia.

The Orthodoxwiki entry gives some additional background on Gregory's hesychastic theology:

  Contrary to Barlaam, Gregory asserted that the prophets in fact had greater knowledge of God, because they had actually seen or heard God himself. Addressing the question of how it is possible for humans to have knowledge of a transcendent and unknowable God, he drew a distinction between knowing God in his essence (in Greek, ουσία) and knowing God in his energies (in Greek, ενέργειαι). He maintained the Orthodox doctrine that it remains impossible to know God in his essence (God in himself), but possible to know God in his energies (to know what God does, and who he is in relation to the creation and to man), as God reveals himself to humanity. In doing so, he made reference to the Cappadocian Fathers [Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus] and other early Christian writers.

  Gregory further asserted that when the Apostles Peter, James and John witnessed the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ on Mount Tabor, that they were in fact seeing the uncreated light of God; and that it is possible for others to be granted to see that same uncreated light of God with the help of repentance, spiritual discipline and contemplative prayer, although not in any automatic or mechanistic fashion.

  He continually stressed the Biblical vision of the human person as a united whole, both body and soul. Thus, he argued that the physical side of hesychastic prayer was an integral part of the contemplative monastic way, and that the claim by some of the monks of seeing the uncreated light was indeed legitimate. Like St. Simeon the New Theologian, he also laid great stress in his spiritual teaching on the vision of the divine light.

Gregory Palamas is such an important figure in Eastern Orthodoxy that the 2nd Sunday of Great Lent every year is reserved for his commemoration.


Why is beating one's breast used to show sadness and guilt?

The basic idea is that of "smiting oneself." As Howard Marshall puts it, commenting on Luke 18:13:

  The breast or heart is regarded as the seat of sin, and hence the act is one of grief or contrition.1

As alluded to here, in the Hebrew background of the expression lies the word for "heart" (Heb. leb or lebab). Nahum 2:7 is a good example:2

  ... her slave girls lamenting, moaning like doves, and beating their breasts (lit. hearts)

In the Old Testament, the leb is the affective, noetic, and ethical center of a person. Inflicting blows to it, then

  expresses a sense of diminution ... it is an act of self-abasement to influence the deity.3

Whereas leb has no specific anatomic referent,4 the reflex Greek translation for the abstract leb is kardia. Like leb, kardia is very frequently used metaphorically, but where there is a concrete referent, it is clearly the organ we know as the heart. It may be for this reason that in the Greek expression we find instead stēthos ("breast"), a part of the body more accessible for beating.

Notes:

This question has also been asked on the English Language and Usage site. To me, the specific Biblical evidence is worthwhile considering in addition to the general conclusions stated there.

1. I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC; (Eerdmans, 1978), p. 680.

2. The OP offers Isaiah 32:12, which may indeed carry a similar sense, but the Hebrew is a bit obscure: "mourning on breasts", so not actually an explicit example of "beating".

3. Heinz-Josef Fabry, "לֵב לֵבָב," TDOT, (Eerdmans, 1972) v.7, p. 411.

4. In the minority of usages (such as this) involving a concrete part of the body, it sees to be located in the area of the thoracic cage, but it is not clearly the heart. See Fabry, TDOT, for extended discussion.


Trinitarian Christianity and Numbers 23:19 - Was Jesus a man?

This is not a very good Trinitarian objection for a number of reasons. First, the incarnation occurred at a definite point in history. As the Nicene/Constantinopolitan creed states, "[He] was made man." At the point Numbers became canonical, the Son of God was not yet incarnate.

But perhaps more fundamentally, we should not read the Bible in a rigidly literal way that misses the effect of what is being said. It's pretty clear what the point of the statement is: God isn't like sinners. God isn't like you people who go back on your covenants and can't be trusted for your words because he is fundamentally different.

Christians often refer to the things that prompt us to sin as, "The World, the Flesh, and the Devil," but Jesus had literal flesh, he came into the literal world, and was tempted by the literal Devil and he never sinned. That's the problem with this form of literal reading. The "flesh" that prompts sin in humans is the fallen nature of humanity, but is unfallen and perfect in Jesus. The "world" is not the planet itself, but the system of fallen sinners who form a sinfully willing collective that drives people, places, and things towards brokenness and godlessness. And the Devil can only tempt by deception and suggestion, something that leaves fallen humanity vulnerable, but divine humanity (Jesus) triumphant.

To say God is not a man that he should lie, is not to deny that God became man in the person of Christ, but to deny that God is like man in his fallen state. The fallenness is implied just as it is when the Bible speaks of worldliness, fleshliness, and temptation from the Devil.