Where can I find out more about other people rising from the dead, when Jesus died on the Cross?

There is no doubt this truly happened, but in many of the events in the gospels, they are the only records of the history which is why they written. I think when one gospel has something and the others do not, we can assume this is not to be central in our view of the ministry of Christ, but that it is important from the angle that the individual writer takes.**

For example take Alfred Edresheims way of categorizing the gospels (which I like):

Matthew (Jewish view of the Christ) -  has for its main object the Discourses or teaching of the Lord, around which the History groups itself. It is intended as a demonstration, primarily addressed to the Jews, and in a form peculiarly suited to them, that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.

Mark (general view of the Christ) - is a rapid survey of the History of the Christ as such. It deals mainly with the Galilean Ministry.

Luke (Gentile view of the Christ) -  complements the narratives in the other two Gospels (St. Matthew and St. Mark), and it supplements them by tracing, what is not done otherwise: the Ministry in Peroea. Thus, it also forms a transition to the Fourth Gospel of the Judæan Ministry.

John (the Church’s view of Christ) - which gives the highest, the reflective, view of the Eternal Son as the Word, deals almost exclusively with the Jerusalem Ministry.

With this category of Mathew we could say why did Mathew think the many dead raising to life and the thunder was important along side of the curtain tearing?  We must keep in mind the gospels only select certain highlights of the miracles the Lord did and we can assume those that are recorded are only a drop in the bucket, juts as the words he spoke were much, much more than what was recorded. The words in the gospels are just little snippet summaries.

One possible answer is that Mathew, as writing to a Jewish audience, really wanted to stress the end of the Jewish Law and power in Christ’s death to end it. Besides the Jews expected Messiah to bring about a resurrection of the dead soon after his arrival to this earth (see here). The other three may have not have included it in their limited selection of material, perhaps because they felt the focus should really be on the greater event of Christ’s death. So this is a great miracle and thankfully Mathew recorded it, but we must not let any miracles cloud the greatest event which was Christ’s death.


Actually, notice that after being baptised, the eunuch went on his way rejoicing, which is an expression of joy, which some would call an emotional experience. Whether or not it is, it flies in the face of the suggestion that obedience to God and joy are unconnected. There are many scriptures which underline the link between joy and righteouness. Here are 2:

  You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
  Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
  With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
  (Hebrews 1.9)

  If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.
  “These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may remain in you, and that your joy may be full.
  (John 15,10+11)


Does Stained Glass art hold any special meaning for Catholics?
The short answer is yes.
For centuries, stained glass art in church windows, was known as the Poor Man’s Bible

The term Poor Man's Bible has come into use in modern times to describe works of art within churches and cathedrals which either individually or collectively have been created to illustrate the teachings of the Bible for a largely illiterate population. These artworks may take the form of carvings, paintings, mosaics or stained-glass windows. In some churches a single artwork, such as a stained-glass window has the role of Poor Man's Bible while in others, the entire church is decorated with a complex biblical narrative that unites in a single scheme.
The Biblia pauperum
The term Poor Man's Bible is not to be confused with the so-called Biblia pauperum, which are biblical picture books, either in illuminated manuscript or printed "block-book" form. The illuminated Biblia Pauperum, despite the name given in the 1930s by German scholars, were much too expensive to have been owned by the poor, although the printed versions were much cheaper and many were probably shown to the poor for instruction.
But despite the fact that the books, at least in their earlier manuscript versions, were created for the rich, while the carvings and windows of a great church provided free entertainment and instruction to all who entered the doors, there were strong points of similarity in both subject matter and iconography.
Reproduction of motifs
In a world before the printed book, fidelity to the original in transcribing of books by hand was the only thing that maintained the Bible and other works of literature for posterity. Along with the written words of the document were often transcribed commentaries and illustrations. While talented illuminators added their own style and embellishments, the form of many pictures remained the same, and different scenes or motifs were repeated many times and in different media.
There is, for example a particular motif of several sheep, one of which has a foot raised to scratch its ear, which occurs in Italy in the 13th and 14th centuries in manuscript illumination, wall paintings and carved stone panels. A motif of paired flying winged figures which is seen on pagan Roman sarcophagi passed into Christian art as a very commonly used portrayal of angels. The reproduction of figures from manuscripts was particularly common in stained glass windows with various Biblia Pauperum being frequent sources.


Is there any Christian theological model for a non-literal ark?

I don't know of a detailed exposition that focuses specifically on the story of the ark, but in the Medieval ages it was common to say that each piece of scripture possessed the following levels of meaning:

Literal sense
Spiritual sense
Fuller sense

From the link above regarding the "literal sense":

  The literal sense is not to be confused with the "literalist" sense to which fundamentalists are attached. It is not sufficient to translate a text word for word in order to obtain its literal sense. One must understand the text according to the literary conventions of the time. When a text is metaphorical, its literal sense is not that which flows immediately from a word-to-word translation (e.g. "Let your loins be girt": Lk. 12:35), but that which corresponds to the metaphorical use of these terms ("Be ready for action"). When it is a question of a story, the literal sense does not necessarily imply belief that the facts recounted actually took place, for a story need not belong to the genre of history but be instead a work of imaginative fiction.

When one looks at the genre of the flood story, it (arguably, anyway) does not follow many patterns for a historical story - for example, it does not make clear when the event happened in relation to other well-known events as many history-genre stories do, ("In the Year X of the reign of Y", often referring to multiple rulers to make it clear), and it does not cite witnesses that can be cross-referenced (as, eg, the Gospels do).

The above link goes on to say

  One of the possible aspects of the spiritual sense is the typological. This is usually said to belong not to Scripture itself but to the realities expressed by Scripture: Adam as the figure of Christ (cf Rom. 5: 14), the flood as the figure of baptism (1 Pt. 3:20-21), etc.

So, in this way of interpreting the Bible, the flood story is one example of something that prefigures baptism, and one example of something from the Hebrew Scripture pre-figuring something in the new.

It is an interesting example in terms of apologetics because this way of interpreting the Bible was formalized in the Medieval period (and can be seen as early as Origin of Alexandria), and shows then that non-literal ways of reading the Bible predate the emergence of modern science and the scientific method at least by centuries, and therefore refutes many naive ideas non-Christians have about Christianity.


What is the origin of the term Prima Scriptura and the background against which it was defined?

The term Trinity is not in the Bible but the doctrine is clearly supported by the New Testament.  Similarly, the wikipedia article shows how the concept of "the primacy of scripture" has been in use implicitly (although implemented differently) by different Christian groups throughout history.  Before Reformation the concept was used in contrast with the concept of Tradition, and after Reformation it was used in contrast with both Sola Scriptura and Tradition

What is the origin of the term?

In both Trinity and Prima Scriptura, I argue that: usage came first, then the term came later, then different groups use the term differently to name what needs to be communicated.  But putting on my amateur etymologist hat and armed with Google Books search I was able to find a 1997 paper Sola Scriptura, Inerrantist Fundamentalism, and the Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Is "No Creed But the Bible" A Workable Solution? by Woodrow W. Whidden from Andrews University.  In his paper in which he used the term "Prima Scriptura" he credited Albert Outler in the footnote as follows:

  14As to the background for my use of the term prima scriptura, I am consciously indebted to the introductory comments of Albert Outler in his classic introductory anthology of Wesley's writings, John Wesley (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1964), 28.

The book "John Wesley" edited by Albert C. Outler is in Google Books and the following is the relevant quote from page 28 (part of the chapter "Introduction"):

  The great Protestant watchwords of sola fide and sola Scriptura were also fundamentals in Wesley's doctrine of authority.  But early and late, he interpreted solus to mean "primarily" rather than "solely" or "exclusively."101  Faith is the primary reality in Christian experience but not its totality.  It is, Wesley urged, a means -- a necessary means -- to a still higher end: "Faith ... is only the handmaid of love. ..."102 The goal of the Christian life is holiness, "the fullness of faith."  This means the consecration of the whole self to God and to the neighbor in love.  This, in turn, involves a process of corporate discipline and effort, guided by the motives of "devotion," by which he meant the delivering up of one's whole life to God.  The outcome to be expected in this endeavor is the renewal of the imago Dei, mutilated by sin and ruined by waywardness.  But our aspiration to holiness is as truly a function of faith as justification itself is.  The faith that justifies bears its fruits in the faith that works by love.

And in fact it was Albert C. Outler also who coined the term "Wesleyan Quadrilateral" according to wikipedia referencing the same book.

Since Albert Outler himself didn't use the term Prima Scriptura it looks like the term was coined by Woodrow W. Whidden in his 1997 paper, borrowing the concept from Albert Outler's book John Wesley published in 1964.  This is the earliest reference I can find on Google.

I also found a 2017 Master's thesis The Hermeneutical Frameworks of Fernando Canale and Fritz Guy: Sola and Prima Scriptura and the Science-Theology Relationship in which not only Woodrow Whidden's paper was cited, but he was in the advising committee.  Looks like a typical case of a professor transmitting his key ideas to his "academic descendants".

Thesis abstract:

  This thesis presents research on the hermeneutical frameworks of sola and prima Scriptura and how they affect the science-theology relationship. It specifically focuses on the writings of Fernando Canale and Fritz Guy who hold opposing views on both sola and prima Scriptura and the relationship between science and theology. Canale argues for a sola Scriptura framework with science governed by theology, whereas Guy argues for a prima Scriptura framework with science and theology working independently of each other.

  This thesis begins with a brief historical overview of the issues and then moves into describing Canale’s and Guy’s views. It ends with an evaluation of their positions and some suggestions for a more comprehensive framework that can incorporate valuable aspects of each scholar’s proposals.

  The research concludes that what is needed is a hermeneutical framework that combines sola and prima Scriptura principles (as indicated but not fully developed by Canale). Currently, Canale’s and Guy’s frameworks, viewed separately, do not take into account important aspects of the science-theology relationship. A combination sola-prima framework is helpful for clarifying the relations between science and theology and for guiding the influence of other sources/resources on theology.

The background against which it was defined

As rje's answer and my own answer for another question indicated, one way to solve the restriction of sola scriptura and to delineate the evolution of the usage is to identify 4 different ways that Scripture is used in conjunction with Tradition.  This is what Dr. Keith Mathison did, building on Heiko Oberman's work as described in the wikipedia article on Dr. Mathison's book The Shape of Sola Scriptura, by identifying 4 different interactions named Tradition 0, Tradition I, Tradition II, and Tradition III.  Therefore, in my view, Prima Scriptura as a term is simply another way to name what is conceptually similar to Tradition I.

But of course the devil is in the detail, and as philologists and exegetes struggle with this task on a daily basis, the meaning of the term has a life of its own, to be potentially chronicled and defined and published as a journal article if the community so desires.  In addition to the above 2 papers about Prima Scriptura there is a 2011 book titled Prima Scriptura: An Introduction to New Testament Interpretation which is also available through Scribd by N. Clayton Croy author and tutor at the University of Oxford.

The book itself did not offer a history of the term, but simply uses it as a book title and as a concept to differentiate against sola scriptura in the author's own usage.  The book is a textbook of exegetical method that of course includes heavy discussion of the shade of sola scriptura it is advocating.  Published in 2011, it naturally includes Dr. Mathison's book in its bibliography as you can see in the quote below as "Mathison, 2001".  The book also references Whidden's paper above as "Whidden, 1997" and uses it to support reason #2 in the second quote below, but doesn't credit Whidden for the term prima scriptura, maybe by 2011 the book author thought it was already common currency.

There are only 2 places within the book where he mentions prima scriptura, (I did text search in Scribd):

Quote when he summarizes chapter 3 "Evaluating and Contemporizing the Text" under A Preview of the Method in This Book:

  Evaluating and contemporizing the text (hermeneutics). The third stage is
  distinguished from exegesis not so much by differentiating “what the text meant”
  from “what the text means” (cf. Stendahl, 1962: 419–20), but rather by taking the
  textual meaning and simply asking, What does the contemporary Christian
  community do with this? How do we receive the meaning of the text? Can we
  receive it? What is its significance for us in the twenty-first century? Needless to
  say, this hermeneutical stage is one of the most crucial in the interpretive process.
  Sharp disagreements between Christians nowadays, especially on divisive matters
  of ethics and public policy, often hinge on how one adjudicates the results of the
  exegetical phase. At this point, other criteria are brought in, what one might call
  “hermeneutical adjuncts.” For although the Bible is an authoritative source for the
  faith and practice of Christians, its authority does not operate in a vacuum. If it did
  do so, we could adopt the Reformation motto sola scriptura in the most absolute
  sense and largely do away with this third step. But in fact, nearly all Christian
  traditions employ one or more additional criteria such as tradition, reason, and
  experience. A more realistic motto, then, would be prima scriptura: Scripture as the primary authority, but in conjunction with and mediated by other authorities. Both
  revelation and reason are gifts from God; indeed, they are interrelated gifts, since
  one cannot grasp a written, historical revelation without the use of reason. From
  this stage a contemporary interpretation of the text emerges.

Quote toward beginning of chapter 3, within pages 130-34:

  Sola Scriptura or Prima Scriptura?

  The title of this book, Prima Scriptura, is a fairly transparent play on the
  Reformation slogan sola scriptura (Scripture alone). The slogan implies that the
  Reformers made a sharp distinction between Scripture and tradition and then drew
  solely upon the former. But several historians and theologians point out that in
  practice sola scriptura did not exclude other sources. David Steinmetz clarifies:
  “While it is true that the reformers were at first optimistic that it would be possible
  to teach and preach a theology that was wholly biblical, they rarely intended to
  exclude theological sources that were non-biblical. Sola scriptura generally meant
  prima scriptura, Scripture as the final source and norm by which all theological
  sources and arguments were to be judged, not Scripture as the sole source of
  theological wisdom” (2002: 129; see also Whidden, 1997: 216–23; Mathison, 2001; Charles, 2002: 143n58; Olson, 2003: 53; and M. M. Thompson, 2008: 13). Sola
  scriptura was meant to exclude “only what is contrary to Scripture, not everything
  except what is explicitly written in Scripture” (Hinlicky, 1999: 395).

  So the thoroughgoing, exclusivist notion of sola scriptura was not actually what
  the mainstream Reformers practiced. Luther and Calvin frequently appealed to the
  church fathers and the creeds, for example, as authentic expressions of the
  apostolic faith (McGrath, 1999: 153). It is true that some of the more radical
  proponents of the Reformation rejected tradition outright, but their movement
  quickly degenerated into ideological chaos precisely because their theology, lacking
  the moorings that tradition could provide, spun off in a multitude of directions.
  Alister McGrath distinguishes these “radical Reformers” from the “magisterial
  Reformers,” noting that the latter “had a very positive understanding of tradition”
  (McGrath, 1999: 154). They were “painfully aware of the threat of individualism,
  and attempted to avoid this threat by stressing the church’s traditional
  interpretation of Scripture where this traditional interpretation was regarded as
  correct” (McGrath, 1999: 155). Tradition was rejected only when it contradicted or
  went far beyond Scripture.

  An exclusive appeal to Scripture was untenable for a number of reasons. First,
  tradition (in the sense of the theology and practices of the church in the first few
  centuries) was directly involved in the creation and delimitation of Scripture. [... skipped ...]

  Second, Scripture does not function in a vacuum (Hays, 1996: 209). As we saw
  in chapter 1, everyone reads from a certain location, through certain lenses, and in
  the light of a particular tradition and life experiences. Though objectivity is always
  the goal, we cannot transport ourselves back to the first century and read the New
  Testament as if the intervening millennia had not occurred. We are steeped in
  tradition, whether consciously or unconsciously. This is true even for those who
  say they have “no creed but the Bible.” All Christians, whether they belong to the
  Catholic tradition going back two millennia or to a denomination of much more
  recent vintage, have “historic and contemporary figures who have exercised
  powerful, formative influences over their interpretation of Scripture” (Whidden, 1997: 213). These mentors are part of the reason for the theological pluralism that
  exists in Christianity. Indeed, even “among groups that strenuously profess
  fidelity to the Bible as their sole authority,” there is a “bewildering array of
  doctrinal options” (Whidden, 1997: 214). An exclusivist notion of sola scriptura
  does not produce theological uniformity precisely because the influence of
  tradition is everywhere at work. The point is forcefully made by Whidden: “No
  Bible-believer is strictly sola Scriptura in any arena of theological discourse—and
  this includes the most stridently fundamentalistic persons in the most
  conservative traditions of independent, Bible-oriented American churches” (1997:
  220). Tradition shapes us all.

  Finally, the scholarly dimension of the Christian tradition is what makes it
  possible for us to read the Scriptures today. [... skipped ...]

  It therefore is incoherent to reject the role of ecclesiastical tradition in the
  interpretation of Scripture (Hinlicky, 1999: 395). One could even argue that the
  long-term effect of an exclusivist version of sola scriptura was harmful because it
  removed biblical interpretation from its natural context: the church. The final result
  of divorcing Scripture from its ecclesial context was “the complete secularization
  of Scripture itself” (Hinlicky, 1999: 395). This is especially apparent in public
  universities in the United States, but its effects are also seen in some private and
  even church-related institutions. [... skipped ...]

  Some scholars seem prepared to write the obituary of sola scriptura. It would be
  preferable, however, to rehabilitate and clarify the principle along the lines of prima
  scriptura. Even some who would retain the traditional language recognize the need
  to correct distorted versions of the concept. Lutheran theologian Carl Braaten, for
  example, argues for the continuing affirmation of sola scriptura, but “not as a
  battle-cry against the church and its tradition. Rather, ‘sola scriptura’ means that
  everything essential in the original apostolic preaching which founded the church
  is written down in Scripture, and that no later tradition can negate or supersede it” (1981: 194, with original emphasis). Later traditions sometimes reinforce the
  gospel and sometimes undermine the gospel. The criterion that the church must
  use to judge these traditions is Scripture.

  If we adopt prima scriptura in lieu of sola scriptura, we should not think that
  Scripture has thereby been demoted or devalued. Scripture is still the primary
  authority for Christian faith and life. If ever there is a conflict between Scripture and
  tradition, Scripture must have priority (Charles, 2002: 143). As one theologian put
  it, “In matters of theological development and debate, tradition should get a vote
  but never a veto” (Olson, 2003: 54). The classical statement of this quality of
  Scripture is norma normans non normata (apparently all classical statements must
  be in Latin): Scripture is “the norm or standard that regulates [all else, but is itself]
  not regulated [by any].” Scripture is what constitutes Christian identity and shapes
  Christian faith and practice. It has pride of place in Christian moral and theological
  deliberation.

  It is an encouraging sign that Christians of different stripes are beginning to
  recognize the need for both Scripture and tradition, while usually understanding the
  latter as serving the former.  [... skipped...]

  So the role of Scripture and its relationship to tradition are better captured by the
  phrase prima scriptura than sola scriptura. Scripture is the primary authority, but its
  authority does not operate alone. I also remind the reader of a point made earlier:
  Scripture’s authority is derived rather than inherent. It is derived from God, who
  alone is the supreme authority over life and creation. “As important as canonical
  Scripture is in the Church, it is not its ultimate authority. That capacity belongs to
  the Word, the person of Jesus Christ, who is more than a text” (Work, 2002: 258).
  So Scripture derives its authority from God, and among the means commonly
  employed by Christians to discern the will and ways of God, Scripture is primary.
  But the word “primary” implies other means of discernment with a secondary or
  supportive role. So what are they?

  Quadrilaterals, Trapezoids, and Triangles

  [... this is the part where the book discussed AT LENGTH the Wesleyan Quadrilateral... ]


What is the Bible basis for the idea of a temporary holding place?

Remember that after the Crucifixion, when Mary Magdalene found Jesus in the garden, he told her that he had not yet ascended to his Father in Heaven.  This implies that Paradise, where he had been while he was dead, is not Heaven.

It gets even more interesting in 1 Peter chapter 3, where it says that while Jesus was dead, he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who had been disobedient while in mortality.  So here we have mention of two intermediate "holding places:" Paradise for the righteous and the spirit prison (for lack of a better name) for the wicked.

These are not to be understood as the final dwelling places of the soul, commonly known as Heaven and Hell, because we will be sent to our final dwelling places after the Judgment, which is described as taking place after the Resurrection.


Are there other historical accounts of the tower of Babel?

There are other accounts, which may be considered to tell the same story.  Wikipedia provides a good list.

Whether any of the accounts (including the Biblical one) are historical is entirely another matter. Most historians (outside of a young-earth tradition) view the myths as (primarily*) fictional, meant to explain the existence of languages to an otherwise naïve audience. Historians take this view because the history of languages is fairly well understood and known to predate architecture and human civilization by hundreds of thousands of years.

*This doesn't mean there isn't some element of truth to the stories. I.e. there may have been a tower under construction, which was imbued with additional meaning. But the view is that the story as the origin-of-human-languages is fictional.


Did any Church Fathers believe that angels could still choose to become demons?

Origen of Alexandria (184/185 – 253/254)

He was a passionate believer in free will.

  Origen broaches the subject of the hierarchical arrangement of the
  world early in De Principiis in relation to the question of the
  celestial hierarchy of angels and demons. Are these rational beings
  essentially good or bad, or do they become so through free will?
  Origen argues, consistent with his doctrine of creation, that they
  were created equal and became angels or demons as a result of their
  exercise of free will. 1

Does that free will extend eternally for eternal beings? Bartlett says yes.

  Origen had posited that wherever angles fall, which they could do at
  any time, depending on their own free will, they walk the earth as
  men. If they persist in their evil ways, they ultimately become
  demons, which have, according to Origen, 'cold and obscure bodies… in
  whom the divine love had grown cold’. 2 (emphasis mine)

1. Journey Back to God: Origen on the Problem of Evil (Mark S.M. Scott, 2012), p. 67
2. A Brief History of Angels and Demons (Sarah Bartlett, 2011), p. 90


The “Zwickau prophets,” i.e., Nicholas Storch, Thomas Drechsel, and Mark Stübner, etc., claimed to be prophets of God and to have received revelations directly from God.  They were leading an anti-Protestant, anti-Catholic, spiritualistic attempt at communism and anarchy based on a view of taking the millennium by force as prophets. Thomas Münzer (1490–1525) was a radical figure in the Reformation who became a leader in the Peasants’ Revolt of 1524–1525. From this man we get a clear window into all of his associates:

  Thomas Muenzer, one of the Zwickau Prophets, and an eloquent demagogue, was the apostle and travelling evangelist of the social revolution, and a forerunner of modern socialism, communism, and anarchism. He presents a remarkable compound of the discordant elements of radicalism and mysticism. (HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, PHILIP SCHAFF (Vol 7, Ch4, P75)

He started by being influenced by doctrines of the reformation but quickly became an extremist who was deposed from his church. He hated Luther even worse then the Pope even though before his ‘fall’ he was actually selected by Luther to become a Lutheran pastor in the city of Zwickau.

  He was at enmity with the whole existing order of society, and imagined himself the divinely inspired prophet of a new dispensation, a sort of communistic millennium, in which there should be no priests, no princes, no nobles, and no private property, but complete democratic equality. He inflamed the people in fiery harangues from the pulpit, and in printed tracts to open rebellion against their spiritual and secular rulers. He signed himself “Muenzer with the hammer,” and “with the sword of Gideon.” He advised the killing of all the ungodly. They had no right to live. Christ brought the sword, not peace upon earth. “Look not,” he said, “on the sorrow of the ungodly; let not your sword grow cold from blood; strike hard upon the anvil of Nimrod [the princes]; cast his tower to the ground, because the day is yours.” (HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, PHILIP SCHAFF (Vol 7, Ch4, P75)

Although it might not seem that these prophets had any influence on the Christian world, Karl Marx did refer to Thomas Münzer in his own writings, so you could say they had an impact on the world's continued opposition to the church. The beliefs of the Zwickau Prophets goes back to a pre-reformation sect in Bohemia who held a, ‘Taborite creed’. Tabor was a city in Bohemia that held control of local gold mines, the citizens joined local peasants to develop a communist-like society.  The key to their quasi-religious communits movement was in their view of the millennial reign of Christ. Taborites lived announced in the millennium there would be no more servants and masters. They promised people would return to a state of pristine innocence.

  Zwickau, however, was near the Bohemian border, and there Müntzer was converted by the weaver and adept Niklas Storch, who had lived in Bohemia, to the old Taborite creed: in particular, continuing personal divine revelation to the prophet of the cult, and the necessity for the Elect to seize power and impose a society of theocratic communism by brutal force of arms. In addition, there was to be communism of women: marriage was to be prohibited, and each man was to be able to have any woman at will.
  Thomas Müntzer now claimed to be the divinely chosen prophet, destined to wage a war of blood and extermination by the Elect against the sinners. Müntzer claimed that the "living Christ" had permanently entered his own soul. Endowed thereby with perfect insight into the divine will, he asserted himself to be uniquely qualified to fulfill the divine mission. He even spoke of himself as "becoming God." Having graduated from the world of learning, Müntzer was now ready for the world of action. (Karl Marx as Religious Eschatologist, Mises Daily: Friday, October 09, 2009 by Murray N. Rothbard)

Although the influence on communism can be traced, there does not seem to be any lasting influence on Christianity. There is a link between the Bohemian movements and a Christian movement called the Hussites under a Czech reformer Jan Hus (c. 1369–1415) and there are some modern churches who think of themselves to be related to those movements, in particular the Moravian Church, Unity of the Brethren, and the refounded Czechoslovak Hussite churches. However these churches do not resemble the ideas of Thomas Müntzer at all so it seems the lasting impact is more related to the communistic side of things only.


Why does the Roman Catholic church allow girls to serve the altar?

The Catholic Church did not used to allow girls or women to be altar servers. In his Allatae Sunt on July 26, 1755 Pope Benedict XIV explicitly cited Pope Innocent IV:

  Women should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry.

He also referenced Pope Gelasius who stated that women serving at the altar was one of the "great evils" which had spread during his time.

In Canon 230, the Code of Canon Law reserves the role of acolyte, one who lights the candles in the Mass and prepares the Mass before the procession, to men. It is only in the necessary absence of acolytes, who are in fact clerics-in-training themselves, that 'altar boys' were permitted as temporary 'fill-ins'. These 'altar boys' were truly not 'boys' though, but rather typically adult laymen. The need of these temporary laymen was relevant during the Middle Ages in which clerics were attending seminary schools and were as such not able to assist the priest with preparing the Mass.

Due to the changing of times, the system of seminary schools has changed, and 'minor orders', to which clerics-in-training were devoted, passed somewhere into the abyss of times lost. While the participation of laypeople, as in laymen, in the Mass might have persisted for quite sometime, it is only of late, around the 1960's actually, that certain churches simply started to include girl altar servers not as in an act of need, but as in an act of regularity. The Vatican responded disapprovingly with the text Liturgicae instaurationes, written in the 1970. Despite this exercise of clarification, many churches still insisted on the practice, and so in 1980 the Vatican again affirmed a traditional position on the matter in the 1980 Inaestimabile donum. Granted the absence of the traditional 'minor orders' and the traditional definition of a 'cleric', the secularization of the Church urged Church leaders to interpret differently Canon 230, as though it were providing room for the inclusion of women in the liturgy as a regular practice. Not taking such a drastic step, which would be misinterpreting the role of laypeople in the Mass,the Pontificial Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts (it's a mouthful, I know) was submitted a doubt in the common interpretation of Canon 230. It was to this official council that the Canon would be left to interpretation. The Canon to be discussed, Canon 230.2, read as the following:

  Lay persons can fulfill the function of lector in liturgical actions by temporary designation. All lay persons can also perform the functions of commentator or cantor, or other functions, according to the norm of law

Traditionally, 'other functions' did not include altar serving, and if so, only in the most odd of cases. But the Council found otherwise. Furthermore, that the Latin term 'laici' used in the second paragraph in reference to the various functions that could be performed was in contrast to 'viri laici' used in the first paragraph to refer to the official titles of acolyte and lector implied that the former was referring specifically to men while the latter was referring to all laypersons, including women. So it was that the 'official' stance regarding whether women can be involved in altar serving became a definitive 'yes'. But the Council left such a decision ultimately up to the bishops. Furthermore, Church leaders including St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict continued to express support for traditional Mass rites rather than the contenporary practice. What is interesting is the progression of how girls came to be altar servers. The Church went from official clerics as the assistants of the priest, to layperson men, to layperson boys, to finally layperson girls.

Many traditionalists argue that laypeople serving Mass and fulfilling the roles of lector, cantors, and acolytes (the list goes on) were not intended by the early Church. If one reads the Canon one in fact finds that such instances were expressed as being only present when the Church did not have available official clerics present, who were likely in training to be priests. As such, many traditionalists interpret the Canon as being inherently conditionally true, in which such examples, laypeoples' roles are only in cases of great need. But the modern churches, now with little resistance from Pope Francis, quite obviously participate in such practices as though they were always meant to be regular, and if not, that are at least to be considered regular now. Only two diocese in the United States currently do not allow women participation in the process of Mass, and they are often looked at funny. For this reason, this issue has caused somewhat of a divide in the Church with several Catholics becoming perhaps overly zealous traditionalists and other Catholics becoming perhaps overly willing seculars.


How long was it before Adam and Eve sinned?

Genesis 5:3 says:

  When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.

By virtue of this, we know that Cain killed Abel within 130 years of Adam being created, because Seth was not born until after that occurred. This means that the Fall had to occur within that time. Other than that, the Bible is silent.


How do human rights and Christianity relate to each other?

I'll take a shot at answering this one.  Most of my answer will be taken from my readings of C.S. Lewis.
The short answer is that we are God's creation and He is allowed to do with us as He likes.  In the flood He wiped out all of humanity save for eight people, but since we are His creation this was OK.
Assume that you were an artist and you created a painting.  Now this painting is your creation; it belongs to you.  You may do with it what you choose.  You may display the painting for all to see, you can restrict who is allowed to see it.  You can alter it as you see fit, you can leave it alone, you can even wipe it out and start all over again.  You can turn it over to someone else so that they can do with it as they like.
All these things are acceptable, but no one else may touch your creation, at least not without your permission.  No one else may harm it or destroy it because it is not theirs, it is yours.
The same can be said about God, people, and human rights.  God may do with us as He chooses because we are His.  We as humans cannot do whatever we like to other humans because we do not own them.


In what manner did Peter, James and John appear to Joseph Smith?

Peter and James, we infer, have been resurrected already and have physical bodies. The laying on of hands was performed by physical beings to physical beings.

A few references:

Peter, James, and Moroni have been resurrected (see Supporting Statement B)
John the Baptist is also apparently resurrected


In order to perceive the things of the kingdom of God and enter into that kingdom one must be born again of the spirit.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” - John 3:3-8

The nature that each person is born with on the natural level is a disposition of enmity with God.  That nature fully directs all thoughts, intentions, and actions until it's power is broken by spiritual rebirth.  Therefore it is not possible for those who are in the flesh (only) to please God.

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:5-8

It is not merely forgiveness for things that we have done which Christ has acquired for us but he has redeemed us from the law of sin and death.  He has opened the way for us to receive a new nature which cries "Abba, Father".  The access point is to see oneself a spiritual beggar, entirely bereft of merit or ability, entirely enslaved by a sinful disposition and to call on the name of the Lord pleading with Him to trade places with us.  Pleading with Him to come down from the cross and live in us while our old sinful nature is crucified with Him.

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. - John 3:14-15

This is pointing back to Numbers 21.  The Israelites grumbled (yet again).  God sent fiery serpents among them and those bitten would die.  Moses pleaded with God for mercy.  God told Moses to make a bronze serpent and put it on a pole.  Whoever was bitten would live if they looked at the serpent.  Jesus said He would be lifted up in the same way.
Question:  Since Moses lifted up an image of what was killing the Israelites, How then is Jesus lifted up on the cross an image of what is killing us?
Answer:  Jesus is the Word of God made into flesh and he hung on a cross crucified by men.  In the garden of Eden Adam put God's word to death within himself when he agreed with the temptation "In the day you eat of it you shall be like God, knowing good and evil" and we are all born the same.  The Word of God is dead in us from birth.  This is what we are meant to understand about ourselves when we "see" Christ on the cross:  the Word of God put to death by Man.  The Word of God in the flesh...dead.  Ourselves.
It is a seeing of faith.  We cannot approach God but by that way which He has decreed.

And the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” - Numbers 21:8


How do the Eastern Orthodox view using the term 'catholic', particularly in regard to Roman Catholicism?

The term "catholic" appears in the revision to the Nicene Creed accepted at the 2nd Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 381:

  We believe ... in one holy catholic and apostolic Church1

The Greek word is καθολικός (katholikos) and is taken to mean "general" or "universal".  It is not a word that really appears in the Bible, though it is found in some manuscripts in the title of the Epistle of James (i.e. The Catholic Epistle of James).

Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky explains the understanding of the word as follows:

  The word catholikos in ancient Greek, pre-Christian literature is encountered very rarely. However, the Christian Church from antiquity chose this word to signify one of the principal attributes of the Church, namely, to express its universal character. Even though it had at its disposal such words as cosmos (the world), or oikoumene (the inhabited earth), evidently these latter words were insufficient to express a certain new concept which is present only to the Christian consciousness. In the ancient Symbols of Faith, wherever the word “Church” appears, it is unfailingly with the definition “catholic.” Thus, in the Jerusalem Symbol of Faith we read: “And in one, holy, catholic Church”; in the Symbol of Rome: “In the holy, catholic Church, the communion of the Saints”; etc. In ancient Christian literature, this term is encountered several times in St. Ignatius the God-bearer, an Apostolic Father, for example when he says, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church.” This term is constantly to be found in the Acts of all the Ecumenical Councils. In the direct translation of the word, it signifies the highest degree of all-embracingness, wholeness, fullness (being derived from cath ola, meaning “throughout the whole”).2

The Eastern Orthodox Church sees itself as "Catholic".  Question No. 270 of the Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church asks:

  Why is the Church called Catholic, or, which is the same thing, Universal?

Metropolitan Philaret (the author of this particular catechism) writes:

  Because she is not limited to any place, nor time, nor people, but contains true believers of all places, times, and peoples.

  The Apostle Paul says that the Word of the Gospel is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit (Col 1:5-6), and that in the Christian Church there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all (Col 3:11). They which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham (Gal 3:9).

Elder Cleopas (Ilie) of Romania expands on this understanding in his book, The Truth of Our Faith:

  With the word "Catholic" we may suggest that the Church has it as Her purpose to spread throughout the whole world, comprising Christians of every place, every age, and of all people.  This is confirmed by the following commandment of Christ: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations ...  Moreover, the Church is called Catholic since its entire teaching is the undistorted truth, which was given by Christ to the Apostles and through them to the world.  While on the contrary, heresy possesses but a portion of the truth.3

While many outside the Eastern Orthodox Church presume that the major difference between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church is the recognition of papal authority, in reality I think that this is a relatively minor point.  The Pope having jurisdiction over territories outside of the See of Rome would be seen as non-canonical (in violation of the canons of the 1st Ecumenical Council), but not heretical.  Within the Eastern Orthodox Church today there are dozens of such jurisdictional disputes, including the overlap of non-canonical episcopates from several Patriarchates within the Unites States.

The issue touching on how the east views the catholicity of Rome has to do with Elder Cleopas' point about catholicity also implying holding the fullness of truth.  The Roman Catholic Church, which grew from the ancient See of Rome, and the Eastern Orthodox Church, which includes the other four ancient Sees,  differ on a number of significant theological points to such an extent that Rome is actually seen as being in not only schism but heresy.4  For this reason, the Eastern Orthodox Church does not recognize the Roman Catholic Church as being truly "Catholic".  It is understood to possess a portion of the truth, but not the fullness of truth.

1. Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed
2. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (3rd ed.), pp.245-6
3. pp.42-43.
4. See, e.g., the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs


Why does Nephi believe he can keep all the commandments?

Nephi was not perfect in keeping the commandments. In fact, in 2 Nephi 4 he cries out:

17 Nevertheless, notwithstanding the great goodness of the Lord, in showing me his great and marvelous works, my heart exclaimeth: O wretched man that I am! Yea, my heart sorroweth because of my flesh; my soul grieveth because of mine iniquities.
18 I am encompassed about, because of the temptations and the sins which do so easily beset me.
19 And when I desire to rejoice, my heart groaneth because of my sins; nevertheless, I know in whom I have trusted.

(Emphasis added.) What follows is the beautiful Psalm of Nephi (2 Nephi 4:17-35) in which Nephi praises the Lord for his goodness and mercy and affirms his commitment to follow the Savior. Every commandment can be obeyed, but we fail again and again to keep all the commandments all the time. Yet, we can be perfected through the grace of Christ and his atonement as Moroni states in Moroni 10:

32 Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.
33 And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.

(Emphasis added.) It is evident from the scriptures, that all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). It is natural for men, to fail keeping the commandments (Mosiah 3:19), and God does not expect us to keep all commandments all the time perfectly. Jesus has done that work for us. What he asks us to do, is to do the best to keep his commandments and repent whenever we fail. Patience and perseverance in trying to do your best are much more important than beating oneself up over every little thing you do wrong (see Alma 42:29; 2 Cor 7:10). Yet we have the promise that

God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. (1 Cor 10:13)

(See also Alma 13:28.) Hence, we can overcome every sin through God's grace. All he asks us is to try the best we can and whenever we fail, to try again and continue. There's an excellent talk at BYU by Brad Wilcox about the topic of grace which explains this really well.


Why are some miracles hard to explain and some are not?

Any answer to this question will be pure speculation - the Bible doesn't say why there are these two "classes" (the question of the existence of said classes I'll leave alone for now), so we don't know.

With that said, here are two potential reasons that are Scripturally based:

God is sovereign over everything, and is pleased to work out his will through his Creation, often utilizing secondary and tertiary causes. The Parting of the Red Sea shows this , and it is no less a miracle because God used one part of his creation to affect another - after all, God created it all in the first place!
God hides things from us. There are things we cannot yet know. While God's power is manifest in the Red Sea, marveling us, his mystery and wisdom are manifest in the feeding of the 5000, keeping us grounded in our own frailty.

That is, God demonstrates different attributes through different miracles that serve different purposes.


Why doesn't 1 Timothy 5:21 indicate that angels are part of the Godhead?

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Matthew 28:19, NIV)
I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism. (1 Timothy 5:21, NIV)

The core difference is those two emphasised words. Matthew 28:19 is asserting that the three persons of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit have one name — one reputation, one identity. The way you share your name with your spouse or family, showing your close united relationship, is a little bit like the way that the persons of the godhead share a name. 1 Timothy 5:21 merely says that they are all in the one place watching us, without suggesting any kind of unity.
(The word translated sight in 1 Tim 5:21 is ἐνώπιον enopion.)


Early Christian theologians find many analogies or types of Christ, the church, and the world in the story of Samson.  Samson himself is often seen to be a type of Christ, but other times, he is considered a type of the church or even the world.  Caesarius of Arles (468–542) writes extensively on the analogies he sees in Samson's story, and summarizes his method of analysis:

What was the meaning of Samson? If I say he signified Christ, it seems to me that I speak the truth.  However, the thought immediately occurs to anyone who reflects: Was Christ overcome by the flattery of a woman?  How is Christ understood to have gone in to a harlot? [...] Inasmuch as Samson performed virtues and miracles he prefigured Christ, the head of the Church.  When he acted prudently, he was an image of those who live justly in the Church, but when he was overtaken and acted carelessly, he represented those who are sinners in the Church. (118.3)1

This is an important point: the authors identifying Samson with Christ do not do so blindly.  Their methods of biblical interpretation allow a variety of images to be drawn from the text, and sometimes more than one.  One stark example will suffice for our purposes here: when Samson kills the lion in Judges 14:5–9, Caesarius sees the lion as an image of Christ, since "to us Christ is a lion in whose mouth we found the food of honey after His death" (119.1).  Conversely, Samson, far from typifying Jesus, is said to represent the "Jewish people who killed Christ" (119.2). However, as we'll see, other writers make different connections in this particular story.
Turning now specifically to the connections drawn between Christ and Samson, we can put them into a few categories:

Samson's wife
Samson's humiliation
Samson's victories over his enemies

We'll draw primarily on the writings of Caesarius, but also those of Ephrem the Syrian (306–373), Augustine (354–430), and Gregory the Great (540–604).2
Samson's wife
One place where Caesarius sees Samson representing Jesus is in his relationship with his Philistine wife.  Like Christ, Samson takes a sinful bride:

The harlot whom Samson married is the Church which committed fornication with idols before knowing one God, but which Christ afterwards united to Himself. (118.3)

The analogy is extended to Samson's friend, who took away Samson's wife:

Then follow the words: 'Samson was angry because a friend married his wife.'  This friend prefigured all heretics.  It is a great mystery, my brethren.  Heretics who divide the Church have wanted to marry the wife of the Lord and carry her away. (118.4)

Samson's humiliation and death
Samson's final humiliation begins when his hair is cut in Judges 16:18–21.  Caesarius writes that the strength found in Samson's hair is analogous to the "strength in a covering" that Jesus had "when the shadows of the old law protected him."  When the law was rejected by the killers of Christ, he suffered, and his purpose was revealed, like Samson suffered and had his secret exposed when his "covering" was cut. (118.6)
This humiliation led to Samson's imprisonment and death, paralleling Christ's:

Samson was condemned to prison, while Christ deigned to descend into hell.  Samson extended his hands to the pillars, and the house of the Philistines fell with its princes; Christ stretched out His hands to the two beams of the cross as to two pillars, overthrowing and destroying the house or kingdom of the devil and his angels. (120.4)
Notice here an image of the cross.  Samson extends his hands spread out to the two columns as to the two beams of the cross. (118.6)

Samson's victories over enemies
Lion
Unlike Caesarius, Ephrem the Syrian sees Samson as an type of Christ in his defeat of the lion:

The Nazirite, Samson, gazed at the type
of Your courage. He tore the lion apart,
the likeness of death.  You ripped [death] asunder
and made the sweet life emerge
from its bitterness for human beings3

Similarly, Augustine:

Who was in Samson, when he killed the lion that met him as he went to get a wife among strangers, but He who, when going to call His Church from among the Gentiles, said, "Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world?"4

Philistines with the jawbone
Caesarius notes several places where Samson's victory over his enemies parallels that of Christ.  For example, his defeat of 1,000 Philistines in Judges 15:14–16:

Before the coming of Christ all the Gentiles were torn to pieces by the devil and lay scattered like dry bones form the ass's body, but when Christ the true Samson came, He seized them all in His holy hands.  He restored them to the hands of His power, and with them overcame His and our adversaries. (119.4)

Philistines and their gates
Samson's capture and subsequent victory over the Philistines in Judges 16:1–3 is explained by Gregory the Great as an image of Christ's death and resurrection:

What does the city of Gaza signify, if not hell, the abode of the dead?  What is shown by the Philistines, if not the mistaken confidence of the Jews?  For, when the Jews saw that the Lord was dead, and his body placed in the tomb, they posted guards around it.  They were delighted that Jesus, whom the author of life had glorified, was now held captive by the gates of death, just as the Philistines were exultant that they had imprisoned Samson in Gaza.  However, in the middle of the night, Samson not only escaped, but carried the gates away with him.  Just so did our Redeemer, rising against before it was light, not only walk free out of death and of hell, but also destroy hell's very gates.5

Caesarius sees matters similarly, and, like Gregory, extends the image to include the ascension:

Moreover, he removed the city gates, that is, He took away the gates of hell.  What does it mean to remove the gates of hell, except to take away the power of death? He took it away and did not return it.  Furthermore, what did our Lord Jesus Christ do after He had taken away the gates of death?  He went up to the top of a mountain.  Truly, we know that He both arose and ascended into heaven. (118.5)

Philistines in death
Of course, Samson's greatest victory is associated with his death, like Christ's:

In the fact that he is written to have destroyed more enemies at his death than he struck before in the whole course of his life, the mystery of the Lord's Passion is shown, for through it the house of the devil fell and the kingdom of death was shattered. (120.4)

Ephrem connects the freedom Samson purchases with his life to that of Christ:

Samson is a type of the death of Christ the high priest:
Samson's death returns prisoners to their towns,
whereas the High Priest's death has returned us to our heritage6

Summary
Christian theologians in the fourth century identified Samson with Christ in particular ways, and additional analogies were developed by authors in the centuries immediately following.  In particular, the humiliation and victories of Samson lend themselves to parallels with the humiliation and final victory of Christ.

References and notes:

Caesarius of Arles, Sermons 118, 119, and 120, in  Sermons, Volume 2
Ambrose teaches on Samson in On the Holy Spirit, Book II, but does not connect Samson to Christ in the same way as do the other authors here.  Jerome says that "every one of the popular leaders" in Judges is a type of some kind in Letter 53.  Samson receives only fleeting mention in the surviving writigs of the earliest fathers.
Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns, Hymn 13.4, 137
Augustine, Reply to Faustus, Book XII, §32
Gregory the Great, Forty Gospel Homilies, 21, in Reading the Gospels with Gregory the Great, 36
Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns on Paradise, 13.12.13, in Ancient Christian Commentary, 167


There is good reason to believe that we will not see Judas in heaven.  Jesus spoke of His betrayer with these words:

  The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”  Matthew 26:24 ESV

As @Paul A Clayton noted in this comment, John 17:12 is more emphatic:

  None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.  John 17:12b NIV

If Jesus said that it would have been better for Judas had he never been born, then it is hard to imagine that he is in heaven now.  Since Jesus is omniscient, if Judas were to have another opportunity to respond to the gospel after his death--which I don't believe he did--then Jesus would have also known the outcome of that and would not have said what He did.

Judas did, however, feel remorse, but there is a significant, even eternal difference between remorse and repentance.  He certainly could have repented of what he did and returned to Jesus, but it appears he felt remorse and probably shame.  His suicide appears to be a result of that and not of biblical repentance.


Orthodoxy has a Tradition of the Dormition of Mary wherein it is belived that she didn't die but merely fell asleep and was assumed into Heaven. Catholic teaching neither affirms nor contradicts the Dormition but we have another tradition which is written in one of the apocryphal gospels ascribed to St. Thomas but written hundreds of years a after his death.

Here is the ancient document alluded to. And the very ancient and venerable and understandable tradition it is in keeping with is that The Blessed Virgin herself didn't wish to in any way not be a perfect disciple and imitator of her Son. So if he chooses to die, she would choose to die as well.

I've got the same questions as to what it exactly means for Mary to have died, but it is a mystery of the Church and one you can contemplate here and ask about in christianity.stackexchange.hvn in the life of the world to come to get a better answer.

  Full of grace, preserved from original sin, Mary never experienced its consequences, and at the end of her earthly life she was taken up body and soul into heaven, where we contemplate her as Our Lady of the Angels and Queen of the Universe.

  Pope John Paul II - Angelus address on Solemnity of the Assumption (August 15 1998)

  In the fullness of time, at the end of her earthly life, he would call her to follow him
  completely into the reality of resurrection. That is what the Assumption is all about. In Mary assumed into heavenly glory, the little one of Nazareth is now resplendent in the divine light. In her we see our eternal destiny, the destiny of the church.

  Most Rev. Peter J. Elliott, KC*HSJ - Retreat Homily - 2009

  In some of the writings of the Church Fathers we find Jesus himself described as coming to take his Mother at the time of her death to bring her into heavenly glory. In this way they present the death of Mary as an event of love which conducted her to her divine Son to share his immortal life. At the end of her earthly life, she must have experienced, like Paul and more strongly, the desire to be freed from her body in order to be with Christ for ever (cf. Phil 1:23).

  The experience of death personally enriched the Blessed Virgin: by undergoing mankind’s common destiny, she can more effectively exercise her spiritual motherhood towards those approaching the last moment of their life.

  Pope John Paul II - General Audience - June 25 1997

The last link addresses very straightforward Our Lady in connection with earthly death and probably succinctly answers the question.  Catholic doctrine merely says "At the end of her earthly life"  it doesn't say, "shortly after her soul left her body" or "when rigor mortis set in".  We wholeheartedly believe that she suffered no decay due to the wages of sin nor would she had she remained on earth after death for 1000 years before being brought into heaven.


There are many translations that do not use the term "blessed us in the the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing on Christ. I am no scholar of Greek or Hebrew, but clearly experts disagree on the translation. So I wouldn't dwell too long on what "heavenly realms" means.  Here are some versions:

Ephesians 1:3 (ASV) Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly [places] in Christ:
Ephesians 1:3 (BBE) Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has given us every blessing of the Spirit in the heavens in Christ:
Ephesians 1:3 (CEB) Bless the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! He has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing that comes from heaven.
Ephesians 1:3 (ESV) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
Ephesians 1:3 (GNT) Let us give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! For in our union with Christ he has blessed us by giving us every spiritual blessing in the heavenly world.
Ephesians 1:3 (GW) Praise the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! Through Christ, God has blessed us with every spiritual blessing that heaven has to offer.
Ephesians 1:3 (KJV) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
Ephesians 1:3 (TYN) Blessed be God the father of oure lorde Iesus Christ which hath blessed vs with all maner of spirituall blessinges in hevely thynges by Chryst
Ephesians 1:3 (MSG) How blessed is God! And what a blessing he is! He's the Father of our Master, Jesus Christ, and takes us to the high places of blessing in him.

I hope some of these are more accessible to your understanding.

I will also offer that Jesus was quoted as saying that the kingdom of heaven is within [us], so a "heavenly place" might not necessarily be "in heaven".

Source: http://www.biblestudytools.com/compare-translations/passage/?q=eph+1:3


What is the significance of apostolic succession in Anglicanism?

Your question is going to be very broad indeed, due to the nature of the Anglican Communion generally and the spectrum of attitudes to Apostolic Succession, particularly, within its very wide and welcoming embrace.

  The Anglican Communion "has never officially endorsed any one particular theory of the origin of the historic episcopate, its exact relation to the apostolate, and the sense in which it should be thought of as God given, and in fact tolerates a wide variety of views on these points".

Wikipedia

This reference in the Wikipedia article is attributed to :

  Jay, Eric G. The Church John Knox Press(1980), p.291 quoting the Anglican-Methodist Unity Commission Report 1968 p.37


Is it okay for Christians to study philosophy?

Let's take a look at Paul.

The book of Acts details the spread of the Gospel from Jerusalem into wider Judea and Samaria, then off through Syria, Asia, Greece, before it concludes with Paul preaching the Gospel in the capital city of the Roman Empire. If we follow along with the way the Christians are preaching the Gospel, we find that once they start talking to Gentiles the references to the Hebrew scriptures drop dramatically.

When we arrive at Acts 17, Paul is standing in the Areopagus, preaching the Gospel to Greek philosophers. He doesn't quote the Law or the Prophets or the Psalms, because they have (little to) no experience with the Hebrew scriptures. Instead, Paul quotes (from memory!) passages from Aratus' Phaenomena and Epimenides' Cretica (Acts 17.28).

And when we read Paul's personal letters, we find: he paraphrases the thought process found in the Jewish book Wisdom of Solomon (Romans 1.18-32; and probably in several other places), he cites Menander's Thais (1 Corinthians 15.33), and again from Epimenides' Cretica (Titus 1.12).

These were works of drama, poetry, and wisdom, both Jewish and Gentile. Paul certainly didn't agree with everything he found in those books, but he had no problems reading them and assimilating some of, in his mind, their best points. And really, Paul's magnum opus, his letter to the Romans, functions as a philosophical argument.

Yes, Christians may study philosophy.


What will New Earth, New Heavens and New Jerusalem really be like according to Catholicism?

The best Catholic commentary on St. John's Apocalypse, Fr. Herman Kramer's  The Book of Destiny, says this about Apoc. 21:1-2:

Verse 1
The prediction voiced at the blowing of the seventh trumpet (XI. 15) has at last become actuality: "the kingdom of this world is become our Lord's and His Christ's". A new heaven and a new earth appear. The promise of a new heaven and a new earth was not new in the New Testament; it had been enunciated in the Old. Isaias wrote: "For behold I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former things shall not be in remembrance, and they shall not come upon the heart" (Is. LXV. 17). To this is added the promise of the conversion and restoration of the Jews: "For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I shall make to stand before me, saith the Lord: so shall your seed stand and your name" (Is. LXVI. 22). St. John obviously had the text of Isaias in mind, for his own is verbally almost identical with it. Exegetes interpret this passage in Isaias to mean the happy state of the faithful under the dispensation of the Messias, for they shall be free from the dangers and anxieties of former times, and those who wish to live a Godly life in the world shall find no hindrance to their desires. Since the text is so nearly identical with that of Isaias, St. John surely expresses a fulfillment of the prophecy. By restating it so closely, he applies it to the new state of the world after Antichrist. Isaias, moreover, states that this new heaven and new earth means the changed condition of all things during the millennium (LXVI. 20-23). After the conversion of the heathens, who were ritually impure, and of the obstinate Jews, the Church shall be further embellished by the elevation of the Jews to the priestly dignity and the office of advocates between God and man. Their nation made the coming of the Messias possible; after they are all converted, they shall reap the delectable fruits of that distinction. Thus, after Elias has purified the Church of all hypocrisy, she shall stand in imperishable beauty before the Lord. The new EARTH is the changed state of society, which before and during the days of Antichrist was antichristian and anti-God. It is now entirely submissive to Christ and willing to have all relatons of man regulated and directed by the Church.
The antagonism against the Church is no more. Hence the "sea" has vanished. This "sea" produced all evil in the world. The Church was herself purified and perfected, as far as this is possible on earth, and now this new heaven will radiate benedictions everywhere. The dogmas and moral law of the Church shall suffer no change, but the evils within her at times: the worldliness, lack of fervor, hypocrisy, scheming for control instead of faithfulness to duty, lack of adherence to principle, and above all — lukewarmness in people and clergy — these evils shall be expurgated from the Church in the supreme struggle.
The true spiritual Israel comes forth transformed from the judgment under Antichrist; and transfused with grace it is united in one brotherhood with the remnants of converted heathen nations and stands before the Lord as did the first converts in VII. 9. The NEW HEAVEN is the Church after the conflict with Antichrist mature and transfigured with grace and adorned with all virtues the triumphal achievement of the Lamb. In her earthly form, she reflects the image of the Triumphant Church in Heaven: divine beauty, holiness, immutability, infallibility and indefectibility; and pervaded by the Spirit of God she bears the pledge and germs of divine glory and yearns with inexpressible longing for the pouring out of the messianic benedictions upon all flesh and for the transfiguration and ineffable bliss of the elect in the life beyond.
Verse 2
As the new heaven is the purer survival of the old, and the new earth arises out of the wreckage and decay of the old: So The New Jerusalem is created to be the metropolis of the new earth. The Church cannot exist on earth without a local center, and this will be established at Jerusalem, since Rome is a heap of Ruins and shall never be rebuilt. The Jerusalem of the Old Covenant has been in ruins since the war of Titus, and this fact must have set the Christian mind a-questioning, even in St. John's time, whether and when a new Jerusalem would arise. This new Jerusalem would be of another order and would be the fulfillment of Christian hopes expressed by St. Paul in several letters (Gal. IV. 26). The Apostle clearly designates it to be the Jerusalem of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews. His prophecy has been fulfilled in a spiritual way since the change of pagan into Christian Rome, which has become the Holy City of the New Testament as Jerusalem had been of the Old. Jewish tradition and literature looked for an ideal, a new and greater Jerusalem. They understood this in an earthly sense only, and it remained an indetermined hope until the apostles defined it in a spiritual sense. Yet Jewish traditions were based on the prophecies. When the Church shall establish headquarters at Jerusalem, the prophecies will have literal fulfillment, the blessed visions of peace become true and Jerusalem becomes the Celestial City (Isa. LXVI. 20; LXV. 19; LXII. 6-7; IX. 13-14, etc.). Most modern interpreters have discarded a literal fulfillment of the prophecies of a greater city to be built on the site of ancient Jerusalem and of the Church making this her metropolis. Yet why should not this be contained in the scope of the prophecies along with the spiritual sense?
The New Jerusalem coming from God may be called into existence by Almighty Power, as the prophets intimate, or the city may be rebuilt for earthly purposes and made glorious by the Church. If the Church rebuilt Christian Jerusalem as she rebuilt Christian Rome, it would literally come "out of heaven". Since the Church derives her divine life from the eucharistic Lamb and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, whatever city she should select for her headquarters or build to suit her needs would come forth from God and would be the Holy City coming down from heaven and elevated to the place of glory intended in the divine plans. The New Jerusalem thus becomes identified with the Church. (Gal. IV. 26).
The sciences have been developed and been proven to harmonize with divine revelation and to call for a Supreme Cause, God, as the origin and end of creation. The true principles of education have been accepted from the Church, because all educational systems that varied with the principles of the Church have to the extent in which they differed been proven failures. Art has been made the servant of truth and morality. Theology has been perfected and philosophy been made to serve theology. Medical science has been transfused with charity. The true and just relation of Labor and Capital and the rights of each have been proclaimed. The moral laws of the Church have leavened all governments to aim at justice for all and privileges for none. All civil laws are tested by the revealed law and interpreted to conform with it. The source of all contentment and felicity in the world is admitted to be a virtuous life, which receives its inspiration and strength from the eucharistic Lamb. And finally the Church possesses the principles long ago clearly taught that shall insure lasting peace on earth between nations. The Church is worthy to be the Queen of the Lamb and with Him graciously to rule the nations of the world. And she shall people heaven with the souls she begets and rears for Christ, the "Father of the world to come". She is thus prepared for the Great Consummation.

The last paragraph here answers your question about "human creations like technology etc."


Why has "Devil's advocate" office been changed?

Pope John Paul II abolished the Promotor fidei (Promoter of the Faith) office, better known as Advocatus diaboli (Devil's advocate) in 1983
No, he did not abolish this office. There is still one Promoter of the Faith for every cause of canonization. What Pope John Paul II did was to reduce his power to a great extent and change his role in the process of canonization.

Before the reform their job was not only to point out problems, but to actively seek them out. Furthermore, the canonization process could not move forward until every one of the Promotor Fidei's objections were answered to his satisfaction, giving him an effective veto power on the whole canonization.
In the modern procedure, the Promotor Fidei does not actively seek out problems, and no longer has anything close to a veto power over the process; his influence is reduced to presenting a report and being on hand as an "expert" whose opinion may be solicited, but there is nothing in the modern procedure where the Promotor Fidei submits a list of objections that must be answered by the Postulators. src

What was the reason of this action?
Because many bishops complained that the process of canonization was way too much cumbersome.
Is the unnatural rise of saint only a side-effect, or it was meant this way? Why?
Changing the role of this office was not the only cause for rise in canonizations. There are other factors too.

Previously four miracles were required for canonization. Now only two.
Also modern communication systems meant faster process.
Transporting of evidences and documents between diocesan bishops and the roman curia became faster.
Improvement in medical sciences and recording of medical history by default for all patients now allow more incidents to be taken for consideration of a miracle.

Are there any other impacts caused by this decision?
Other than the process becoming faster than before, I do not think there are any other impacts. After-all canonizations are infallible proclamations by the Pope.


What view of eschatology did the early church believe?

This is a difficult question to answer, because the early church did not approach the question in the same way that many people do today.  The earliest fathers expressed their belief in various eschatological views, like the immortality of souls, the return of Christ, the resurrection of God's people, and a general judgment, but they did not develop systematic understandings of eschatological doctrine.  Louis Berkhof summarizes the situation this way:

In the very first period the Church was perfectly conscious of the separate elements of the Christian hope [...] but these elements were simply seen as so many separate parts of the future hope, and were not yet dogmatically construed. Though the various elements were quite well understood, their interrelation was not yet clearly seen. (Systematic Theology, 6.1.B)

Thus, the best we are going to be able to do is gain a high-level understanding of what eschatological aspects the fathers accepted, and maybe the order in which such things would happen.
Millennium
The first big question is, what did the church fathers believe about the millennium of Revelation 20?  That in itself is a big question, but I'll briefly describe the two major views: Chiliasm (post-tribulation premillennialism) and amillennialism.
Some of the earliest Christian writers appear to have believed in a thousand year earthly reign of Christ.  Fragments from Papias (d. ~163) say that he believed:

that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth. (VI)

Several other major church fathers appear to have been of the same opinion, including Irenaeus (d. 202).  A later writer, Eusebius (d. 340), critiques them but gives us some insight as to the extent of these beliefs:

To these [writings] belong [Papias's] statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures.

For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views. (Ecc. History, 3.39)

As the quote from Eusebius suggests, after the first couple centuries, Chiliasm was largely superseded by amillennialism.  Clement of Alexandria (d. 215), Origen (d. 254), and especially Augustine (d. 430) contributed to establishing amillennialism as the standard view of the church.  Augustine believed that the millennium of Revelation 20 referred to the church age:

the whole time which this book embraces,—that is, from the first coming of Christ to the end of the world, when He shall come the second time,— [...] during this interval, which goes by the name of a thousand years. (City of God, 20.8)

Tribulation
Among those who believed in an earthly millennial reign, the fathers believed that the church would undergo the tribulation.  Hippolytus (see his Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, 64) and Irenaeus are two good examples, the latter of which wrote:

And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, “There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.” For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption. (Against Heresies, 5.29)

Preterism
Preterism is not one of the views you listed, probably because you are focusing on futurist understandings of the eschatological passages in the Bible.  However, there is evidence that at least some early Christians understood Jesus's predictions in the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21) as fulfilled in the AD 70 fall of Jerusalem.  Eusebius discusses this at length, arguing that the tribulation, death, and famine described by Jesus had already happened.  For example:

[Josephus] also shews plainly the fulfilment of the prediction of our Saviour [...] for he has put it on record, how the women roasted their children by the fire and ate them, on account of the pressure of the famine which prevailed in the city. (On the Theophania, 4.18–20)

In the interest of brevity, I won't analyze other writings that proponents of preterism argue are evidence of early support for their viewpoint.  Suffice to say that an understanding of early church eschatology requires realizing that a futurist interpretation was not always applied to passages commonly considered to be unfulfilled prophecy today.
Summary
We need to avoid the temptation of attempting to squeeze the views of the church fathers into our convenient little boxes.  They did not approach eschatology in the same systematic way that many do today.  Furthermore, many of the earliest writings have been lost, making an analysis like this even more challenging.
For more information, I'd recommend Gregg Allison's Historical Theology.


What is the dominant "Other Christianity" of the Members of the US Congress from the Dakotas?

According to my obsessive Googling, these three representatives are Evangelical or Pentecostal. This makes some sense, given that neither category is listed separately in the map key. If they followed their state demographics, they'd be more likely to be Lutheran or Catholic, but just because they're Representatives doesn't mean they're representative in all ways.

North Dakota: Rep. Kevin Cramer

Cramer's background is Lutheran, "[b]ut he soon found his politics and philosophy to be too conservative for the church"; his religious affiliation is given by the National Journal (1 November 2012) as "Evangelical Christian". A comment on an article in the Great Plains Examiner (25 April 2012) says "Cramer is a very active member of New Song church in Bismarck". New Song Church is affiliated with the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel (ICFG), an evangelical Pentecostal denomination.

South Dakota: Rep. Kristi Noem

Some blogs (1, 2, 3, 4) report that Noem is a member of the Family Worship Center Foursquare Church (possibly dead link) in her hometown of Watertown, SD. This is also an ICFG church.

Nebraska, 3rd district: Rep. Adrian Smith

According to this 2006 page, Adrian Smith was affiliated with Calvary Memorial Church in Gering, NE. This church is part of the Evangelical Free Church of America. On 15 July 2009, Smith introduced its pastor, Rev. Gary Hashley, to be a guest chaplain of the US House. Later, on 14 March 2013, he did the same for Rev. Dr. Ezekiel Pipher, who is senior pastor of another EFCA church, Heartland Evangelical Free Church of Central City, NE. Buzzfeed (see below) categorize him under EFC.

"Other Christian" generally

The list form of the Buzzfeed map says exactly who they categorized as "Other Christian", with several subcategories. In summary:

Assemblies of God (2)
Christian (11, including Cramer and Noem)
Christian Reformed (1)
Christian Scientist (2)
Congregationalist (4)
Churches of Christ (2)
Church of God (1)
Disciples of Christ (1)
Eastern Orthodox (5)
Evangelical Free Church (2, including Smith)
Fellowship of Evangelical Churches (1)
Nazarene (1)
Non-denominational Christian (3)
Pentecostal (1)
Protestant (10)
Quaker (1)
Seventh-Day Adventist (2)
United Brethren (2)
Unspecified Christian (5)

Aside from the three already mentioned, the other "Other" representative in the same general area is Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota's 6th district. Buzzfeed classifies her as generic Christian. Reportedly, she attends Eagle Brook Church, an evangelical megachurch.


What is the Catholic argument against scripture alone?

Before giving my answer, I note that a very similar question already exists:

What is the basis for not believing sola scriptura?

To start, not everything which was revealed by God was transmitted in writing by the Apostles, at least definitively not by Paul:

  "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you
  were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."
  (2 Thess 2:15)

  "Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from
  me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim 1:13)

  "and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses
  entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim
  2:2)

The objection to sola scriptura from the three above passages could be ingeniously countered by positing that any knowledge that Paul transmitted only orally and which needed to be transmitted to future generations was put in writing by some other NT author, be it John, Peter, James, Jude, or Luke in Acts. I don't think any sola scriptura defender would actually resort to such convoluted argument, but even if they did, they'd still need to explain away this other passage from Paul:

  "the Church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth."
  (1 Tim 3:15)

In this passage, "support", rendered alternatively as "foundation", "bulwark" or "buttress", translates "hedraióma", a word used only once in the NT and nowhere else. To note, the usual word for "foundation" is "themelios", used in several places by Paul to refer to:

Jesus Christ (1 Cor 3:10-12),
the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20), "Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone (akrogóniaios)" in this case, and
those who belong to God, i.e. the Church: "God's firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: "The Lord knows those who are his,"" (2 Tim 2:19).

The relationship between Jesus, the apostles and the whole of the Church in these passages with "foundation"/"themelios" mirrors the relationship between Jesus, Peter and the totality of the faithful in four passages with "rock" or "stone", namely those where:

Paul and Peter call Jesus "the cornerstone", i.e. Eph 2:20 and 1 Pe 2:6-7 respectively, the latter using both "akrogóniaios" and "kephale gonias",
Jesus tells Simon: "you are Rock (Kepha/Petros), and upon this rock (kepha/petra) I will build my church" (Mt 16:18), and
Peter says that the faithful "as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house" (1 Pe 2:5).

The teaching from either set of passages is clear:

Jesus is the ultimate foundation, the cornerstone, and it is so by Himself, by nature.
Peter and the apostles are foundation by the grace of Christ, by participation in his firmness.
The whole Church, "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Eph 2:20), is also foundation and support by participation.

The point is that it is the Church which is "the pillar and support of the truth", not Scripture. This statement, together with the quoted Pauline exhortations to hold to the traditions received orally from him, show clearly that the position of sola scriptura is against Scripture.

Last but not least, there is the canon question, as no Bible book contains a list of all Bible books.


Is Pre-Adamism considered heretical by any mainstream denominations?

I guess that, for any denomination, the answer depends on whether those Pre-Adamite beings are posited to be human in a metaphysical and theological sense, i.e. with an infused spiritual soul, or only in a biological sense, without an infused spiritual soul.
In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, the first option is heresy but the second is not. The Thomistic philosopher Edward Feser defended the compatibility of the second option with Catholic doctrinal orthodoxy a few years ago in his blog.


Are sins sinful because they are inherently acts of badness or because they are acts of disobedience against god?

All sin is such not because the act it's self is inherently evil (although it could be) but because it is something other than what is perfect. The definition of the word sin is missing the mark. meaning the goal is perfection and you didn't achieve this. We see this in Romans 3:23

  All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

We also see in James 4:17 if anyone knows to do good, and does not do it, it is sin. We also see in Isaiah 64:4-9  the righteousness of man is like filthy rags (or more graphically, used tolite paper). Meaning  the very best man can achieve without God, is still grotesque  in comparison with God's standard of perfection. So in that since all sin is equal.

But it stands to reason that disobedience is really the archetype for destructive sin, since it moves sin away from falling short of good to willingly doing the oposite, Since God is telling us that something is not perfect and we decide to do it anyway. I would say that yes that sin is worse because it is the embodiment of sin. But all sin is still falling short of the glory of God, so in that since all sin is equal.


Why do Mathew and Luke present a different order of Satan's temptation of Jesus?

This is sort of a combination and customization of several commentaries I perused on the subject, being curious myself.  As I am not directly copying any one of them I am not adding individual quotes.  The two that most influenced my opinion here is Edersheim and someone called Arthur Sloman.

If you read the verses carefully you will notice Luke does not imply chronology as much as Matthew.  Matthew uses the word 'then' a couple times. Luke just uses the word 'and' (i.e. this also happened among these things).  At once we should see that the gospel narratives did not have an obsession with chronology as we might have in a modern account.  Those who spend years trying to chart the 'true' chronology of the gospel events have various perplexing decisions to make and leave many things under guesswork.

To wonder why Luke may have reversed the potential chronological order of Matthew's account we can only make an educated guess.  The 'education' part in a good guess is that we do know that Luke was thinking more of a Gentile audience whereas Matthew was minding a Jewish audience.  This is often the only handle we have to try and see why one goes in a certain direction and the other not.

Using this handle of the intended audience I can see one plausible explanation. For a Jewish audience they might instinctively understand that the temptation to 'throw himself down' or to become like a powerful Lord of the earth, are both increasing degrees of the same temptation to obtain a Messianic dream the easy way. That is to prove or force his kingdom without suffering or being rejected by his people.  To a Gentile, this order of increasing temptation might go right over their heads.  Without digressing and explanation the whole context, possibly Luke was satisfied in getting a less 'deep' understanding of the temptation that might be more applicable to a Gentile audience and their temptations.  The First the temptation is just to satisfy hunger, without any direct religious significance in the desire. The Second is then to a Gentile application, to satisfy a desire for raw power (neglecting the Messianic motive to have that power and fulfill the Jewish expectation of the Messiah's rule according the the flesh).  Finally to satisfy a desire for renown recognition and fame, which seems the ultimate dream of stardom like the gods of Greece and Rome we find the grand temptation (again avoiding the complexity of the Messianic nuances of the chronological order).  Maybe Luke switched the order of these temptations so as to better connect and apply more aptly the gist of the narrative to a heathen audience entirely ignorant of the Messianic nuances that the chronological order introduces. If he used a chronological order he may have had to embark on some digression and side notes of explanation cluttering his evangelical intentions.


What is the basis of the LDS/Mormon prohibition of facial hair for men?

Short version: The rule is about appearing nice, clean-cut, and respectable in line with current cultural norms.  It's a matter of practicality - just look nice, in order to better represent the Church and therefore, God.

From an address President Dallin H. Oaks gave to the 25,000 students of Brigham Young University.

  Unlike modesty, which is an eternal value in the sense of rightness or
  wrongness in the eyes of God, our rules against beards and long hair
  are contemporary and pragmatic. They are responsive to conditions and
  attitudes in our own society at this particular point in time.
  Historical precedents are worthless in this area. The rules are
  subject to change, and I would be surprised if they were not changed
  at some time in the future. But the rules are with us now, and it is
  therefore important to understand the reasoning behind them.

  In the minds of most people at this time, the beard and long hair are
  associated with protest, revolution, and rebellion against authority.
  They are also symbols of the hippie and drug culture. Persons who wear
  beards or long hair, whether they desire it or not, may identify
  themselves with or emulate and honor the drug culture or the extreme
  practices of those who have made slovenly appearance a badge of
  protest and dissent. In addition, unkemptness—which is often (though
  not always) associated with beards and long hair—is a mark of
  indifference toward the best in life.


The problem here is your perspective. It appears that you don't allow G-d to do as he pleases in that David's punishment was the death of the child. The child isn't punished. G-d does not guarantee anyone any term of life. Life belongs to G-d and he can do with it whatever he chooses. As an innocent, the child is guaranteed eternal life.

So G-d is not unjust because the child wasn't treated unjustly.

G-d doesn't punish the child for the sin of the parent but there is a principle called collateral damage. If I take LSD and damage my genes, then my child will suffer for my action. In this case David choose evil and David's punishment was the death of the child. This is not unjust on G-d's part.

Secondly forgiveness of sin doesn't alleviate the consequence of sin. If I rob a bank and repent the judge isn't going to commute my sentence.

I hope this helps.


Seeking a graphic or flowchart of the history of the formation of Christian denominations

Wikipedia's article on Christian denominations appears to have what you are looking for.  The major branches are listed in one graphic:

Branches of Protestantism are best shown separately, for ease of viewing:

Note that these are simple representations of complex movements, so lines connecting one tradition with another won't provide the whole picture.  But this should help get you started in seeing the big picture of Christian traditions.