Claims

There are no sources that claim Moses and Sargon of Akkad are the same person, but many sources do claim that the stories are similar enough to suggest one borrowing from the other. The most notable being that the information we have about Sargon places him in a basket sent down a river, just as Exodus does with Moses.

  Similarities between the Neo-Assyrian Sargon Birth Legend and other infant birth exposures in ancient literature, including Moses, Karna, and Oedipus, were noted by Otto Rank in 1909. The legend was also studied in detail by Brian Lewis, and compared with a number of different examples of the infant birth exposure motif found in European and Asian folk tales. He discusses a possible archetype form, giving particular attention to the Sargon legend and the account of the birth of Moses. Joseph Campbell has also made such comparisons.
  Sargon of Akkad - Comparisons in Ancient Literature - Wikipedia

Specifically, a story of Sargon's birth places him in a basket and has him sent down the river, much like Moses' birth as detailed in Exodus.

Sources of these tales

Moses' life, including the stories of his birth, are recorded in Exodus. Different scholars will date the writing of Exodus more conservatively or more liberally from the 15th Century BC to the 7th Century BC. The chronology of the story places Moses in the 15th Century BC, however.

Sargon lived and ruled in the 23rd Century BC. However, it seems that most of what we know about him, including the events of his story similar to Moses', are from cuneiform tablets written in about 650 BC called The Legend of Sargon. These tablets were discovered as part of the library of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh in the 19th Century AD.

Analysis

There is no doubt that Sargon lived long before Moses. However, neither has surviving stories that clearly out-date the other, therefore there is no bibliographic evidence that the later one is borrowing from the earlier one. But, there is good scholarship in dating the writing of Exodus to the 7th Century BC and the tablets we have of Sargon are also from the 7th Century BC. Additionally, we know that Israel, the originator of the stories of Moses, was in the area where the stories of Sargon would have been kept and read in the 7th Century BC. This should lead one to conclude that the story of Sargon influenced the story of Moses.

Conversely, There is decent scholarship in dating the writing of Exodus much earlier than the 7th Century BC. This lends credence to the idea that Exodus influenced The Legend of Sargon.

Like most claims of authorship, dating, and syncretism, this comes down to which bits of evidence you find more convincing. My impression is that most scholars  find the evidence suggesting that The Legend of Sargon influenced Exodus the most convincing. So if you want to "prove" that the stories of Moses influenced the stories of Sargon, you need to convince the other party that Exodus was written earlier than the 7th Century BC and that there is little reason to think that the tablets we have of The Legend of Sargon is not a copy of earlier writings.

Miscellaneous Sources

The Legend of Sargon of Akkad - Ancient History Encyclopedia
The Legend of Sargon Translation - Fordham University
Book of Exodus - Authorship - Wikipedia
Mosaic Authorship - Wikipedia


How was Moses able to speak to over 600,000 people at once?

Most commentators follow a common Jewish understanding that the Jewish leaders immediately relayed his words to their clans or households.

  Unto all Israel. It cannot be supposed that Moses spoke to the whole multitude of the people so as to be heard by them. Hence the Jewish interpreters say that he spoke to the elders of the people, who carried his words to the people at large. This is just; for what was thus mediately communicated to the people might be fairly described as spoken to them; and we find from other passages in the Pentateuch that the phrase, “the elders of Israel,” in the mind of the writer, was equivalent to “the congregation of Israel” (comp. e.g. Exod. 12:3 with ver. 21; Lev. 9:1 with ver. 5). But through whatever medium conveyed, it was to the people that these words were addressed; this is emphatically a book for the people. (The Pulpit Commentary: Deuteronomy 1:1)


What is the Biblical basis for saying the Apostles did not necessarily expect the final judgment to occur in their lifetime?

Peter seems to suggest that the coming of the Lord is not as imminent as originally thought, citing God's patience, and his measure of time as the reasons:

"...by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. 8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. 11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! 13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells. 14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you..."
(1 Peter 3:7-15 NASB bold mine)


There is one Church. There are hundreds of factions (after all, any organization of sufficient size will have political infighting). Then there are many people who claim to be Catholic but are really heretics in sheep's clothing.

Sedevacantists are people who deny the validity of the current Pope as well as the Second Vatican Council. That is more-or-less like denying Nicea. You can't do it and manage to escape the title "heretic."

Conclavists are (most often) sedevacatists who have gone so far as to say, "since VAII was heresy, the bishops who supported it are heretics. Heretics are incapable of properly electing a pope. Therefore, there is no pope and the See is vacant."

I do think that it is a good idea to expand a bit on your title, even though that is not your full question. There are quite a few different liturgical and spiritual groups inside the Catholic Church. Most commonly, you will find Byzantine and other Eastern groups who closely resemble the Orthodox in both practice and theological expressions, but there are other, smaller sub-organizations in the Church (such as the Ambrosian Rite (which is largely liturgical) and the Anglican Ordinariate (which is only a few years old and closely resembles the ways of the Anglican Church)). Depending how you subdivide it, you could even argue that every major order (or even every abbey) can be considered a subset with its own customs, beliefs, and traditions. For that matter, even within a diocese, you will find different parishes behave different ways.

And now, a joke:

  Why is it easier to convert an atheist than a conclavist? At least an atheist believes that there's a Pope.


No, only that after God created Adam he was tasked with naming the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air: “He [God] brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.  So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field” (Genesis 2:19-20).

The only mention of eating animals is in Genesis 9:3 and this is after Noah and his family emerge from the Ark: “The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands.  Everything that lives and moves will be food for you.  Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything”.   This suggests that meat was now permissible to eat.

There is no clash with the creation account that I can see.  All the land, sea and air creatures had been created by the time God created Adam.


Can I have my marriage blessed in the Roman Catholic Church?

If you have already married this Catholic in a non-Catholic church, then if you wish for the Church to recognize your marriage as valid(and thus sacramental) she first needs to apply for and receive a declaration of nullity regarding the previous marriage, and then you both need to go through a process called convalidation. (Code of Canon Law 1156-1160).

Note: As far as the Church is concerned, the Catholic is the one upon
whom the responsibility of "doing it right" is placed when marrying a non Catholic, but that's water under the bridge at this point in your case.  My wife (my then fiancé, Catholic, while I was not) took the trouble to get our "doing it right" process begun before we were married, to include various dispensations requested, our pastoral counselling together with the priest, pre cana, and all that.  (I later came into the Church).

The first step to arriving at a convalidation of your marriage is to meet with a local Catholic priest, or someone in the chancery at the nearest Catholic diocese, and discuss the details of the previous marriage(s) and your current marriage to see what the process is.  Each situation has its own nuances.

Important Note: a declaration of nullity is not the same thing as a divorce.

If the Catholic's previous marriage was already annulled ("declaration of nullity" was issued for that marriage), then efforts at convalidation will take a different course and a lot less time.

How do I know this?

Six years in the RCIA ministry working with this issue, among others.

Related question here

See also this question

What is an annulment?

  "Annulment" is an unfortunate word that is sometimes used to refer to
  a Catholic "declaration of nullity." Actually, nothing is made null
  through the process. Rather, a Church tribunal (a Catholic Church
  court) declares that a marriage thought to be valid according to
  Church law actually fell short of at least one of the essential
  elements required for a binding union.


What is the "head-band" Judith gives to Anna in the Protoevangelium of James?

First of all, let's remember that the early church considered the "Infancy Gospel of James" (a.k.a. Protoevangelium of James) an apocryphal gospel and was excluded from the canon".  See 2018 journal article The Protoevangelium of James and Its Reception in the Caucasus: Status Quaestionis.  We can read the work here, translated by Roberts-Donaldson.

The story background for the headband passage

The story began with Joachim, a righteous man who was rebuffed for being the first to offer sacrifice for the day of the Lord
because he was childless.  After confirming in the register that he was the only righteous man not having a child,
he grieved why God didn't grant him a child so he withdrew to the desert to fast 40 days without telling his wife Anna.

Anna, thinking that her absent husband had died, then began mourning.  She was rebuked by her servant girl Judith who said it was not fitting for her to be mournful at the day of the Lord.  Judith then offered her headband, which had some royal marking, for Anna to wear to the day of the Lord.  Anna refused, fearing that there was some evil attached to the headband.
Judith responded why would she would curse Anna (by giving / loaning the headband) since it was obvious that the
Lord Himself had ALREADY "cursed" her to be childless.  Being reminded of her childlessness she was grieved even further.
But even though Anna rejected the headband she accepted Judith's suggestion to quit mourning
and turned her attention to beseech God to bless her womb to conceive a child.

Thus the first two paragraphs demonstrated how Joachim and Anna were both righteous, pious, grieving, and
produced the appropriate response by crying out to the Lord.

Assistance for interpretation of the headband

I found 2 theses which can assist us interpret the confusing passages.

First, a 2010 Ph D. dissertation Accessing the Virgin: Gender and Purity in the Protevangelium of James by Lily Vuong at McMaster University (Ontario, Canada).  Quotes (emphasis mine):

  At the same time, Joachim's sojourn in the wilderness is depicted as a symbolic
  death, given that Anna's response to her husband's mysterious absence is to act as if he
  has died and put on mourning clothes (Prot. Jas. 2:1; 2:7). In fact, Anna's reaction and
  her laments over her widowhood and childlessness (Prot. Jas. 2:1 ) form our
  introduction to her, confirming at the outset, as with Joachim, her righteousness.

  Given the dramatic irony established by the text's omniscient, third-person
  narrative voice, readers simultaneously anticipate the revelation of the truth and observe
  crucial evidence of Anna's righteousness as she reacts to the false information. Namely,
  the narrator is able to depict Anna as a pious wife who, upon thinking that her husband
  has died, acts accordingly. Likewise, the author implies that she too, like Joachim, has
  misread her childlessness as an occasion for mourning rather than the portent of a
  miraculous birth.

  Symbolically, the author demonstrates Anna's righteousness by creating meaning
  through the gap between what the reader knows and what the characters know. Upon
  seeing her mistress weep and lament over the loss of her husband and over the state of her
  childlessness, Anna's maidservant Euthine reminds her that the great day of the Lord is
  not a time to mourn and offers her a headband ([Greek word omitted]), which Euthine herself
  cannot wear because, as she reports, she is a "slave and it has a mark of royalty" (Prot.
  Jas. 2:4). The precise meaning of the term [Greek word omitted] is obscure. From the narrative,
  however, it is clear that the object may carry some form of sin or involves some form of
  trickery or curse. The headband's symbolic nature, however, clearly propels the narrative
  when Anna immediately rejects it (lit. Away from me!) ([Greek text omitted]; Prot. Jas.
  2: 5) and accuses Euthine of attempting "to make [her] share in [her] sin"
  ([Greek text omitted]; Prot. Jas. 2:5). Anna's strong reaction to
  the headband connects her with Joachim's brand of righteousness in that she, too, will not
  accept any help to alleviate her barren state in any manner that might not be in accordance
  with God's will.

  Regardless of the precise nature of the headband, what is made abundantly clear is
  that Anna will not accept anything about which she is not certain. This characteristic
  speaks to her faith in God: Anna desperately wants to conceive a child, but she will not seek to do so at the risk of any possible sins against God or any possible association with any demon.

  Euthine' s subsequent reproach of Anna parallels and recalls Reubel' s earlier
  reproach of Joachim. Euthine links Anna's barrenness to divine disfavour: "The Lord
  God has shut up your womb to give you no fruit in Israel" ([Greek text omitted]; Prot. Jas. 2:6). Ironically,
  while Euthine errs in claiming that Anna will produce "no fruit in Israel," she is correct in
  her assertion that childbirth lies in the hands of God, who alone has the power to give
  birth to the barren or to close the wombs of the fertile-as the rest of the narrative will
  show. Like Reubel, however, Euthine misreads Anna's childlessness as a sign of sin. In
  her capacity as foil, then, Euthine increases the reader's sympathy for Anna by offering
  continued misinterpretations of her situation. By introducing both Anna and Joachim
  through their interactions with unskilled foil characters, the author carefully guides his
  readers to the proper method of assessing righteous behaviour: Joachim is generous,
  offers more than the necessary sacrifices, and prays and fasts, while Anna prays, resists
  any form of "magic," and adopts the proper mourning practices when she thinks her
  husband is dead (Prot. Jas. 2:1 ).

  After the discussion with Euthine, Anna removes her mourning clothes and dons
  her wedding dress, presumably in preparation for "the great day of the Lord"
  ([Greek text omitted]; Prot. Jas. 2:2). This change of clothing serves as a symbolic
  marker of Anna's shift from barrenness to fertility, accompanied by the realization that
  God controls all. That this turn of events in the narrative is initiated by the fast
  approaching and very significant "great day of the Lord" requires further consideration.
  Namely, what is precisely the "great day of the Lord," to which the narrator refers?

  In his study on the impact of Yom Kippur on early Christianity, Daniel Stökl Ben
  Ezra notes that there are three principal name forms used to refer to Yom Kippur based on
  the description of its purpose (i.e., atonement), its common practice (i.e., fasting), and its
  solemnity. The third purpose may hint towards the Protevangelium of James' allusion to
  this significant holiday. Stökl Ben Ezra notes that one of the biblical uses for the term
  Yom Kippur in Lev 16:31 is [Hebrew text omitted], which the Septuagint translates as "the Sabbath of
  Sabbaths." To underscore the importance of the holiday, Philo also refers to Yom Kippur
  as [Greek text omitted] (highest holiday). Likewise, the Protevangelium of James'
  triple reference to "the great day of the Lord" (Prot. Jas. 1:4, 2:2, 2:3) may refer to Yom
  Kippur given the text's clear emphasis on the solemnity of the festival. In my view, the
  identification of the "great day of the Lord" with Yom Kippur also makes sense in light of
  the multiple references to Joachim's sacrifices for atonement in Prot. Jas. 1:2, 5:1.

Second, a 2009 Master of Theology thesis Creating Narratives and Creating Feasts: The Entry of the Theotokos from the Protoevangelion of James to a Great Feast by Sarah A. Wagner-Wassen said the following about the headband (Note: in some translation the maid servant's name is Euthine instead of Judith, as in the translation used in this thesis) (emphasis mine):

  The narrative dependency of the early chapters of the Prot. Jas. upon the Scriptural story of the birth and dedication of Samuel (1 Sam 1-2) is clear. However, the points of similarity also seem to be a bit distorted if one superficially compares them to the basic Masoretic text. A comparison with the Greek translations, and other Second Temple and later literature, shows that there is quite a bit of literary similarity between the two narratives. Both Hannah and Anna are described as having their wombs shut by God himself and therefore are very despondent. In 1 Sam 1:6 Hannah is sad because Peninnah would tease her on account of her barrenness and in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (L.A.B.) Peninnah tells Hannah, “A wife is not beloved even if her husband loves her or her beauty. Let Hannah not glory in her appearance; but she who glories, let her glory when she sees her offspring before her. When for a woman there will not thus be present the fruit of her womb, love will be in vain.”

  It is tempting to see the role of Peninnah being refashioned in the Prot. Jas. in the character of Euthine, Anna’s servant girl who tells her that God has shut her womb and given her no fruit in Israel, causing Anna grief. However, this makes the episode in Prot. Jas. 2.2 where Euthine tries to give Anna a royal headband quite puzzling. In light of the interpretation in L.A.B., it may be easier to read Euthine as being in the role of prophetess. When Euthine tries to give Anna the headband Anna refuses it because she can not have a glorious appearance while she is childless. Nonetheless, the headband belongs to Anna, both because Anna is about to conceive Mary and because it has a royal mark, referring to the fact referenced later that Mary is a part of the royal tribe of David. The fact that the headband signified an impending conception may explain the severity of Anna’s response to Euthine’s offer; Anna believes that her barrenness is from God, and hence sees any possibility of conception to be a circumvention of God’s will and therefore the result of pagan magic. Euthine affirms Anna’s belief that God has shut her womb, but still chides Anna for not listening to her. After this Anna apparently has a change of heart because she puts on her “bridal garments” and goes to the garden to pray to God to bless her womb as he blessed the womb of Sarah, yet she is still reminded of her infertility. In the retelling of the narrative of 1 Samuel by Josephus, Hannah does not weep when Peninnah taunts her. Instead, she weeps when she sees “the other wife’s children sitting round about their mother.” Anna likewise mourns her own infertility when she sees a nest of sparrows in a laurel tree. This sylvan setting has led some scholars to read into the Prot. Jas. a connection with the sacred gardens at Antioch.  However, by comparing this text to Josephus’ interpretation it may be more likely that the author created this scene in order to recreate the fertility image of children gathered around their mother.

Attempting to answer the questions

Let's use the two interpretations to try answering the questions:

  What is the "head-band" they are talking about?  What is its significance?

We don't know for sure what the significance is, other than showing Anna's great concern for purity and righteousness.
The 2nd thesis speculated that the headband may have some magical properties to influence her fertility.  As a righteous woman she assumed that her barrenness was due to God's not opening her womb (like Hannah or Sarah).
Circumventing God's timing with magic would made it worse.  She would instead beseech God to grant her a child,
again in the manner of Hannah.

  Who is the woman that gave it to Judith, and why does the creator matter?
  What sin would Anna be participating in by accepting the head-band?

The story didn't tell us who the creator of the headband was, and there was no indication that Judith meant harm.
But because the headband would be worn to the Temple of God and ceremonial purity is of great importance,
without knowing the headband's provenance it would be very dangerous to use, inviting God's wrath that would
make her situation worse.

  Why would she want it in the first place?

The story didn't say that Anna wanted the headband in the first place.

  What are things that Anna is denying she has done ("Depart from me; for I have not done such things")?

"Not done such things" must refer to not having sinned that caused God to punish her with barrenness or with the (presumed) death of her husband.  In this way she was similar to Job who was accused by his "friends" of having sinned greatly to deserve his great misfortune.


Why does the KJV capitilise 'Devil' in Revelation but not in Luke?

This is more of an English question than a Christianity question, but the basic principles are:

Capitalize Satan, Lucifer, Devil, Evil One, Father of Lies, etc., when used as a name or title of a specific being.
Do not capitalize when used in a general sense, or when using it as an expletive.

It may be helpful to consider the example of the word "mother" in English: we'd say, "his mother is going to the store," but, on the other hand, "I'd like to go to the store, Mother."  In the first case, it's not a name, but it is in the second. However, if the sentences were changed to "The girl Mary is going to the store" and "I'd like to go to the store, Mary," we capitalize both times, because "Mary" is always a name.

Now, to the examples.  The KJV always capitalizes the word "Satan".  Same thing for Lucifer.  These the KJV considers to be clearly names.  But, "devil" is different: most of the time, it is not capitalized.  It's generally used like the word "mother," or "demon"—not a name, but a simple noun.

That's how it's used in Luke 4:2.  If you click the link, you'll see that some translations take a different approach: it can be a judgment call.

In other cases, it's more clear: in Revelation 12:9 many translations capitalize "Devil" (note the phrase, "called the," indicating that it's a name):

  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world (KJV)

Similarly, in John 6:70, all translations use lower-case "devil" because it's very clear that the text is not referring to Satan himself:

  Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? (KJV)


Why was Jesus offered vinegar and gall on the cross, and why did he refuse it?

It was some sort of potion designed to dull the senses and lessen the suffering of those being executed.

Biblehub contains several commentaries on this verse. One from Ellicott’s commentary reads in part:

  It was clearly something at once nauseous and narcotic, given by the merciful to dull the pain of execution, and mixed with the sour wine of the country and with myrrh to make it drinkable. It may have been hemlock, or even poppy-juice, but there are no materials for deciding. It is probable that the offer came from the more pitiful of the women mentioned by St. Luke (Luke 23:27) as following our Lord and lamenting. Such acts were among the received “works of mercy” of the time and place. The “tasting” implied a recognition of the kindly purpose of the act, but a recognition only. In the refusal to do more than taste we trace the resolute purpose to drink the cup which His Father had given Him to the last drop, and not to dull either the sense of suffering nor the clearness of His communion with His Father with the slumberous potion. The same draught was, we may believe, offered to the two criminals who were crucified with Him.


Regarding your question, if it is a matter of deceit or not - consider the original context.

First you should read the whole chapter: 1 Kings 22

The subject has to do with truth, amazingly.

  13 The messenger who went to call Micaiah said to him, Behold now, the
  prophets unanimously declare good to the king. Let your answer, I pray
  you, be like theirs, and say what is good.

  14 But Micaiah said, As the Lord lives, I will speak what the Lord
  says to me.

The king demands to hear the truth.

  16 And the king said to him, How many times must I charge you to tell
  me nothing but the truth in the name of the Lord?

So the prophet tells the truth.

Then there is the part you mention where God asks "who will go fool Ahab" and a spirit says "I'll be a deceptive spirit in his prophets..." and that is agreed upon.

And thus the prophet summarizes:

  23 So the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these
  prophets; and the Lord has spoken evil concerning you.

Notice too - what God said was distinctly different than what the lying spirit said.

So you can see that although there was indeed deception, God revealed the truth (he cannot lie, and he is the "revealer of secrets") but as usual Ahab follows his own self-convenient thinking and heart as many do.

This is similar to what is said here:

Deuteronomy 13:1-3

  If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a
  sign or a wonder,

  2 And the sign or the wonder he foretells to you comes to pass, and if
  he says, Let us go after other gods—gods you have not known—and let us
  serve them,

  3 You shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer
  of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you
  love the Lord your God with all your [mind and] heart and with your
  entire being.

Again - with the fore-knowledge of such things, you actually have the truth of the matter ahead of time so the seeming deception is irrelevant - unless one's lying heart wishes to believe it. God has not lied. (Romans 3:4)

Similar passages:
2 Samuel 15:31

  31 David was told, Ahithophel [your counselor] is among the
  conspirators with Absalom. David said, O Lord, I pray You, turn
  Ahithophel’s counsel into foolishness.

Job 5:13

  13 He catches the [so-called] wise in their own trickiness, and the
  counsel of the schemers is brought to a quick end.


Is the Roman Catholic understanding of forgiveness different from the Protestant understanding?

A Catholic Understanding
There are two parts to your question:

Can one forgive another for a wrong they have not suffered personally?
Can one forgive another if God has not forgiven them?

One at a time.
Can one forgive another for a wrong they have not suffered personally?
If one hasn't suffered a wrong personally, it's not clear that there's anything to forgive, or be forgiven, in a technical sense. I might feel outraged as a Catholic by the way Catholics have historically been treated, or as an Irish citizen (at least technically) by the way the Irish have often been treated; but that doesn't mean there's anything for me to forgive. I am required to live in charity with my neighbor, however; and to that extent I may be said to "forgive" someone if I put aside my anger at them (an anger I have developed on behalf of another) and dwell with them in peace. Indeed I must do so:

When you stand to pray, forgive anyone against whom you have a grievance, so that your heavenly Father may in turn forgive you your transgressions.

(Mark 11:24)
Can one forgive another if God has not forgiven them?
From a Catholic perspective, there are a few things to be addressed here. First of all: Should one forgive a person who does not appear to have sincerely expressed repentance? Second: Assuming that someone has expressed what appears to be sincere repentance, is it possible that God does not forgive them? Finally: is it possible, or morally right, to forgive someone whom God does not forgive? Let's take those individually.

Should one forgive another who has not sincerely repented?

In his discussions of forgiveness, Jesus nowhere appears to put conditions.

Then Peter approaching asked him, "Lord, if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive him? As many as seven times?" Jesus answered, "I say to you, not seven times but seventy-seven times."

(Matthew 18:21–22; New American Bible, Revised Edition)
The NABRE note to this text points out the similarity to Genesis 4:24, and notes:

In any case, what is demanded of the disciples is limitless forgiveness.

Further, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (in the context of its discussion of family life) states:

Each and everyone should be generous and tireless in forgiving one another for offenses, quarrels, injustices, and neglect. Mutual affection suggests this. The charity of Christ demands it.

(paragraph 2227)
Thus, it appears that from a Catholic perspective, yes; one should and indeed must forgive another regardless of whether they have repented or not.

Assuming that someone has sincerely repented, is it possible that God does not forgive them?

No.

"There is no one, however wicked and guilty, who may not confidently hope for forgiveness, provided his repentance is honest."

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 982, quoting the Roman Catechism, Part I, chapter 11, paragraph 5)

Is it possible, or morally right, to forgive someone whom God does not forgive?

We can never know for certain whom God has forgiven, and whom he has not. God is not bound by his Sacraments, and has many ways of forgiving, even up to the point of death. Further, we have the two prior statements: that we must forgive others regardless of circumstances, and that God will forgive one who sincerely repents.


Is there a good overview of Christian denominations/churches and their mapping between countries

You can find a fairly comprehensive history of Christian Denominations and their origins on the Wikipedia article for "Christian denomination."

This chart, written by Wendell Holmes Rone from a distinctly Landmarkist perspective, maps out some of the key denominational differences. (Click to enlarge images)

If don't mind excessive advertising, a more comprehensive chart can be found here: Denominations Beliefs

As far as maps go, here's a fairly current source (2010) that maps distinct denominations within the US and broader categories of Christianity throughout the world based on internet presence.

From Britanica (1995)

Find out more here:

Mapping Religious Cyberscapes

New Technologies and Interdisciplinary Research on Religion

Mapping Christianity


Do Mormons have Sunday services?/What does the regular Mormon liturgy look like?

First, a point of terminology.  Do you live near a Mormon temple (a large and spectacular building, recognizable by a distinctive golden statue of an angel with a trumpet on top) or a Mormon church (an ordinary church building, usually with a spire)?

Temples are very special and sacred places that are only available to members of the church in good standing.  The worship ceremonies that are performed inside are not often discussed outside of the temple, not because they're secret, but because they're sacred.  But churches are open to the public, and usually have a sign either on the side of the building or on the grounds near the entrance to the parking lot that explicitly says "Visitors Welcome."

Church services are a 3-hour block on Sundays; exactly which 3 hours can be found by putting your address into the church's online meetinghouse locator tool.  They consist of three meetings, which each last approximately one hour.

Sacrament Meeting is the common congregation meeting in which everyone meets together to pray, sing, take the Sacrament [also known as Communion or Lord's Supper in other faiths], and listen to talks by members of the congregation.  (Latter-Day Saints have a lay clergy, so the leaders have professional responsibilities outside the church and don't prepare a sermon every week, instead sharing that responsibility with the rest of the congregation.)

The other two hours are Sunday School classes, where people split up to meet with others based on various criteria.  If you were to drop by, you would certainly find someone willing to show you around.


How do the (Roman) Catholic Church and the (Anglican) Church of Uganda view "wife inheritance"?

The Catholic church holds that the parties to a marriage must freely consent to it.
From the Catechism:

1625 The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; "to be free" means:

not being under constraint;

not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.

1626 The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that "makes the marriage." If consent is lacking there is no marriage.

Much more specific detail follows.
So any marriage that is forced on one of the parties, either the widow or the husband's brother in the example, is invalid. A marriage such as described that is entered into freely by both parties is valid.
I'm fairly certain that the Anglican church takes the same view.


How do Catholics explain that the fighting leaders of the Hebrews were old men?

I don't have a specifically Catholic perspective but by the time of the events in the book of Joshua, the physical people Judah, Simeon, and the other 10 patriarchs that the tribes of Israel were named after were long dead.

Here's what's going on:

The 12 tribes of Israel were named after the sons of Jacob (their births in Genesis 30). One of those sons, Joseph, ended up in a high position in Egypt despite a lot of extremely unfortunate events and invites his family to live with him to save them from drought and live prosperously in Egypt (Genesis 46). Generations pass (meaning all those patriarchs have died), a new pharaoh takes over who hates the Israelites, and the stage is set for Moses's story (Exodus 1). Exodus 1:6 specifically says that Joseph and all his brothers had died.

By the time of the events in Joshua, Moses has already led these people out slavery in Egypt, is dead, and the descendants of the 12 sons of Jacob have inhabited the land God promised them - more or less (lots of wrestling over the land is happening at this point). The region is eventually won by the Israelites and divided into 12 territories, one for each tribe that traces its lineage back to a son of Jacob (Joshua 14).

So...

Long story short, by the events you're referencing in Judges 1, Judah and Simeon have been dead for a long time. The name "Judah" at this point refers to the descendants of Judah, and "Simeon" refers to the descendants of Simeon. Referring to the group of people by the name of their well-known ancestor was common at the time.


Why do Mormon missionaries travel in pairs?

There are many reasons why we send our missionaries out "two by two".
First of all it was given by way of revelation to Joseph Smith that he should send out missionaries in this matter.

  Doctrine & Covenants 42:6 And ye shall go forth in the power of my
  Spirit, preaching my gospel, two by two, in my name, lifting up your
  voices as with the sound of a trump, declaring my word like unto
  angels of God.

This command was also given by the Saviour himself when he sent forth his apostles "two by two" proclaiming his gospel to the people.

  Mark 6:7 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them
  forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;

It is not always done two by two. If an odd number of missionaries are in a certain area, a group of 3 may be organized though not common. Fulltime missionaries will often invite regular members to come along with them on their visits. Fulltime missionaries are never permitted to evangelize by them selves. There are also many practical reasons for this. Safety being first and foremost.


What if Israel had accepted Jesus as their Lord? (Catholic perspective)

This question reminds me of the "felix culpa" ("happy fault [of Adam]")¹ question of whether Christ would have become incarnate had Adam not sinned. If Adam had not sinned, how could've God worked greater goods?

Similarly in the case of the fall of the Jews: If the Jews had not fallen, how could there be "the salvation of the Gentiles by means of the death of Christ, the rejection of the apostles, and the subsequent Jewish Diaspora…[or] [t]he shedding of Christ's blood, the apostles' preaching mission to the Gentiles after a largely unsuccessful Jewish mission, and the spread of the books and prophecies concerning the Christ",² great goods St. Thomas Aquinas lists in his Commentary on Romans³ §881?

St. Thomas Aquinas also states, in Commentary on Romans⁴ §884:

  …si Deus propter utilitatem totius mundi permisit Iudaeos delinquere et diminui, multo magis implebit ruinas eorum propter totius mundi utilitatem…[…if God, on account of the benefit (utilitatem) for the whole world permitted the Jews to be wanting and to diminish, much more will he fulfill their downfalls on account of the benefit for the whole world…]³

Sources:

St. Thomas writes: "in the blessing of the Paschal candle, we say: 'O happy fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer!'"
Boguslawski, Steven C. Thomas Aquinas on the Jews: Insights into His Commentary on Romans 9-11. Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 2008. p. 115fn74.
Thomas, Fabian R Larcher, John Mortensen, and Enrique Alarcón. Commentary on the letter of Saint Paul to the Romans. Lander, Wyo.: Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine, 2012.
(Latin only version) ch. 11, lecture 2
translation from Boguslawski p. 98, § "Fall of the Jews"


Do Christians who view homosexuality as a sin believe that homosexuals can be freed from their sinful condition by the power of God?

Jesus gave the only example of unforgivable sin : the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Therefore if a self-confessed Christian defines anything else (other than that specific blasphemy) as 'sin' they automatically define that behaviour, conduct or activity as 'forgivable', by very definition.
But then they also define it as something not to be continued in , for 'he that is born of God does not practice sin'.
This is all a matter, of course, of those who (primarily) define themselves as 'Christian' and who also (secondly) define (any specific) activity as 'sin'.

All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme, But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: [Mark 3:27,28 KJV]

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit [or, practice] sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. [1 John 3:9 KJV]

The question is asking about what is being defined as a 'desire' which is specifically dealt with in scripture, such as in Romans chapter 7.
But the specifics of Romans 7 require further treatment and further questions.
For 'desire' is not an outward action but an inward (and constitutional) instinct. Which Paul covers under the broad heading of 'coveting'.
In this respect it would have been more logical to have (first) asked the question as to whether self-identifying Christians perceive that 'sinful desires', generally (and indiscriminately) speaking, are 'reversed' by the influences of the Divine Spirit who is, personally, Holy.
Such as coveting other people's money, for example, something common to all humanity.


Who is a Christian according to the Catholic Church?

Those who are validly baptized are Christians.  From Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church from the Second Vatican Council:

  The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.


Does Sola Scriptura go hand in hand with personal interpretation?

First off, your basic premise is spot on.  As a lifelong evangelical, my biggest gripe with evangelicalism is that we either dismiss or declare heretical anything that is based on "Tradition," ignoring the fact that all readers of Scripture do so with a tradition in mind.  Any theological framework (rapture? trinity? the words don't appear in Scripture!) frames the way that a passage is read, which in turn heavily affects the outcome.

As an example, Isaiah 7:14 is clearly read as a prophecy of Jesus - and the Gospels reinforce that it should. And yet, the context clearly states that it was supposed to be fulfilled immediately.  But, because of tradition, even the Gospel writers also "knew" this was supposed to speak of the Messiah.

As another example, every time a true "Fire and Brimstone" sermon is preached, the fires of hell are quite warm. And yet, the biblical warrant of Hell is limited at best.  (I'm not saying Hell doesn't exist - quite the contrary - but find it in your Bible, you may be surprised how little the Bible talks about it.)

So, in both of these instances, I suggest that the "personal interpretation" is, regardless of what the person may want, heavily guided by a tradition.  What differs are two main points:

The Protestant explicitly rejects the Magisterium.

While they don't voice this, to many Protestants, the Pope is still selling indulgences and banning people from reading the Bible for themselves.  This is patently false, but it informs the worldview.

As such, the typical Protestant exercise in interpreting scripture is to try to analyze it in a vacuum, trying to get back to "the first church," (never mind that even the first churches had their own problems - see Corinth, Ephesus - Rev 2, etc...)  This tradition causes the believer to ask "What would this have meant if X had not been the historical interpretation" which colors the analysis.

The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers was promulgated precisely to fight against this excess.  Traditionally, Protestants think "the priesthood of all believers" means that there is no need for a priest.  Go back to the original doctrine, however, and you'll see that what was meant was that every believer would serve as a priest to everyone else.  Private Interpretation was regularly denounced by Calvin and Luther, precisely because of the bad interpretation that could result.  The priesthood was supposed to be the corrective precisely to private interpretation.

In the end, however, that hasn't worked out terribly well.  The marriage of philosophy and theology and the opening of seminaries to a much wider audience has been the new tradition in which Scripture is read.  It has become traditional to refer to theologians like Ryrie, Scofield, Lewis, LaHaye, etc... instead of the Magisterium, but in the end, we've really gotten back to just having a separate tradition that we cite.

A sizeable number of Protestants would argue that the Left Behind books are built on the exact timeline of the end times "based on Revelations."  Mind you, they can't get more specific than that (because it ain't there folks!), but we have that timeline in our heads and accept it as dogma for all practical purposes.

We'd also say that the Four Spiritual Laws are effectively dogma. Each point in the 4 Spritual Laws has scriptural warrant, yes - but the notion that "this is what it means to be saved" is tradition, not scripture.

To answer your question another way, no you can't define something as dogma strictly by tradition, but you can effectively arrive at the same result.


What evidence do we have that Blind Bartimaeus approached Jesus naked?

I do not know who else has said this, but one prominent commentator who is of this opinion is the
Venerable Bede (672-735), in his commentary on Mark.1
He does not offer historical reasons for why the blind man might have been naked, but presents
his nudity in the context of the doctrine of being "born again" in Christ. As you say, this
involves casting off the old ways, like taking off ones old clothes (compare Mark 2:21).
In imitation of Christ, for which Bede cites John 12:26, we must re-enter the world (metaphorically)
naked and vulnerable, knowing that we may face terrible hardships; and we choose to humble ourselves
rather than submit to false worldly comforts.

My fairly free translation of the key passage:

  Since there are many, who so they may merit the treasure of eternity in heaven, cast off worldly ways
  and follow naked the gospel of life, it is rightly said of the illumination of the blind man:
  Who throwing his garment aside, leaped up and came to him.
  He indeed throws aside his garment and leaps, coming to be illuminated by Christ, who,
  with the snares of the world discarded, hurries with bold and eager steps to the granter of eternal
  light. [...] See, how the Lord and creator of the angels, in his taking up and joining with our
  nature, came in the womb of a virgin. But he did not wish to be born in this world from the wealthy,
  but chose poor parents.2

Latin nudus may not mean precisely "naked", but at least refers to a condition of vulnerability or destitution. Even if Bartimaeus was not strictly naked, he was at least making a "leap of faith" in throwing his cloak aside: discarding what little comfort he had in order to follow Jesus.

1. In Marci Evangelium Expositio, book 3, chapter 10. In Migne's Patrologia Latina,
vol. 92, p238-239.
2. Quia [...] ut plurimi, relictis mundi facultatibus, nudi evangelicam vitam sequerentur,
quo aeternum in coelis mererentur habere thesaurum, recte de illuminando caeco subditur:
Qui projecto vestimento suo exsiliens venit ad eum. Projecto quippe vestimento exsilit,
ut adveniens illuminetur a Christo, qui abiectis mundi retinaculis, expedito mentis
gressu ad largitorem aeternae lucis properat. [...]
Ecce cum sit Dominus et creator angelorum, suscepturus naturam nostram quam condidit,
in uterum virginis venit. Nasci tamen in hoc mundo per divites noluit, parentes pauperes
elegit.


Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43

I have heard three resolutions to the series of problems posed by this verse, and found a fourth researching your question. First, I challenge the assumption "as we see that Jesus did not go to paradise that day".

Omnipresence. Jesus possesses two natures, divine and human, linked into a unit in a way that is inexpressible. The divine nature of Jesus has always been in the presence of God in Heaven, and always will. The human nature and physical person of Christ would not ascend to Heaven until the third day. So the thief on the cross would on that very day be with the spirit of Jesus in Heaven.
Change in destiny. The "today" refers to the time of the change in the thief's destiny. He had been headed for Hell, but "today" that changed. Now that he has confessed his sins and believed in Jesus as his king he is saved and his destiny is to go to Heaven and be there with Jesus, how ever long that journey may take, whether one day, three, or a thousand years in purgatory (which I do not believe in, but also a possibility if you accept this interpretation). So a rewording would be, "As of Today, you will be with me in paradise."
Paradise. This revolves around the word "paradise". If it is not Heaven, but instead the place of the righteous dead (like Abraham) who had not ascended into Heaven yet because Jesus had not yet paid for their sins, then that was where the thief would go - "today". The thief would accompany Jesus on his journey to Paradise to set the captives free, then escort them into Heaven.

For reference: Here is the Greek in question:

Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ , Ἀμήν σοι λέγω , σήμερον μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ Παραδείσῳ .

It is the comma after λέγω (lego) that is being questioned.

Contradicting my favorite view.

Here is Wilson Paroschi's take on the question, in an article from Ministry Magazine: https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2013/06/the-significance-of-a-comma:-an-analysis-of-luke-23:43

There is minority support for the later placement of the comma after σήμερον (today) in Codex Vaticanus and the Curetonian Syriac, but also early additions of the word "that" into the Greek to cement our current, more common translation.

Quoting the above article in defense of the later placement of the comma:

  Among the church writers, this reading was also attested by Ephraem
  the Syrian, of the fourth century,7 as well as Cassian and Hesychius,
  of the fifth century.

In a section of the article on linguistic evidence:

  In Greek, there is no specific rule concerning the position of the
  adverb, whether before or after the verb.11 Thus, from the grammatical
  standpoint we find it impossible to determine if sēmeron in Luke 23:43
  modifies the preceding verb (“to tell”) or the following one (“to
  be”). Luke, however, has a definite tendency of using this adverb with
  the preceding verb. This happens in 14 of the 20 occurrences of
  sēmeron in Luke and Acts (Luke 2:11; 5:26; 12:28; 13:32, 33; 22:34,
  61; Acts 19:40; 20:26; 22:3; 24:21; 26:2, 29; 27:33).12 Of the five
  uses of the adverb with the following verb, one is a quotation from
  Psalm 2:7 (Acts 13:33), and, in three cases, sēmeron is preceded by a
  conjunction (Luke 4:21; 19:5, 9),13 which makes such a construction
  inevitable. That is, there is only one example in Luke’s writings in
  which sēmeron was freely placed before the verb (Acts 4:9). The
  attempt to read the adverb in Luke 23:43 in connection to the
  preceding verb, therefore, is not only fully acceptable in terms of
  grammar but is also in complete agreement with Luke’s literary style.

Convention upheld. Another view, affirming the conventional placement of the comma:
http://www.99for1ministries.com/Placement%20of%20the%20Comma%20in%20Luke%2023-43.pdf

This article refers to Mark 14:30, the only other place where Jesus makes a similar reference to today, and where it would make no sense to attach the "today" to the "say to you".

  “And Jesus said to him, “Truly I say to you, that this very night,
  [amen lego soi lego semeron taute te nykti] before a rooster crows
  twice, you yourself will deny Me three times.”

This article lists all ALL 76 passages in the Gospels where Jesus says, "Truly I say to you", allowing you to see that either a comma or the word "that" is always placed after the word today.


What is the Biblical basis to declare that 'justice necessitates the resurrection of the body'?

The Final Judgement that determines that the wicked are to be cast into the Lake of Fire is detailed in Rev. 20.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. [If there is a 1st resurrection there must be at least a second]

It will be 1000 years after the resurrection of the righteous that the wicked will be resurrected for Judgement before being cast into the Lake of Fire.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God [This is the only place that makes sense for the second resurrection]; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. [After being raised the dead are judged]
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. [Every dead person will be raised at some point]
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. [The punishment is then executed]

It is very poetical in nature, but these verses together show that the dead are indeed resurrected, just as the righteous, shortly before being judged then cast into the Lake of Fire, the second death. Some do argue that the resurrection is not bodily, however, they are a small minority.
I don't think justice necessitates the resurrection, unless you adhere to Annihilationism. It just happens to be the order that it will be done according to the Bible. I currently have a related question about why the wicked are raised only to suffer eternal hell because it seems unnecessary to me to give the wicked a body unless punishment has something to do with the body.


How does the relationship of the Church of Scotland to the state differ from that of the Church of England?

The Church of Scotland is not a state church. It is recognised as "national church", but it is independent of the state in matters spiritual. The Church of Scotland and the Church of England have very different histories - it is not a question of one trying to imitate the other.

The Scottish Reformation of 1560 took place when Scotland was still a separate state. The Reformation was recognised by the Scottish Parliament. A long struggle between Episcoplian and Presbyterian factions ensued; Presbyterianism was finally recognised in 1689-90. The Treaty of Union between Scotland and England in 1707 also guaranteed Presbyterian church government within the Church of Scotland. State intervention, however, proved problematic and was a contributing factor to the "Disruption" in the Church of Scotland in 1843 (over the right of appointment of ministers). To help secure the reunion of the majority of the United Free Church of Scotland and the Church of Scotland in 1929, the British Parliament recognised the "Articles Declaratory" of the Church of Scotland as lawful (by the Church of Scotland Act 1921). The Articles Declaratory express the Church's self-understanding as a national church, yet independent from the jurisdiction of the state in matters spiritual.

Bishops in the Church of England are (technically) appointed by the Queen. "Measures" of the Church of England's General Synod are subject to Parliamentary approval. There is no such state appointment/ratification system applying to the the Church of Scotland; the General Assembly is the Supreme Court of the Church of Scotland - the Queen may observe (or send a Lord High Commissioner in her place); the "throne gallery" is formally regarded as being "outside" the Assembly Hall.


What is the biblical basis for the idea that the church is a hospital for sinners?

And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and
  sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and
  drinketh with publicans and sinners?

  When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no
  need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the
  righteous, but sinners to repentance.

  Mark 2:16-17

Jesus' ministry was not limited to just the spiritual. He healed the sick, physical healing; he ministered to the brokenhearted, emotional healing; and he taught and preached, spiritual healing.

  And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their
  synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every
  sickness and every disease among the people.

  Matthew 9:35

  The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed
  me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up
  the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the
  opening of the prison to them that are bound.

  Isaiah 61:1


What does "biblical Christianity" mean to evangelical Protestants?

Biblical Christianity vs. un-Biblical Christianity

In regards to protestantism, Biblical Christianity could probably be defined or characterized by how one would describe un-Biblical Christianity. What is unbiblical Christianity? It is Christianity (or the claim thereof) that lives or teaches something in contradiction to Scripture.

Naturally, to conclude that something contradicts the truth of the Scripture, one must have an idea of what is meant (ultimately, by God) by what is written. That involves fallible humans, and therein is a source of inconsistency and disunity.

In general, Biblical Christianity means that you live and believe things consistent with the testimony of Scripture. Though some might claim something as narrow as @Anonymous ("whatever-I-believe-in"), I don't think this is what is meant by most people who use the phrase. They are, at least, claiming that what they believe is not their own idea, but is taken from the Bible.

A related phrase, "that's [not] Biblical," answers the question as to whether or not an idea is compatible, harmonious, or incompatible with the Scripture. For people who claim to hold to sola scriptura, the Bible is the ultimate check of any idea, and so everything a Christian believes and does should "be Biblical" because those things should all be harmonious (or at least compatible—an allowance for people who don't agree with you but whose conclusions are at least a reasonable interpretation) with the testimony of Scripture.


The common Christian answer goes straight to the words Jesus spoke in John 8:58

  Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was,
  I AM."

This is understood now, and was understood at the time, as Jesus claiming to be God, referring to the the words God spoke to Moses from the burning bush.

This is covered in much greater detail at Let Us Reason Ministries.

Excerpt:

  Who do you say Jesus is? Jesus asked this same question to his
  disciples about what others thought of him and then asked what they
  thought of him.

  Jn.5:37: "And the Father himself, who sent me, has borne witness of
  me. You have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
  ‘Jesus gives the source of his commission, which is from the Father
  personally. It is the Fathers voice and form they have not seen, yet
  Christ has.

  Christ who is called the exact image of the invisible Father is the
  voice that the people heard. He then says that they search the
  Scriptures in them you think you have eternal life but they testify of
  me."(v.39) The Son is said to be the eternal life with the Father. Are
  we to believe the Scriptures testify of only a human being and not God
  himself? In the end of the discourse Jesus says in vs.46-47 "If you
  believed Moses you would believe Me; for he wrote about me. But if you
  don’t believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"

  When did Moses write of him? Deut.18:15-19: "The LORD your God will
  raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your
  brethren. Him you shall hear, "according to all you desired of the
  LORD your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, 'Let me not
  hear again the voice of the LORD my God, nor let me see this great
  fire anymore, lest I die.' "And the LORD said to me: 'What they have
  spoken is good. 'I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from
  among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall
  speak to them all that I command Him. 'And it shall be that whoever
  will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it
  of him." Jesus claims to be the prophet Moses spoke of that should
  listen to. Notice that it says they did not want to hear the voice of
  the Lord anymore or see his glory in Horeb. Then God says he will put
  his words in a future prophets mouth if they do not listen to his
  words, God will require it of him." This very thing Jesus said of
  himself in Jn.8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your
  sins; for if you do not believe that I am (He), you will die in your
  sins."

This is also famously covered in C.S. Lewis's Trilemma

  "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing
  that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great
  moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one
  thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of
  things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either
  be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg
  — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice.
  Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or
  something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him
  and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord
  and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his
  being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did
  not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a
  lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying
  or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is
  God."


Are there any denominations that teach a Hell that is not a place?

This seemingly simple question is going to require a relatively complex answer.

A good place to start is this Wikipedia article. As it shows, there is Christian disagreement on whether Hell is primarily a state, or primarily a place, and that disagreement is not necessarily along denominational lines. Even those that describe Hell as a place may consider that language symbolic: Pope John Paul II stated on 28 July 1999 that, in speaking of hell as a place, the Bible uses "a symbolic language", which "must be correctly interpreted … Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy.

Most Evangelical Protestants, asked to define Hell, would usually say "Hell is separation from God", rather than define it as a place where torture and pain occur: eternal separation from God is sufficiently painful that no other punishment is necessary, and the language of fire and brimstone is simply a picture of that pain (an atheist would of course contend that separation from God is no punishment at all). Billy Graham defines Hell in that way in his seminal evangelical book Peace with God.

Although the definition of Hell is separation, that does not necessarily imply that Hell is not also a place. For separation to be real there must be no interaction, and it is therefore implict that those separated from God (and others who have chosen to be with him) are in 'a different place' in some sense. However for mainstream Christians the 'being in a different place' is secondary.

There are significant numbers of Christians who would disagree with this view - even some that literally believe Hell is at the centre of the earth - but since they frequently do not divide along denominational lines, any attempt to produce the list the question asks for is doomed to failure.

A good introductory read (which should itself be taken as allegory rather than a theological treatise) is C.S. Lewis The Great Divorce. A simple Google search will also turn up all sorts of views on Hell and its nature.

You should also read the answers to this question.


Is it more Participatio Actuosa if the congregation hears the words of the Consecration?

"Active participation" means participating in the prayer of the Mass.
"Active participation" originally meant the congregation participating in the priest's sacrifice, especially by singing the Gregorian chant (cf. Pope St. Pius X, Tra le sollecitudini).
The words of consecration must not be said in a loud voice.
The Council of Trent, Session 22, Doctrina de ss. Missae sacrificio, 17 September 1562 anathematizes those who think

Canon IX.— […] that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone [submissa voce], is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only

It also says (Chapter V. On the solemn ceremonies of the Sacrifice of the Mass.) that

holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit, that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low [summissa], and others in a louder [elatiore], tone [voce].

This teaching was also taught by Pope Pius VI in his bull Auctorem Fidei condemning the heretical Council of Pistoia [DZ 1533]:

The proposition of the [heretical] synod [of Pistoia:] […] "[…] by expressing it [the liturgy] in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice"; […]—rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it.


Be aware that this doesn't apply to all christian denominations, but probably most. When we say "dying", it's the physical body that dies. The spirit never dies in the sense of ceasing to exist, be it humans or God.
The resurrection is reuniting the spirit and body.
In resurrecting, Jesus conquered death and opened the path for all humankind to be ressurrected.


Jesus rejects equality with God - How does this statement reconcile with traditional teachings?

Your question seems to be in some degree to be based on the hypostatic union.

  Hypostatic union is a technical term in Christian theology employed in mainstream Christology to describe the union of Christ's humanity and divinity in one hypostasis, or individual existence. - Wikipedia.

Since Jesus is by nature both divine and human (both God and man) it should not be surprising that Our Lord spoke in ways that reflected one nature at one time and then in a way that reflected the another nature. When Jesus said that the "Father is greater than I", he was speaking through his human nature.

  Jesus is the most important person who has ever lived since he is the Savior, God in human flesh.  He is not half God and half man.  He is fully divine and fully man.  In other words, Jesus has two distinct natures: divine and human.  Jesus is the Word who was God and was with God and was made flesh (John 1:1, 14).  This means that in the single person of Jesus he has both a human and divine nature, God and man.  The divine nature was not changed when the Word became flesh (John 1:1, 14).  Instead, the Word was joined with humanity (Col. 2:9).  Jesus' divine nature was not altered.  Also, Jesus is not merely a man who "had God within Him," nor is he a man who "manifested the God principle."  He is God in flesh, second person of the Trinity.  "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word." (Heb. 1:3).  Jesus' two natures are not "mixed together" (Eutychianism), nor are they combined into a new God-man nature (Monophysitism).  They are separate yet act as a unit in the one person of Jesus.  This is called the Hypostatic Union.

  The following chart should help you see the two natures of Jesus "in action":

  GOD
  He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2, 11; 14:33)

  He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8)

  He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)

  He is prayed to (Acts 7:59)

  He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15)

  He knows all things (John 21:17)

  He gives eternal life (John 10:28)

  All the fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9)

  MAN
  He worshiped the Father (John 17)

  He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5)

  He was called Son of Man (John 9:35-37)

  He prayed to the Father (John 17)

  He was tempted (Matt. 4:1)

  He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52)

  He died (Rom. 5:8)

  He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39)

  The Communicatio Idiomatum

  A doctrine that is related to the Hypostatic Union is the communicatio idiomatum (Latin for "communication of properties").  This is the teaching that the attributes of both the divine and human natures are ascribed to the one person of Jesus.  This means that the man Jesus could lay claim to the glory He had with the Father before the world was made (John 17:5), claim that He descended from heaven (John 3:13), and also claim omnipresence (Matt. 28:20).  All of these are divine qualities that are laid claim to by Jesus; therefore, the attributes of the divine properties were claimed by the person of Jesus.

  For a proper understanding of Jesus and, therefore, all other doctrines that relate to Him, His two natures must be properly understood and defined.  Jesus is one person with two natures.  This is why He would grow in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52) and yet know all things (John 21:17).  He is the Divine Word that became flesh (John 1:1, 14). - Jesus' Two Natures: God and Man.


Why do Protestants trust what Paul and Luke wrote 100%?

Protestants trust what Paul and Luke wrote for the same reason Catholics, and all other Christians, believe what they wrote is correct: because the rest of the New Testament testifies to the veracity of what they say.

Peter asserts Paul's writings are scripture in 2 Peter 3:14-16. The first several chapters of Acts are about everyone but Paul. And, from Paul's conversion to his ministry is a period of several years, wherein the other Apostles are followed and written about.

In Acts 15, where the Council at Jerusalem is recorded, several Apostles affirm Paul's work.


Would frozen holy water still retain its blessing?

Changes of state are accidental changes, not substantial changes—viz., frozen water is still water, despite it changing temperature, density, having a different amount of air dissolved in it, etc.

The 1957 Missal's De Defectibus ("Defects in the Celebration of the Mass") contains this statement about if the consecrated Blood of Christ freezes:

  Si in hieme Sanguis congeletur in Calice, involvatur Calix pannis calefactis: si id non proficeret, ponatur in ferventi aqua prope Altare, dummodo in Calicem non intret, donec liquefiat.If in the winter the Blood freezes in the Chalice, wrap the Chalice with warm cloths: if this does not work, put [the Chalice] in hot water near the Altar, such that the it does not enter the Chalice, until [the Blood] liquefies.

It does not say that frozen Blood of Christ ceases to be His Blood. Similarly, frozen holy water is still holy water.


Question about the PCUSA treatment of Scriptures

If you hold from the outset that the Bible can contain errors, then it would obviously be easy to say that the passage in the Bible that says otherwise (2 Timothy 3:16-17) is itself in error. So I suppose that's the answer. Inerrancy is not a doctrine you can derive from the Bible if you don't already believe in inerrancy, since you will simply dismiss 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as wishful thinking if you aren't already convinced of the doctrine of inerrancy.  Why do people who don't believe in the Bible not all of the sudden change their minds when 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is read to them?  Because they don't believe in the Bible, so why would a quotation from the Bible convince them?

But when you're dealing with a church that doesn't believe in inerrancy, its more than with some atheist.  They need the Bible to legitimize themselves, but they don't want to accept certain things it says.  Its just like politicians who wrap themselves behind the Constitution, or more particularly the Bill of Rights, while at the same time trying to take away some of the rights guaranteed there. When you need a document to legitimize your business enterprise, you use as much of it as you want, to your profit, and reject as much of it as you don't want.


Did Jesus have a cover on the head?
In general, it is now believed the Jesus did not wear something on his head. Whether or not Our Lord covered his head against the the external elements of nature is anyone’s guess, but prudence would dictate a possibility in this scenario.
We do know that he wore a Crown of Thorns at his Crucifixion. In fact, this is the only occasion that we historically know that Jesus wore something on his head.

Did Jesus Wear a Kippah?
It is certain that Jesus, a Jew residing in the land of Israel in the first century, did not wear a kippah (skullcap).
The custom of wearing a kippah arose in Babylonia between the third and fifth centuries C.E. among the non-Jewish residents—Jewish residents of Babylonia had not yet adopted this custom, as the Dura-Europos frescoes show—and passed from there to the Jewish community of Europe.
Although priests wore a מִגְבַּעַת (migba’at, a turban-like headdress; see Exod. 28:4, 40; Lev. 8:13), other Jews of the Second Temple period did not wear a headcovering. This is confirmed both by the literature and archaeological remains of the period. For instance, the reliefs on the Arch of Titus in Rome, which depict the victory procession in Rome following the conquest of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., show the Jewish captives bareheaded. Likewise, the frescoes of the mid-third century C.E. synagogue excavated at Dura-Europos represent all the Jewish men as bareheaded except for Aaron the priest.

Is our modern imagery of how Jesus truly looked like all that accurate?

Dressed in basics
There is no neat physical description of Jesus in the Gospels or in ancient Christian literature. But there are incidental details. From the Bible (for example, Mark 6:56) you can discover that he wore a mantle – a large shawl ("himation" in Greek) – which had tassels, described as "edges"; a distinctively Jewish tallith in a form it was in antiquity. Usually made of wool, a mantle could be large or small, thick or fine, coloured or natural, but for men there was a preference for undyed types.
He walked in sandals, as implied in multiple Biblical passages (see Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:7, 6:9; John 1:27), and we now know what ancient Judaean sandals were like as they have been preserved in dry caves by the Dead Sea.
He walked in sandals, as implied in multiple Biblical passages (see Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:7, 6:9; John 1:27), and we now know what ancient Judaean sandals were like as they have been preserved in dry caves by the Dead Sea.
He wore a tunic (chitōn), which for men normally finished slightly below the knees, not at the ankles. Among men, only the very rich wore long tunics. Indeed, Jesus specifically identifies men who dress in long tunics ("stolai", Mark 12:38) as wrongly receiving honour from people who are impressed by their fine attire, when in fact they unjustly devour widows' houses.
Jesus's tunic was also made of one piece of cloth only (John 19:23-24). That's strange, because mostly tunics were made of two pieces sewn at the shoulders and sides. One-piece tunics in first-century Judaea were normally thin undergarments or children's wear. We shouldn't think of contemporary underwear, but wearing a one-piece on its own was probably not good form. It was extremely basic.
'Shamefully' shabby?
Perhaps it is unsurprising, then, that Jesus was remembered as looking shabby by a scholar named Celsus, writing in the mid second century, in a treatise against the Christians. Celsus did his homework. He interviewed people, and he – like us – was quite interested in what Jesus looked like. From Jews and others he questioned, he heard that Jesus "wandered about most shamefully in the sight of all". He "obtained his means of livelihood in a disgraceful and importunate way" – by begging or receiving donations.
From the perspective of respectable people, we can surmise then that Jesus looked relatively rough. When the Christian writer Origen argued against Celsus, he rejected many of his assertions, but he did not dispute this.
And so while Jesus wore similar clothes to other Jewish men in many respects, his "look" was scruffy. I doubt his hair was particularly long as depicted in most artwork, given male norms of the time, but it was surely not well-tended. Wearing a basic tunic that other people wore as an undergarment would fit with Jesus' detachment regarding material things (Matthew 6:19-21, 28–29; Luke 6:34-35, 12:22-28) and concern for the poor (Luke 6:20-23). - It turns out our collective image of how Jesus dressed is very wrong

Could Jesus have worn something on his head to protect himself from the heat or cold of the day? It is possible, but tradition and history is silent on this issue.

In any case, St. Paul considered it a dishonor for a man to cover his head when praying or prophesying?


Are there any spiritual benefits in writing a diary?

Yes.

For comfort. The Bible is filled with calls for people to remember the works that God has performed in the past as a means to sustain faith during present times of trouble.

  I will remember the deeds of the Lord;
      yes, I will remember your miracles of long ago. Psalm 77:11

If you have received blessings via answers to prayer, or the help of another Christian, or found solace in any other way that your faith provides, by writing down these things today, you can help yourself tomorrow, and also enable you to share God's good news with others and comfort them.

For Wisdom. In a lifetime, a faithful Christian will hear thousands of sermons, homilies and exhortations. As you incorporate these teachings of the church into your life and adapt them to your situation, and gain greater insight through practice, you will learn things that it would be tragic to forget. By writing them down and revisiting them from time to time, you will continually add to your knowledge of God and his ways, rather than continually needing to learn the same things over and over again. As Saint James said:

  23 Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like
  someone who looks at his face in a mirror 24 and, after looking at
  himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25 But
  whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and
  continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they
  will be blessed in what they do. (James 1:23-25)

A diary will help you not be that person.

For measuring growth. Do you have questions? Doctrines that perplex or offend? Teachings that make no sense? Write down your questions and use them as a springboard for study. As you find satisfactory answers to those questions later in life, write them down. This will safeguard your heart from unbelief, because nagging questions are like a cancer on your soul. And when you see tangible proof that you are growing in understanding as the questions dwindle in number, this will be a great encouragement to your soul.

  11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in
  Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and
  examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
  (Acts 17:11)

To combat prayerlessness. God never answers my prayers! How do you deal with that thought? You write down your prayers, you revisit them from time to time and renew them, and when you receive an answer, you write that down too. Over time, you will be encouraged to pray more as you see your efforts rewarded. Recall Jesus' parable of the persistent widow:

  18 Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they
  should always pray and not give up. 2 He said: “In a certain town
  there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared what people
  thought. 3 And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him
  with the plea, ‘Grant me justice against my adversary.’

  4 “For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, ‘Even
  though I don’t fear God or care what people think, 5 yet because this
  widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that
  she won’t eventually come and attack me!’”

  6 And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says. 7 And will
  not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him
  day and night? Will he keep putting them off? 8 I tell you, he will
  see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man
  comes, will he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:1-8)

Keep praying. Don't give up!

To promote joy. It is possible to journal in a destructive way, so make sure that you do not neglect thankfulness in what you write. As Paul said:

  8 Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble,
  whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is
  admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such
  things. (Philippians 4:8)

Do this and you will invite joy into your life, and journaling can play a part in it.

To mourn in a healthy way. Life is filled with trials. Turning them into poems and hymns that you record in your journal and offering them back to God can help you grieve without regret, without despair. Some of the greatest hymns in Christendom were written by men and women who experienced horrible loss. As Elihu said when comforting Job:

“People cry out under a load of oppression;
    they plead for relief from the arm of the powerful.
10 But no one says, ‘Where is God my Maker,
    who gives songs in the night,
11 who teaches us more than he teaches the beasts of the earth
    and makes us wiser than the birds in the sky?’ (Job 35:9-11)

Write down your own "songs in the night". This will help you pass through your troubles and come out on the other side more whole and healthy.


What does Trinitarian Protestantism understand by salvation being in the name of 'Jesus Christ of Nazareth'?

As a Trinitarian Christian of the Protestant persuasion, I understand that the conflict between the High Priest, rulers, elders and teachers of the law, and Peter was that the former equated the power to resurrect and perform miracles to the name in which it was done, yet Peter “preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead” (Acts 4:2).

And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this? (Acts 4:7 KJAV)

Peter declared that the miracle had been done in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom they had crucified, but whom God had raised from the dead (Acts 4:10).  Here are some extracts from Calvin’s commentaries on Acts 4, taken from this source: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/acts/4.htm

In what power: They do yet seem to have some zeal of God. For they feign that they are careful that the honor due unto God may not be given to any other. Name is taken in this place for authority. In sum, they deal as if they were most earnest defenders and maintainers of God's glory.

By declaring the power of the miracle was in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Peter equates Jesus of Nazareth with God.  No wonder the High Priest and his followers were horrified!  People from Nazareth were held in low esteem and they were despised and condemned.  Nathaniel asked Philip if any good thing can come out of Nazareth (John 1:45-46).  When Peter said Jesus of Nazareth rather than Jesus of Bethlehem (where he was born) he was making reference to where Jesus had grown up, a common tradition, as found in Luke 23:26 regarding Simon of Cyrene.

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene (Matthew 2:23).

The prophecies respecting the coming Messiah were that He was to be of humble origin and would be “despised and rejected” and men would esteem him not (Isaiah 53; Psalm 22). When Matthew says the prophecies were “fulfilled,” it suggests that the predictions that the Messiah would be of a low and despised condition and would be rejected, were fully accomplished because Jesus was identified as a citizen of Nazareth.
Back to Calvin who makes these comments regarding Acts 4:10 and then verse 12:

Be it known unto you. And, first he [Peter] maketh Christ the author of the miracle. Secondly, because it seemed to be an absurd and incredible thing, that a dead man should be endued with divine power, he testifieth that Christ is alive, because God hath raised him up from the dead, howsoever they had crucified him. So that the miracle giveth him occasion to preach the resurrection of Christ. And by this testimony Peter meant to prove that he was the true Messiah. He saith that they had crucified him, not only to the end he may upbraid this unto them, that they may acknowledge their fault; but also that they may understand that they have in vain striven against God; and so, consequently, cease to rage so unluckily and with such deadly success.

Neither is there salvation in any other. He passeth from the species [salvation] unto the genus, [or more particular,] and he goeth from the corporal benefit unto perfect health, [or general.] And assuredly Christ had showed this one token of his grace, to the end he might be known to be the only author of life. We must consider this in all the benefits of God, to wit, that he is the fountain of salvation. And he meant to prick and sting the priests with this sentence, when as he saith that there is salvation in none other save only in Christ, whom they went about to put quite out of remembrance. [210] As if he should say, that they are twice damned who did not only refuse the salvation offered them by God, but endeavor to bring the same to nought, and did take from all the people the fruit and use thereof. And although he seemeth to speak unto deaf men, yet doth he preach of the grace of Christ, if peradventure some can abide to hear; if not, that they may at least be deprived of all excuse by this testimony.

Neither is there any other name. He expoundeth the sentence next going before. Salvation (saith he) is in Christ alone, because God hath decreed that it should be so. For by name he meaneth the cause or mean, as if he should have said, forasmuch as salvation is in God's power only, he will not have the same to be common to us by any other means than if we ask it of Christ alone. Whereas he saith under heaven, they do commonly refer it unto creatures, as if he should say, that the force and power to save is given to Christ alone. Notwithstanding, I do rather think that this was added, because men cannot ascend into heaven, that they may come unto God. Therefore, seeing we are so far from the kingdom of God, it is needful that God do not only invite us unto himself, but that reaching out his hand he offer salvation unto us, that we may enjoy the same. Peter teacheth in this place, that he hath done that in Christ, because he came down into the earth for this cause, that he might bring salvation with him, Neither is that contrary to this doctrine, that Christ is ascended above all heavens (Ephesians 4:10).  For he took upon him our flesh once for this cause, that he might be a continual pledge of our adoption...
But Peter calleth us back unto Christ alone. They dare not altogether deny that we have salvation given us by Christ; but whilst they feign so many helps, they leave him scarce the hundredth part of salvation. But they were to seek for salvation at the hands of Christ wholly; for when Peter excludeth plainly all other means, he placeth perfect salvation in Christ alone, and not some part thereof only.  Source: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/acts/4.htm

To sum up: Trinitarian Protestants believe that salvation is to be found in the name of Jesus alone.  Since salvation is in God’s power alone, for the Bible to declare that salvation is in none other than Jesus, is to confess that Jesus is God.  At the incarnation, the Word became flesh and dwelt with us (John 1:1, 14).  Jesus, prior to his incarnation, existed throughout eternity as the uncreated Word of God.  Jesus did not become the Son of God at his birth.
In John 10:30 Jesus declared “I and the Father are one.”  The Father is eternal.  The Son is eternal.  The relationship between Father and Son is eternal.   Salvation is from God.  Salvation is from Jesus the Son.  The Father is God.  Jesus is God.  Otherwise Peter, in the power of the Holy Spirit, could never have said there is no name under heaven except the name of Jesus of Nazareth whereby we must be saved.  The name is the authority.  If Jesus is not God then no person could ever be saved by calling upon the name of Jesus.  Since Jesus is God, and since he existed throughout eternity as part of the One Being of God, then (as Calvin declares) Peter calls us to Jesus Christ alone for salvation.
By calling upon the name of Jesus for salvation, one has identified and located the One True God.


Yes there are certainly protestant churches that practice sanctuary.

To start with a little history, the practice of being able to 'seek sanctuary' in a church was written in Medieval English law. It was abolished in 1623, although vestiges of it existed up to the 18th Century.

In modern times few countries (none that I know of) provide for legal immunity of a fugitive just because they enter a church. However this has not prevented the practice of sanctuary, mostly for refugee claimants rather than criminals. In Canada the complete absence of any legal protection has not prevented refugees from seeking protection in churches when scheduled for deportation.

  In the past 30 years, more than 50 unsuccessful refugee claimants have sought sanctuary within a Canadian church to avoid deportation, according to University of Windsor researcher Randy Lippert.

In most cases the reason for the acceptance by the church is compassion for people who face life-threatening situations.

  Where a congregation’s attitude changes is “when you know that they’re going to face death or torture or imprisonment when they go home.” Canada’s refugee system is designed to shield claimants from mortal danger, but [a church member] said there are still plenty of cracks in the system, be it the bad advice of an immigration consultant, a difficulty with paperwork or even the simple nuances of speaking through a translator.

Refugee claimants have no automatic right to stay in a church.

  In a 2010 York University research paper, Montreal pastor Darryl Gray said he turns away requests for sanctuary on a weekly basis, “because they are often economic refugees who can’t prove they face physical danger.”

In these cases there is no legal reason why a refugee cannot be removed from a church as from a private home. However in practice it is rarely done.

  Church arrests are bad optics, particularly as sanctuary-takers are not working illegally or drawing social services, said [a law professor]. Besides, “what government wants to take on a religious community acting to uphold the value of providing refuge to strangers in need?” he said.

There are churches doing similar things in the UK.

In the US the modern Sancuary movement began in the 1980s to support Central American refugees fleeing civil war, and involved more than 500 congregations of many denominations.


Why do adherents to the priesthood of all believers still have organized congregations?

The purpose of congregational gathering is not exclusively to provide the laity access to someone who can be a mediator between them and God, so the assumption that the priesthood of all believers is mutually exclusive is invalid.

Gathering as a congregation has many purposes, including mutual edification, encouragement toward love and good deeds, instruction in the word, serving one another, community, etc.

So, the biblical idea that we all have one Mediator between us and God in no way precludes the call to fellowship with one another.


Is anyone familiar with this strange logo resmbling 'nfw'?

It's actually NOTW, and stands for Not Of This World:

It's a reference to Jesus's words in several places, including John 18:36:

  Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” [ESV]

The logo itself is that of an apparel company that was founded in 2001.


What do Reformed Christians understand by God's foreordination?

The word ‘foreordained’ is usually a translation of a Greek word meaning “to know beforehand.” Speaking about the birth of Jesus, 'foreordained' is used in that sense in 1 Peter 1:20 (KJV):

Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.

The meaning of ‘foreordained’ becomes clearer in Ephesians 1:5 (KJV):

Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.

In other words, God has “predetermined” or “marked out beforehand” those who would be adopted into His family.
You ask if this means that God wanted and willed evil events (like wars) to happen and that men were powerless to stop evil events (like wars) to happen.  The answer to that question is NO and the explanation is clear when all eight points in Chapter 3 – Of God’s Eternal Decree – are taken into account.  Section 1 makes it clear that God is not the author of sin, neither is the will of men constrained.  The liberty or contingency of second causes is not taken away, but is established.
Here is a Reformed Protestant understanding of the Westminster Confession, Chapter 3, Of God's Eternal Decree:

"Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions."

It adds "(4) that this does not make God the author of sin, (5) that God does not force men to do what they do not want to do (in the way of sin), (6) that this does not destroy 'freedom' or cause and effect relationships (rather, it is the very basis upon which these exist), and (7) finally, that this sovereign plan of God is not 'conditioned upon' anything foreseen by him (which would make God dependent upon something outside himself)."

Page 31 makes this point, which can be applied to men starting wars which are evil (i.e. not out of need to defend from an aggressor). This shows that God does not cause people to start evil wars:

"Freedom may be defined as 'the absence of external coercion." If a man is not forced by any power outside himself to do that which is contrary to 'what he wants to do,' then we may properly say that he is 'free'. The wonder of God's predestination is that God does leave men free in this sense, even though he predestines everything that every man will ever do. Some people see the word 'freedom' in another sense, however, which is false in the extreme. They mean, by the 'freedom' of man, that man has the power to do good or evil at any moment of time. To say that a man is able to do good or evil, is very different from saying that a man is at liberty to do what he desires. We believe that man is at liberty but not ability to do what is right. For the truth is that man, while free from coercion from the 'outside' is not free from the control of his own nature. He who is evil by nature must of necessity produce corrupt fruit, Mt. 7:17-19). Just as we may say that God is good and therefore cannot do evil, so we may say that man (by nature) is evil and cannot (of himself) do good."

Source: "The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes" by G.I. Williamson, (Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1964)
Isaiah 46:9-11(KJV) declares the sovereignty of God:

Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure... I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

We might not like it, and we might not fully understand it, but we know that God has foreordained the way of salvation for “whosoever believes” in His Son, Jesus Christ (John 3:16–18, 36; Acts 10:43). God has foreordained that believers will be adopted into His family as children of God (John 1:12) and that He will take the responsibility of transforming us into the likeness of Jesus (Romans 8:29–30). God has foreordained that all those born again by grace through faith will spend eternity in heaven with Him (John 3:3; 17:3; Ephesians 2:8–9). We can rest in the knowledge that we have a Father who is in charge of His universe and that His plan is perfect.

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?  God forbid! (Romans 9:14 KJV)