How do Orthodox Bishops and theologians view the Church Fathers' definition of the word "catholic?"

Greek manuscripts were written in the Greek uncial script from approximately the 3rd century BCE through the 12th century CE, and Latin manuscripts were written in the Roman majuscule script from the 7th century BCE through the 4th century CE. But even after miniscule script began being used, 'catholic church' was still rarely capitalized in the literature initially, because it likely was not being used as a proper title but rather as a simple adjective. The first use of the combination ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία ("the Catholic Church") is in the exact reference cited in the question (Ignatius of Antioch's Epistle to the Smyrneans 8:2, written approximately 110 CE. Since capitalization is irrelevant in this time period, it is best to allow context to help us understand the intended meaning. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  The word catholic "was freely used by the earlier Christian writers
  in what we may call its primitive and non-ecclesiastical sense. Thus
  we meet such phrases as the "the catholic resurrection" (Justin
  Martyr), "the catholic goodness of God" (Tertullian), "the four
  catholic winds" (Irenaeus), where we should now speak of "the general
  resurrection", "the absolute or universal goodness of God", "the four
  principal winds", etc. The word seems in this usage to be opposed to
  μερικός (partial) or ἴδιος (particular), and one familiar example of
  this conception still survives in the ancient phrase "Catholic
  Epistles" as applied to those of St. Peter, St. Jude, etc., which were
  so called as being addressed not to particular local communities, but
  to the Church at large.

This Catholic Encyclopedia entry goes on to point out:

  Among the Greeks it was natural that while Catholic served as the
  distinctive description of the one Church, the etymological
  significance of the word was never quite lost sight of. Thus in the
  "Catechetical Discourses" of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 347) he
  insists on the one hand (sect. 26): "And if ever thou art sojourning
  in any city, inquire not simply where the Lord's house is--for the
  sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens, houses of
  the Lord--nor merely where the church is, but where is the Catholic
  Church. For this is the peculiar name of the holy body the mother of
  us all." On the other hand when discussing the word Catholic, which
  already appears in his form of the baptismal creed, St. Cyril remarks:
  (sect. 23) "Now it [the Church] is called Catholic because it is
  throughout the world, from one end of the earth to the other...."

  There can be no doubt, however, that it was the struggle with the
  Donatists which first drew out the full theological significance of
  the epithet Catholic and passed it on to the schoolmen as an abiding
  possession. When the Donatists claimed to represent the one true
  Church of Christ, and formulated certain marks of the Church, which
  they professed to find in their own body, it could not fail to strike
  their orthodox opponents that the title Catholic, by which the Church
  of Christ was universally known, afforded a far surer test, and that
  this was wholly inapplicable to a sect which was confined to one small
  corner of the world. The Donatists, unlike all previous heretics, had
  not gone wrong upon any Christological question. It was their
  conception of Church discipline and organization which was faulty.
  Hence, in refuting them, a more or less definite theory of the Church
  and its marks was gradually evolved by St. Optatus (c. 370) and St.
  Augustine (c. 400). These doctors particularly insisted upon the note
  of Catholicity, and they pointed out that both the Old and the New
  Testament represented the Church as spread over all the earth. (See
  Turmel, "Histoire de la theologie positive, 1904, I, 162-166, with
  references there given.) Moreover, St. Augustine insists upon the
  consensus of Christians in the use of the name Catholic. "Whether they
  wish or no", he says, "heretics have to call the Catholic Church
  Catholic" ("De vera religione", xii). "Although all heretics wish to
  be styled Catholic, yet if any one ask where is the Catholic place of
  worship none of them would venture to point out his own conventicle"
  (Contra Epistolam quam vocant Fundamenti, iv). Of later exponents of
  this same thesis the most famous Vincent of Lerins (c. 434). His canon
  of Catholicity is "That which has been believed everywhere, always,
  and by all." "This", he adds, "is what is truly and properly Catholic"
  (Commonitorium, I, ii).

I highly recommend you read the entire entry for more information. Of course later in history after the Eastern and Western church split, the bishop of Rome called the Western church the Roman Catholic Church, and the East opted to go with the title 'Orthodox.' It should be noted that the Greek adjective orthodox (ὀρθόδοξος) is dated to the late 3rd or early 4th century, and thus was in common use in the whole church prior to this split as well. It should also be pointed out that this distinction did not develop until much later in history (i.e. after the 11th century). Early on Eastern Christians were merely called "Greeks" and Western Christians "Romans." Phrases such as "the orthodox faith" and "the catholic church" were still applied to Christians both East and West (and still are in many ways).

To answer the question clearly, any speculation about the meaning of the word 'catholic' has nothing to do with capitalization. Only context can guide interpretation, in which case the Eastern Fathers tended to retain both uses: that of a title and as a simple adjective. It should be no surprise that Eastern Orthodox Christians today also retain both meanings, albeit using capitalization as a means of distinction.


What is the origin and purpose of a new bishop being questioned by a layperson?

I would like to try to address the second question, "What is the rationale for having the interview with a member of the laity?"

It does not seem clear from the ancient Canons that laypeople were explicitly called to approve and/or examine a candidate bishop.  It seems, though, that a bishop's election had to be approved by laypeople as well as clergy by the time of the 5th century, at least in some jurisdictions.  Leo the Great wrote:

  When therefore the choice of the chief priest is taken in hand, let
  him be preferred before all whom the unanimous consent of clergy and
  people demands, but if the votes chance to be divided between two
  persons, the judgment of the metropolitan should prefer him who is
  supported by the preponderance of votes and merits: only let no one be
  ordained against the express wishes of the place: lest a city should
  either despise or hate a bishop whom they did not choose, and
  lamentably fall away from religion because they have not been allowed
  to have when they wished.

  Letter XIV, To Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, Chapter VI,
  "The Election of a Bishop must proceed by the wishes of the clergy and
  people."

There is perhaps a still better answer, but since the question has remained unanswered for two years, I thought I would at least contribute this.


What scholarship exists behind the WikiSource translation of the Bible?

The Wiki page for the Bible translation project is here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/WS:WPWB

I wouldn't really trust it so much because it says stuff like this:

  If you know Greek or Hebrew, add your name to the list of participants
  and claim a chapter! Or if you don't want to make that commitment yet,
  check somebody else's work. If you don't know Greek or Hebrew, we can
  still very much use your English skills in proof-reading and tweaking
  the text.

And when it lists out the participants in the project, it says:

  Type #~~~ at the end of the list to add you name. If you want the
  current date and time after your name add one more "~". If you
  understand Greek or Hebrew very well please add " - Translator" after
  the #~~~. If you don't understand Greek and Hebrew very well then you
  can add " - editor" after you name.

They don't seem to understand that it takes a lot more than "knowing Greek and Hebrew" to be able to translate the Bible or any ancient text for that matter. You not only need to be a master of these languages AS THEY WERE SPOKEN back then but also need to know the culture of the time like the back of your hand.

My advice, don't take WIKI anything without a grain of salt. It should raise a lot of alarms in the case of the Bible, especially because anyone thinking they can do it, will try to do it. They are probably trying to stay true to the translation (I don't know what their intentions are), but I just wouldn't trust them. I have a hard time trusting some of the translations out there already, I would steer clear of Wiki stuff.

I should make it clear though, I like open source stuff, but this stuff is something I would probably not want to take any chances with.


Texts in Eastern services expressing ideas about the role of woman in child development

In Octoechos, ec. 7, 9th hirmos of the Sunday canon (not sure how it is called in English) we can read:

Слову плоть взаимодавшая

This can be translated as

lended flesh to the Word

Or, 1st troparion of Theotokos Sunday canon, ec. 5:

От чистых кровей Твоих усырися плоть преестественно

That is:

From pure bloods of Yours, densed the flesh (of Christ) supernaturally

In the last troparion of the Canon to Eucharist:

Бог воплотися от чистых кровей твоих

that is

The God incarnated from pure bloods of yours

And one of my favorite

внутрь во чреве Твоем плоть исткася
inside the womb of Yours, the flesh (of Christ) en-weaved

There are many other troparions like these in Menaion, but i can't find them so quickly.
In short, the significance of Theotokos' contribution in Christ's development was never underestimated. As well as Mary's own holiness, which can be seen from many other texts.


According to Catholicism and/ or Protestantism, how many times was Jesus of Nazareth, whether pre-incarnate or incarnate, begotten?

Once - in two different ways depending on our definition of 'begotten'

There seems to be some confusion on the subject because "only begotten" a theological term  does not mean "begotten" a biblical term.

But to answer your question, if thinking 'begotten' as in 'only begotten' it gains prominence in Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 representing Christ’s single eternal generation:

  The phrase “only-begotten” is not an accurate translation and should not be used in any of the nine passages. This phrase is derived from the Latin Vulgate (a translation of the Bible from about the 5th century which has been quite influential on other translations) and reflects certain theological debates about the person of Christ. While the language of the Word being born of God is present in the 2nd century, the most notable occurrence of this language is the creed from the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. This creed speaks of the Son of God as begotten of the Father, unique—that is, from the substance of the Father—God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father. This creed was the result of the rejection of the heresy that the Son of God was the first created being. Ultimately the phrase “begotten not made” leads to what theologians call the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. (Elwell, W. A., & Beitzel, B. J. (1988). Baker encyclopedia of the Bible (1590). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.)

Not to say that the theological term is not very biblical. When the word begotten is used with “son” it does mean God’s only Son, indicating God’s absolute delight towards him and his absolute uniqueness (Jn 3:16, 18; 1 Jn 4:9). The statement at the baptism and transfiguration of Jesus in the Synoptics 'This is my beloved son' also carries the same sense of God’s absolute delight towards him and his absolute uniqueness, but not principally a literal/spiritual 'birth'. Not 'principally' a 'birth' but by implication as Jesus is unique since he is also eternally begotten. If that does not make him unique I do not know what can. In fact the very notion of a son, and all its uses in scripture could be argued as having its ultimate meaning in dimly reflecting the glory of the Son. The concept of sonship finds its ultimate meaning in Christ.

To confuse matters more, in Hebrews Chapter 1:5 it reads ‘For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again,  “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? this seems to imply a 'birth' or sorts, but not really. From this type of reference we are naturally tempted to mix the theological term (i.e. eternal generation) with the biblical prophecy first fulfilled in David (as a type) and in Christ as Messiah. Therefore, although “only begotten” is a theological term referring to a single eternal event, ‘today I have begotten you’ means something totally different in terms of a true generation, or 'birth'. This really refers to his 'birth' from the dead, or the first born.

John Owen explains the different views about 'begotten' very well here, as well as the correct view to take:

  And some assign this to the day of his incarnation, when he declared him to be his Son, and that he should be so called, as Luke 1:35; some to the day of his baptism, when he was again solemnly from heaven proclaimed so to be, Matt. 3:17; some to the day of his resurrection, when he was declared to be the Son of God with power, Rom. 1:4, and Acts 13:33; some to the day of his ascension, whereunto these words are applied. And all these interpretations are consistent, and reconcilable with each other, inasmuch as they are all means serving unto the same end, that of his resurrection from the dead being the most signal amongst them, and fixed on in particular by our apostle in his application of this testimony unto him, Acts 13:33.
  And in this sense alone the words have any appearance of respect unto David, as a type of Christ, seeing he was said, as it were, to be begotten of God when he raised him up, and established him in his rule and kingdom. (Owen, J. (1854). Vol. 20: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Volume 3 (W. H. Goold, Ed.). Works of John Owen (136–137). Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter.)

Conclusion: The biblical term “begotten” refers to the resurrection of Christ, which happened once. The theological term “only begotten” refers to the eternal generation of the Son, by an inconceivable communication of the essence and substance of the Godhead by the Father --- only happened in a continuous forever. God’s absolute delight towards Christ and his absolute uniqueness implied by the words 'only Son' brings the single eternal generation and the single generation from the dead together under the Sonship theme. Both his eternal generation and his resurrection make him absolutely unique and proven fully approved of by God. This is partly why Jesus always used the phrase 'the Son' as implying being one and only person generated from yet equal to his Father, for example, as in John 5:16-29.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses have a systematized way of finding specific types of persons?

Practice will vary from place to place. I live in the middle of Ireland. I’ll try to describe general principles, but this may work out differently in different areas. Each congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses has its own “territory” (roughly analogous to a parish in other denominations, perhaps). That territory will then be subdivided into maps.

The territory of my former congregation covered a few towns and a very large rural area. This is partly because of population demographics: Ireland tends to have a lot of one-off scattered houses in the countryside, while in the UK people are more likely to live in towns and villages. In Germany, I believe, even farmers tend to live in villages, and they commute to their farms in the morning. In Ireland, though, it’s quite common to have houses in the middle of nowhere which have nothing to do with a farm: people just like living in rural areas. Our maps, then, covered different types of territory. A person working such a map would be expected to cover the whole thing: houses and businesses alike. They would keep a record of people not at home, and attempt to call back at a different time of day.

Of course, some people prefer doing different types of work. Some of the urban maps had a note on them: “Businesses on this map are included on a separate business map.” A person working such a map would cover only the houses, leaving the businesses. (I was working on redividing the territory and creating new maps; the business maps were never actually prepared before I left the Witnesses. I assume they have some now.)

There are cases where things would work differently. The most obvious example is when congregations serving different language groups have overlapping territory. In this case, people might try to specifically seek out speakers of the language they are targeting. On one occasion, my mother (an ISL/English interpreter) and a couple of visiting Deaf Witnesses went out specifically looking for Deaf people.

Of course, not all witnessing activity takes place from door to door. In street witnessing, it is relatively easy (and fairly instinctive, actually) to pick out particular people who look more approachable, by whatever metric you use.

I suspect that more targeted witnessing happens in more populated areas, generally. In a rural area, once you’ve spent an hour travelling to the place, you’re going to try to get to everyone.


What positions with regard to epistemology exist in Catholicism?

There is actually an encyclical devoted almost entirely to this topic, St. John Paul II’s Fides et ratio, published in 1998.

In that encyclical, John Paul sets down some essential principles for reconciling the truths known through natural reason alone (reason unaided by faith) and revealed truths (those that can only be known though faith).

These principles can be summarized as follows:

There is never a conflict between truths known through natural reason alone (hereafter, I will refer to these as “truths of reason”) and truths that require revelation by God (hereafter referred to as “revealed truths”). If something is true, then it can never contradict another truth, whether revealed or not. All truth, in the end, comes from the Holy Spirit. (That is the gist of numbers 36-42; this idea is also the topic of the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, from Vatican I.)
Although the Church does not endorse particular philosophical schools (including epistemological schools), the Church can say that those philosophies that fail to go beyond mere appearances, and do not seek their foundation, are not adequate tools for understanding the Faith (no 83). (The Pope is probably thinking of the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and his followers, who famously denied the knowability of the “noumenon,” or “thing-in-itself”. He is not saying that Kant has nothing good to contribute, but that agnosticism of the kind proposed by Kant is not helpful for understanding revealed truths.)
The Church should support the contribution of the empirical sciences. On the other hand, it should be recognized that the method employed by these sciences is not the only way to have access to the truth (nos. 83 and 88). Nor is there any fundamental contradiction between what the Faith teaches and what science proposes (no. 88). (Hence, as an example, if biology finds that all life forms have evolved ultimately from a single species, well and good; the perceived differences between this theory and what the Book of Genesis seems to propose can easily be overcome by understanding that the author of Genesis was not attempting to write a scientific treatise on the origin of species, nor are any of the truths actually asserted by Genesis in any way contradicted by the theory of evolution.)
The empirical sciences, philosophy, and theology—although all legitimate sources of truth—operate based on different principles and using different methods (no. 92). For example, the empirical sciences generally use the hypothetical-deductive method; philosophy (at least the kind advocated by the Pope) uses a method that deduces causes based on the observed effects (no. 83); theology begins with the truths that God has revealed and uses reason to draw out the logical conclusions (that is the gist of Chapter II, nos 16-20).

More à propos the O.P.’s particular questions:

Regarding the reliability (or inerrancy) of the Scriptures, the epistemological path is as follows: canonicity -> inspiration -> inerrancy. At the end of the day, the reliability of the Scriptures is a truth of faith, not a truth of reason. Although the Scriptures can be submitted to tests proposed by the modern sciences, those sciences cannot “prove,” as one proves a mathematical theorem, that the Scriptures are reliable. Rather, this truth depends epistemologically on revelation from God, which in turn, is mediated by the Church (which is to say, we have access to the truths revealed by God thanks to the Church, who has the authority to teach those truths).

The way the Church has shown the reliability of the Scriptures is by affirming their canonicity. In the fourth and fifth centuries, in various places but most notably in Carthage and Rome, synods of bishops sifted through the evidence and chose all those works, and only those works, that could be considered inspired by the Holy Spirit. Their criteria were (1) fidelity to accepted Catholic doctrine (2) continuous use in liturgical celebrations (3) for the New Testament, traceability to the authority of an Apostle. The lists produced in the synods of Carthage and Rome are identical in substance with the 73 books of the Catholic Bible. (These can by found in the Enchiridion Symbolorum edited by Denzinger and Hünnermann.) The canon was not, however, definitively or solemnly “closed” until the Council of Trent (in response to changes in the canon proposed by Protestant reformers).

Canonicity, or inclusion in the Canon of Scripture, is the Church’s judgment that a particular work is inspired—which means, essentially, that the Holy Spirit is to be understood as the primary author. If God is the primary author, it follows that everything affirmed as true by the human author (and the whole problem of exegesis hinges on what the author actually meant to affirm) must be considered as affirmed by God—hence, true. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] nos. 105-108.)

That is the epistemological path that the Church proposes for the Scriptures, and if an epistemological school is to be compatible with the Catholic Faith, then it must fall within these parameters.

(One sees immediately, for instance, that Kantian agnosticism will make the passage from canonicity to inspiration very difficult. On the other hand, Platonic-inspired theories of knowledge based on recollection or the Augustinian_rationes seminales_, as well as Aristotle’s more experience-based approach, could be made to work.)

In fact, substantially the same epistemological path is to be used for any revealed truth: the Church has the authority to interpret (but not invent!) the truths revealed to it by God (keeping in mind that the definitive revelation was given in the person of Jesus Christ, and that there is no more “public” revelation beyond him, and nothing fundamental to be added to the deposit of faith after the age of the Apostles). These constitute the so-called deposit of faith (CCC no. 84), entrusted to the Church, especially to the Apostles and their successors the bishops. What the Church, through her teaching office, or Magisterium, after consulting the Scriptures and also the Church’s constant tradition, affirms to be an article of faith, the faithful are bound to believe with divine and catholic faith. (An excellent summary of how faithful Catholics are bound believe various Church teachings can be found by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s commentary on the profession of faith required in various situations.)

In conclusion: the Church gives full liberty to adopt any epistemological theory, so long as it does not clearly deny the very possibility of gaining access to revealed truth.


Should protestants not make the sign of the Cross?

I don't think there's any harm in making the sign of the cross.  I don't think we could equate it with the type of superstition that equates to idolatry or occultism.  (I'm sorry if that sounds offensive to anyone who practices it.  Please read on, and you'll see I don't mean to offend.)

It's definitely meant as a Christian gesture for the Catholics and the other denominations that did or still do practice it.

I think that if you're a protestant that is not in a denomination that practices it, you should not practice it.  Not because it's wrong, or for Scriptural reasons but because there's really no good motive to do so and because it just plain shows common decency to respect the traditions of others, so long as they are not anti-Christian, or anti-God.

To do it flippantly would seem to dishonor it and could prove offensive to those who hold it as important.  As a Baptist, I imagine I'd get annoyed if a bunch of Catholics went down to the beach and held dunking-style baptisms just to do it.  To me, baptism is very symbolic, and an important rite. Not that it saves you or anything, but it's not something to be made fun of.  For those that make the sign of the cross, I'd imagine it's the same.

Since there is no scriptural prohibition against it, and it's important to some, I'd say that we should just keep our silence, and show respect for their beliefs and practices, as we'd hope they'd have respect for ours.


What is the relationship between the Catholic churches of various countries?

Countries or regions each have their own bishops conference.

Conferencia del Episcopado Mexicano

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

But that is as much as they differ.  A bishop, acting as a successor of the apostles (like James as Bishop of Jerusalem) is the leader of his diocese.  Then the priest is the leader of his congregation and establishes the norms for conduct within his parish (i.e. if he doesn't want a bible study to be held there, then there shouldn't be a bible study held there).

To your anecdote, I'm not a canon law expert, but it strikes me as odd if it were a priest telling someone that they're excommunicated.  He may tell them to take a hike, but I don't believe that he has authority to excommunicate someone.  There are offenses, like abortion or helping someone get/perform an abortion that are in themselves automatic excommunication, but what you're describing sounds like disobedience which would require a Bishop's intervention.

In my diocese, we had a similar thing happen with a Religious Ed. teacher who refused to deny things she had written in her master's thesis which were contrary to Catholic Teaching.  To my knowledge, she wasn't even excommunicated for that, just fired (you can read more info than you'd ever want here, but I think it should clarify a few things about the way a diocese is governed).

What Gilbert wrote is perhaps the way things look, but in truth, it is not the congregation who leads things in their parish.  Throughout the Universal Church, priests are the heads of their parishes.

In the documents of Vatican II, the Church provided for additional lay leadership from within the parish in establishing ministries and financial councils but not complete authority and those documents cover the entire Church, not just Mexico or the United States.


What is the estimated membership of Eastern Lightning?

Eastern Lightning also goes by the name of The Church of Almighty God.  The Church of Almighty God split from the Shouters, who were led by Li Changshou, aka Witness Lee. It is virtually impossible to obtain verifiable statistics, but below are extracts from two reports. The first article is dated 29 July 2017.

  "In 1995 the group was banned by China, so the couple moved to America and maintained the cult's headquarters there.  China is not the only country in which the group has a presence. In fact, its website has details for sections in more than 20 countries.  Emily Dunn, an Asian studies academic at the University of Melbourne, claims it is estimated that the group has between several hundred thousand and one million members.”

Source: http://talkradio.co.uk/news/eastern-lightning-banned-chinese-cult-believes-woman-reincarnation-jesus-17072816806

  “The Church of Almighty God releases periodical statistics, and claims that between 2011 and 2013 more than 300,000 members were arrested. These figures are impossible to verify, but do not appear unbelievable if one considers the frequent references to “successful” campaigns against the Church of Almighty God in Chinese anti-xie-jiao propaganda and other official sources. The Church also reports that many of its members were tortured in China, and some died while in custody in suspicious circumstances. Despite governmental repression, and hostility by some leaders of the mainline Christian churches, the Church of Almighty God grew in China and, according to Chinese official sources, had reached four million members in 2014. The figure is disputed by scholars, and the situation in China makes statistics difficult.”

Source: https://censamm.org/resources/profiles/church-of-almighty-god


Can a priest add his own prayers to the Mass after the dismissal?

I think the answer is partly in this communication by the Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff, titled "The Priest in the Concluding Rites of the Mass", issued in 2010.

First, let us recall the Rite in the Ordinary Form. As the text says, this is:

  "The concluding rites consist of 1) Brief announcements, if they are necessary; 2) The priest's greeting and blessing, which on certain days and occasions is enriched and expressed in the prayer over the People or another more solemn formula; 3) The dismissal of the people by the deacon or the priest, so that each may go out to do good works, praising and blessing God; 4) The kissing of the altar by the priest and the deacon, followed by a profound bow to the altar by the priest, the deacon, and the other ministers"

Thus, the final blessing could be expanded with the Prayer over the People (e.g see prayers for Lent here), or other "more solemn" formula.

The same text then goes on to present the goal of such Rite, where it is clear that this is a brief one. Some quotes:

  Of what has been said, it turns out that the two columns that sustain the Rites of Conclusion of the Mass are the blessing and the dismissal. ... From these biblical elements stems the Christian liturgical use of blessing, which has the meaning of "asking God for his gifts on his creatures, and of thanking him for the gifts already received". ...

And:

  In the Rites of Conclusion of the Holy Mass the priest is still carrying out a priestly task, namely, of mediation between God and the faithful people. It is not only a question of greeting one another and agreeing to meet the next time, remembering the commitment perhaps during the week. The priest here invokes on the people the divine blessing, while in the name of the people he thanks God for the gifts already received by his kindness. Here also he acts "in persona Christi." Because of this, he does not say in the plural "may the omnipotent God bless us," or "the Mass is ended, let us go in peace." He speaks in the name of the Person of Christ and as minister of the Church, because of this he imparts the blessing, while invoking it, and he sends the faithful to the daily mission of life: "may God bless you" and "Go in peace." Through him, Christ and the Church charge the baptized with giving this daily witness of the Gospel.

From the above it is clear that after communion, the final rites are to be brief, and still in a very solemn mood, with the Priest acting as a mediator. Surely the priest has the capacity to insert "another more solemn formula", but this does not mean everything. For example, to insert here a rather long set of prayers like the Rosary or to perform the Stations of the Cross during Lent would, in my view, conflict with the solemnity and purpose of the rite. In fact, in my experience these rather long prayers are usually celebrated before the mass.

Now, when it comes to the Extraordinary Form of the mass, things might be slightly different. For example, it is common in this form to have, as part of the Concluding Rites, some rather long extra prayers. Blessing prayers are longer, and also the first verses of Gospel of John are read (see full prayers here). If the mass is a Low Mass, some final prayers to Mary and the Archangel Michael (known as Leonine prayers, and found here) can be added once the mass is finished. Whether more prayers can be added or not, I refer you to the 1962 missal (see in particular page 66, although text is in Latin).


According to the Calvinist, why "believe" if something is known absolutely true?

You can only be as confident about something as you are confident about the basis for that something. So just as you say, the Christians who believe in the infallibility of scripture believe it, they don't know it like they know that 2 + 2 = 4 or that gravity is real. It's not possible to prove the infallibility of scripture. There's no science that we can do to prove the infallibility of scripture. There's no sound deductive argument to prove the infallibility of scripture. Neither can we prove that the scriptures are inspired by God or are God's word. The best we have is many lines of inductive reasoning that lead us believe that it is most likely that the scriptures are infallible.

If you see Christians saying that they "know" the scriptures are inspired or infallible, don't see that as a scientific or rigid deductive philosophical kind of knowledge, but instead the kind of relational knowledge you have when you say you know your parents or your spouse loves you. This kind of knowledge and belief is grown on the basis of years of experience of reliability.


Is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Father?

I will answer from the Trinitarian perspective.
The two terms are synonymous...

But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say. For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you. -Matthew 10:19-20
When they arrest you and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but it is the Holy Spirit. -Mark 13:11

...and yet, while the Father "is spirit"...

God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. -John 4:24

...the Father is not "the Holy Spirit."

But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. -John 16:13

If the Holy Spirit was just the Father in His spirit form, then He would in fact be speaking on His own initiative. Since Jesus makes it clear that the Spirit will not speak on His own initiative, but will do what He is told (basically), that indicates there is One with more authority who is "over" Him.
Conclusion: From these passages we can conclude that "the Holy Spirit" is not the Father (though the Father "is spirit") and yet, the "Spirit of your Father" is synonymous with "the Holy Spirit." Perhaps the best explanation is that the Spirit is "of" the Father in the sense that He comes forth from the Father, without confusing the two as if they were one Person.


Is it possible for The Bible to contain errors?

Yes, it is absolutely possible for editions of the Bible to contain errors. There is no magical mechanism to prevent this. There are some notorious printing mistakes, for example:

A 1631 printing of the King James version is now called the "Wicked Bible", owing to its rendering of Exodus 20:14,

  Thou shalt commit adultery

In 1763, the "Fool's Bible" said in Psalm 14:1,

  The fool hath said in his heart there is a God

The "Owl Bible" of 1944 says in 1 Peter 3:5,

  For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their owl husbands.

Some more are listed at Wikipedia under Bible errata. These are mostly simple mistakes, but some of them might be deliberately introduced (like the Printer's Bible of 1612, having "Printers have persecuted me without a cause" in Psalm 119:161).

In earlier times, when books were copied by hand, monks attributed such slips (in jest) to a demon called Titivillus 1, whose job was to introduce errors into manuscripts, especially of important texts.

Even in the earliest Biblical manuscripts, there are disagreements, as can be seen by consulting most modern editions that have footnotes - it's not hard to find verses with annotations that note differences among early texts.

1 Or possibly Titivilus or Tituvillis, etc., it being perfectly in keeping with his nature that there is no correct way to spell his name.


Did the Church Fathers ever reference the six jars of wine at the Wedding in Cana as symbolising the six followers of Jesus at the wedding?

The question was edited after my answer. But I have been unable to find any support for your own thesis among either the Church Fathers, the Reformers, the Strict Baptist movement or the early Plymouth Brethren Movement. Nor among the writings of William Huntington, the forerunner of the Strict baptist movement.
But I continue to look for any other examples . . . . . .

The three other gospel accounts mention the primary parable which Jesus tells us must be appreciated or we will not understand any other parable, that of the preparation of the ground prior to the sowing of the word. Wayside, stones and weeds must be cultivated, first, or nothing will grow to fruition.
John does not have this parable but instead he gives us a very detailed account of the preparatory ministry of John the baptist and the result of John's ministry, that disciples leave John and follow Jesus.
This is the ministry spoken of by Malachi, and highlighted in his first verses by Mark, denoting John the baptist as the messenger of preparation : the messenger of the covenant being the Lord himself.
Genesis 25 also gives a prophetic account of the filling up of camels with water by a servant (the imagery moving between two individuals) and a remarkable account of eleven men having their feet washed. Truly remarkable.
Six in scripture often refers to man (short of perfection which is seven). Stone often relates to the tables of stone. The small measure of water in the vessels (the human vessel is to be filled with Spirit) indicates that a legal progress within a legal background is better than nothing (the law is a schoolmaster to bring to Christ) but it does not fill to the brim.
This account (as elsewhere) demonstrates that the baptism of repentance is not on a legal basis. It goes much deeper than law.
It is Christ who stands by as water is provided (the ministry of word by the baptist) to fill the vessels up. Everything within is to be filled with the words of John until all else is displaced. This is a baptism of repentance. It is entire, nothing short.
Only then, and only when Jesus acts, himself, (John stood and Jesus walked) does the water become wine and is taken to the archetricline (the chief of three who recline) and he is gratified with the wine that results, the wine from the vessel.

You asked 'whether other people see the same things'. And this is what I, personally, see.


Is it valid to use grape juice at Communion?

Yes, wine was most likely used by Jesus during the Last Supper, just as the cups in the Passover Feast are typically wine in today's observances.  Yet, there is not prescriptive command to use wine nor is there any prohibitive command against using grape juice.

If this were a significant issue, then it is reasonable to assume that the Bible would contain either a prohibitive or prescriptive reference somewhere.  After all, there are quite a few books, and Passover (which is what Jesus celebrated as the Last Supper) had been observed since Moses.

So, the conclusion is that it is not a significant issue and neither moral nor immoral to use wine or grape juice.  We do use the fruit of the vine, following the pattern in Passover celebrations, but the presence of fermentation is immaterial.

The remembrance of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is supreme.

I might add that if you happen to live in a desert where no grapes can be grown, it would seem improper to assert that you could not celebrate communion since you would have neither grape juice nor wine.


Doctrinal significance of the tense and subject of "Adored and Glorified" in the Nicene Creed

It appears to be an issue directly related to the Latin. As we see in the original Latin that was brought out of the Council of Nicea the line:

  Qui cum Patre et Fílio simul adorátur et conglorificátur

Roughly translated to English, we see it translated to "Who with the Father and to the Son, He is worshiped and glorified". (We'll ignore the literal translation of worship for now).

I would gather that the original Council meant to have it taken that at this point of the creed we have already announced what we as individuals mean (I believe) and are now at the point where we talk about what the Church believes and holds true. Thus the Church Triumpant is the predicate of the sentence and no longer we as individuals.


How much do we know about the Second Apostolic Council of Jerusalem of 69 AD?

The end of Acts leaves us with Paul under house arrest, waiting to see Caesar, but he was later brought before Nero, who died in the year 68 AD, see Wikipedia. It is generally reckoned that Paul was executed by Nero, so Paul, also, would have departed this life on or before that same year.

So it would seem unlikely, or even impossible, that the incident in Acts 21:18 refers to 69 AD.


What do the Catholic Church consider constitutes intrinsically impossible things?

The Catechism contains a definitive statement on this.

Nothing is impossible with God, who disposes his works according to his will.
[CCC 269]

It references a number of biblical texts to support that statement:

It was I who made the earth, and man and beast on the face of the earth, by my great power, with my outstretched arm; and I can give them to whomever I think fit. — Jer 27:5
Ah, Lord GOD, you have made heaven and earth by your great might, with your outstretched arm; nothing is impossible to you. — Jer 32:17
[And behold, Elizabeth, your relative, has also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren;] for nothing will be impossible for God.
— Lk 1:37

It goes on:

God's almighty power is in no way arbitrary: "In God, power, essence, will, intellect, wisdom, and justice are all identical. Nothing therefore can be in God's power which could not be in his just will or his wise intellect."
[CCC 271] quoting St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I, 25, 5, ad I.

This explains things which appear to be impossible: they are impossible because God does not include them in his wisdom or justice. Anything which is impossible is impossible because it does not obey the natural laws of the universe, which is ordered according to God's will. However, he could will impossible things to happen if they are not contrary to his nature and are necessary for revelation and salvation. Thus he can allow a chariot to ascend to heaven; or water to become fine wine; or a Virgin birth to happen; or a dead body to be resurrected, speak and walk.


Yes...

A majority of Christian traditions recognize on some level that we will and even must suffer. The author and perfecter of our faith was hung on a tree. As his followers, we can expect pretty much more of the same.

  1 Peter 4:12-14 (ESV)
  12  Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. 13  But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. 14  If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.

In fact if you comb through the rest of Scripture you will find a huge amount of material covering not only how to deal with suffering, but more warning to expect it and even detailed analysis of how it helps us.

The view that current suffering is a necessary part of our Christian walk in so far as it is aspect of how we are united with our Savior is particularly emphasized in the Reformed tradition. More generic Evangelicals also tend to hold generally to the idea that suffering is not without purpose but see it as so much of a requirement so much as probability.

There's a wrong way to do it...

For every truth, there is a perversion. The obvious perversion of a "yes" answer here is the idea of needing to go out and find trouble. Some flog themselves, others stick their necks out on issues that do not further the cause of the Gospel just because they know it will garner a reaction and bring on the suffering. Although I am caricaturizing, these fallacies often require nuanced rebuttals to show how they are bringing trouble on themselves in a way that isn't what Scripture would direct us to even if it promises that trouble will come and is even for our good.

We aren't told to seek suffering for suffering's sake, we're told to seek the Kingdom and how to respond to suffering when it does come.

There are those who say "No"...

A relatively modern movement, but one that has actually popped it's head up a few times before, is the idea of what is sometimes labeled "health and wealth" gospel. They build a case on excerpted passages that God doesn't want his children to suffer and the only reason we do is our own weakness/lack of faith/etc. You generally won't find espousers of this view even acknowledge verses such as the ones in your question at all.


Does anybody teach specifically about the existence of ghosts?

I think you could make a pretty solid case from the Bible that the spirits of men, once dead, stay dead to this world and are are only active* in another place. In fact, no mainline traditions I know of teach specifically in the existence of ghosts, and quite a few teach against such a thing being possible. There are of course a few exceptional groups claiming to be Christian that have other doctrines, but they are on the fringe and many could arguably be counted as cults.

What is taught and believed by wide swaths of Christianity is that evil spirits are real and can manifest themselves in physical fashions in this world. The exact teachings on this are very diverse, some peddling such an obsession with the spirit world that every shadow comes to hold it's own set of wraiths. Others seem proclaim that the spirit world is irrelevant in our modern times and couldn't care less.

I believe the truth lies somewhere between those two extremes. Most of Protestantism (certainly the Reformed and more conservative circles on down the lines to some pretty generic Evangelical branches) would argue that while evil spirits are real and can and sometimes do have physical manifestations, the important thing to remember is that "He that is in us is stronger than he that is in the world." In other words, as believers in Christ with his Spirit living in us, we have naught to fear from any spirit. Those that are not in Christ run a risk both in not heeding the spirit world and in listening to it and catering to it without possessing any power that can overcome it. I would say the greater risk they run is in their relationship with God not being set to rights, spirits --however real-- should be the least of their worries.

* The timing of this is widely disputed, but is of no consequence to answering this question. Whether spirits sleep until the final judgement or whether the saints are taken directly to be with the Lord doesn't matter here as there is general agreement that this world is no longer their domain.


What theological differences exist between Baptist and Evangelical Free denominations?

The EFCA is a loose association of independent churches who have gathered under this banner and agreed on basic fundamental doctrinal concepts although there could well be substantial differences between churches within this association.  To compare it to the ABC, one could consider only the EFCA doctrinal statement agreed upon by the churches as a whole.  When you look at the individual doctrinal statements on paper, they are very close with some notable differences such as the ABC allowing women in the pastorate.  In practice, the ABC tends to be a bit more liberal but that is somewhat subjective and difficult to measure.
The EFCA would compare more favorably to the SBC as they both emphasize fundamental doctrine to the exclusion of modern social mores.


According to Protestantism why did God choose the persona of a Father?

As is pointed out in the comments, the question tends to put the cart before the horse.  God established the institution of "father".  The Old Testament represents God by many different names, each one expressing a different aspect of who God is (i.e. El Shaddai-Lord God Almighty, Jehovah Jireh-The Lord Will Provide, etc.)  God is represented as Father in the New Testament, not inconsistent with His OT character.  The difference comes with the intimacy of the term consistent with the intimacy established by the New Covenant.  Paul stated, "the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. (Gal. 3:24,25). The transition from law to faith is paralleled by the transition from "Adonai-Lord, Master" to "Father".  The tearing of the curtain separating the Holy Place from all but the High Priest and then only once a year is yet another illustration of this revelation that God is not only "El Elyon (The Most High God)", but also "Father", a figure of authority who is capable of and expected to love us.  Likewise, Christ's designation as "Son" illustrates someone with whom we can identify and helps us to understand, as Paul puts it, "...our adoption to sonship..." (Rom. 8:23)  Our ability to understand God is limited at best and nobody understands that better than our Creator.  Loving Father is how He wants us to know him.


The angels were created before the earth. When God is speaking to Job we see that he refers to the angels or sons of God celebrating over the creation of the earth. Job 38:1-7:

  Then Jehovah answered Job out of the windstorm:
   2 “Who is this who is obscuring my counsel
  And speaking without knowledge?
   3 Brace yourself, please, like a man;
  I will question you, and you inform me.
   4 Where were you when I founded the earth?
  Tell me, if you think you understand.
   5 Who set its measurements, in case you know,
  Or who stretched a measuring line across it?
   6 Into what were its pedestals sunk,
  Or who laid its cornerstone,
   7 When the morning stars joyfully cried out together,
  And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?

Satan was present with the other angels during the creation of the earth. It wasn't until God created man that Satan began to rebel against God. Genesis 3:3-5

  But God has said about the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden: ‘You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it; otherwise you will die.’” 4 At this the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die. 5 For God knows that in the very day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and bad.”

Satan was then calling God a liar and inferred that God was keeping good things from man.

Isaiah 14:13-14

  You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to the heavens.
  Above the stars of God I will lift up my throne,
  And I will sit down on the mountain of meeting,
  In the remotest parts of the north.
  14 I will go up above the tops of the clouds;
  I will make myself resemble the Most High.

Satan wanted the glory of God's position. He also wanted humans to worship him as God.

At the time Revelation was written Satan had not yet been thrown down to earth. That was prophecy that would occur at a later date. Acts 2:32-35

  God resurrected this Jesus, and of this we are all witnesses. Therefore, because he was exalted to the right hand of God and received the promised holy spirit from the Father, he has poured out what you see and hear. For David did not ascend to the heavens, but he himself says, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”’

Satan and his angels would have been thrown down from heaven when Jesus became the ruler of the kingdom. We don't know what time that happened or will happen, although different denominations will have different answers for this.

We know that Satan had not yet been thrown out of heaven because he was able to talk to God in the book of Job. Job 1:6-7

  Now the day came when the sons of the true God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and Satan also entered among them.
  7  Then Jehovah said to Satan: “Where have you come from?” Satan answered Jehovah: “From roving about on the earth and from walking about in it.

We see that Satan did enter heaven to take his station before God. We know that can't have been on earth because Satan had just come from the earth. Satan cannot have been thrown out of heaven before this account then.

A plausible time-frame for that happening would have been some time after Jesus's resurrection.


What does the Catholic church teach about fate of non-Catholic christians?

The Catholic Church is very explicit in its teachings that "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church" (CCC 846).  The only way to enter the Church and become part of the Body of Christ is through baptism.  Thus, baptism is necessary for salvation (CCC 1257).

This is not meant to be interpreted as only Catholics can attain salvation.  Rather, the Church teaches that "anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula (CCC 1256)."  Thus, anyone baptized with water and "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" is part of the Mystical Body of Christ and can attain salvation. To the best of my knowledge, this includes most non-Catholic Christians. (Note there are other forms of baptism recognized, baptism by blood and baptism by desire, but those seem out of scope for this question.)

Now Baptism isn't the only requirement for salvation.  One must also die free from mortal sin (CCC 1033). For a sin to be mortal, that is to be grave enough to cut us off from the life of God, three conditions must be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent." (CCC 1857). This full knowledge includes both knowledge that it is a sin, and that it is a grave matter (CCC 1859).  Thus a sinner who through no fault of his own, believes he is not sinning does not commit a mortal sin.

If one does fall into a state of mortal sin, then normally the sacrament of reconciliation is necessary (CCC 1856) to restore or "reconcile" one with God.  However, it is recognized that a perfect contrition can also attain this forgiveness (CCC 1452).

In conclusion, the Catholic Church teaches that the sacraments of the Church are the surest and easiest way to reach salvation, but it is still possible for other members of the Body of Christ to enter Heaven.


What is the biblical basis for considering gender to be not merely physical/biological?

You seem to be asking for a definitive verse in scripture that states or implies that the soul has a gender. There is no such verse (it seems), and indexes to mentions of gender list nothing concrete. However:

God made humans, "in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:26), and this was so before the fall. This passage is used to show that human persons are male or female.

The body will rise, for "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body". This passage is used to show that the perfection of a person includes both soul and glorified body. A person is not soul, not body, but the unity of both.

A soul is a male soul in the sense of being the soul of a male person: a person with a male nature. Your hand has no gender, your blood has no gender. In that sense a soul has no gender.

The Bible's account of creation assigns gender to persons. Human persons are both body and spirit. So in that sense gender is not purely physical, because humans are not purely physical.
Souls have "types" in the sense of being the souls of female and male humans, of animals (non-eternal gendered souls), of angels (no gender), of God (no gender!, though the human nature of Christ was male (...but this merits its own question), and we have been instructed by Christ to refer to God the Father as "our Father").
Masculinity and femininity can be aspects of souls/spirit. That the perfections of the female as well as the male can be found in the perfection that is God, who is spirit and without gender, can be seen in Isa 49:14-15; 66:13; Ps 131:2-3; Hos 11:1-4; Jer 3:4-19 (CCC270). Which perfections are appropriate to male humans and which to female might merit its own question.
Are there masculine and feminine souls? Of course: the souls of human males, the souls of human females.
For similar reasons, gender is eternal. A person who has her breasts cut off, like St. Agatha, does not cease to be a female. Even a person who has his head cut off, like St. John, does not cease to be a male. Adam and Eve will rise still male and female, as they were even before sin.


What do the Apologists mean by three persons as "one in nature" if the Son and Spirit are not eternal?

Not all the Apologists taught the Trinity using the Stoic λόγος and not all of them have equal understanding of the divine substance.

The Following are facts about the belief of an Apologist who uses the Stoic λόγος in teaching the Trinity:

1) The λόγος is eternal just as God who has it is eternal. It means that λόγος is coeval with God.

2) In the beginning [ of creation]or before creation, God made his λόγος a subsisting person to be his Son.It means that the Son isn't eternal.

3) The begetting of the λόγος is not necessary but only happened because of God's will in creating all things and in saving people.

This sort of teaching is known as the "economic Trinitarianism."

The Latin Apologist Tertullian taught that the Son learned things in order to prepare for the incarnation and so that people might also be prepared for his incarnation( Praxeas 16:3).

This sort of theology makes the Son subordinate to the Father in its real sense of Father and Son relationship but also stretches into the divine life itself. What this means is that the Father does not lack any knowledge because he his λόγος in all his activities ad extra and hence, by having the Son, experience is not necessary for him but for his λόγος alone.

Notice the analogy used of Tertullian. He taught that the Sun cannot be seen except by its light and so is the Father by the Son ( cf:John 1:18).

The only eternal is the 'name' of God and 'God' himself as well as his substance.

The λόγος, being in God, is eternal but as proceeding from God he is still of same substance, having been of same origin but now, with God's name and subsistence as the Son.

Athenagoras ( AD. 133-190) is an Apologist yet he did not subscribe to the Stoic λόγος in teaching the Trinity:

If … it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that he is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence, for from the beginning God, who is the eternal mind, had the Logos in himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos. ( Plea for the Christians, Chap. 10)

Irenaeus (AD. 120-200)too is an Apologist yet he believed in an eternal Son:

180 AD Irenaeus "But the Son, eternally co-existing with the Father, from of old, yea, from the beginning, always reveals the Father to Angels, Archangels, Powers, Virtues..." (Against Heresies, Book II, ch. 30, section 9)

Also, Clement of Alexnadria ( AD. 150-215) teaches the same thing, that is, that the Son is eternal:

When [John] says, "from the beginning," the elder explained to this effect, that the beginning of generation is not separated from the beginning of the Creator. For when he says, "That which is from the beginning," he touches on the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-existent with the Father. There was, then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity, as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being by equality of substance one with the Father, is eternal and uncreated.(Fragments of Clement of Alexandria: Comments on the First Epistle of John from The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. II)

These received the teachings of the Apostles about theology in its purest form and in the next century ( 3rd century) , we see this continuation of teaching an eternal Trinity as opposed to the economic Trinity, by Gregory of Thaumaturgus, Novatian and Dionysius of Rome and in the next century( 4th century), Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius ( + the Cappadocian fathers) all defended this ancient teaching of an eternal Trinity against the error of some of the Apologists that resulted into Dynamic Monarchianism and Arianism.

Conclusion:

The theological speculation of some of the Apologists were clearly an error. The adoption of the Stoic λόγος , therefore, is not a wise thing to do.


Do we have free will to choose salvation or is our "choice" an illusion?

We have free will to chose salvation.  God created everything; The universe, our world, and even us. All of this is already his.
Our agency is the only thing that we are able to give God that he doesn't already have.

An example:  The President of the United States is chosen (by us) to be our Commander in Chief, though he can still choose to try to stay in bed and ignore his duties.

We're chosen (by God) for various things throughout our lives.  Whether we choose to obey him is entirely up to us.

Matthew 16:23-25 (KJV)

  But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou
  art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of
  God, but those that be of men.

  Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me,
  let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

  For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will
  lose his life for my sake shall find it.

The last line of that quote is in reference to people becoming martyrs.  It is a good example of someone having a choice regarding their salvation.  If someone chooses to deny Christ to save their life they will die spiritually, yet if they choose to die for Christ's sake, they will find their salvation.


What were Jesus's last words on the cross?

I don't see how to answer this without copying and pasting the entire resolution from the other site, but in summary, each person documented what they heard, and in total we can deduce what he actually said, which is, all in a loud voice, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?", then "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:"and finally, "It is finished:"

From an apologetics site dedicated to showing possible resolutions to Bible discrepancies:
http://contenderministries.org/discrepancies/contradictions.php#17

  First, John was nearer to the cross and probably heard things the
  others didn't. John is referred to in scripture as the disciple that
  Jesus loved (John 13:23). Notice he is mentioned as being near the
  cross of Jesus.

  John 19:25  Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's
  sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw
  his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he
  said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," and to the
  disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took
  her into his home."

  Notice, in the verse above, Jesus is speaking only to Mary and John
  who are directly below the cross.

  When John recounts the events at the cross, he's focusing on what was
  said privately to him at the foot of the cross and what's said to
  those standing close by - the plea of thirst, the statement of
  completion, and the turning over of responsibility for Jesus' mother
  to John.

  Matthew focused on the words Jesus said "in a loud voice" to all that
  were there (the crowd).

  The Last thing Matthew heard was "My god, my God, why hast thou
  forsaken me? Then a loud cry before giving up the ghost.

  Luke hears the same loud cry that Matthew mentions, but also hears
  after that, probably because he's closer, "Father, unto thy hands I
  commend my spirit". It makes sense that he would say "My God, My
  God..." in a louder voice than he would say his last words commending
  his spirit into the father's hands.

  When Jesus asked for something to drink, he was speaking to those
  below the cross where John was standing. John heard what the others
  farther back heard, but also heard the dialogue about asking the
  people near the cross for water and his quieter statement, "It is
  finished".

  Here are the three accounts put together:

  "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, 'Eli,
  eli, lama sabachthani?' that is to say, 'My God, my God, why hast thou
  forsaken me?'....Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice said
  , 'Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:' (notice the cry with a
  loud voice is separated from Jesus commending His spirit, probably
  quieter), then he said softly, 'It is finished:' and he bowed his
  head, and gave up the ghost."

Note that this is from one apologetics website, and is an interpretation rather than something we know as absolute fact, but it is answered using the basic principles of resolving Biblical discrepancies.


How is the Vulgate rendering of Romans 5:12 explained (Roman Catholic perspective)?

In this case, in quo is a very literal translation of the Greek ἐφ' ᾧ, which is preposition ἐπῐ́ ruling the dative article ᾧ. In Latin, ἐπῐ́ translates to in. As Quintillian said, "Noster sermo articulos non desiderat", our language does not use articles, so the article has to become something else. Here it becomes a relative pronoun, and goes to ablative to satisfy Latin syntax.

So much for linguistics; what does ἐπῐ́ + dative mean?  According to Wiktionary, which sources Liddell & Scott:

  (with dative)

  on, upon

    καθέζεται ἐπὶ θρόνῳ. //
    kathézetai epì thrónōi. //
    He sits down on the throne.

  in
  at, near
  over
  in honor of
  against
  in addition to, over, besides
  (with duplication of head noun) after

    ὄγχνη ἐπ’ ὄγχνῃ γηράσκει //
    ónkhnē ep’ ónkhnēi gēráskei //
    One pear after another ripens.

  in the power of
  according to
  (of conditions or circumstances) in, with
  (of time, never in proper Attic) at, on
  (of time) after
  (expressing a cause) on account of, for
  (expressing a purpose) for
  (of a condition) on
  for (i.e. in exchange for)
  (of a name) for
  in charge of

In all, 19 different senses. So which one of the 19 is right?  That depends on context, and different translators might validly pick different options here. The Praxapostolos you quoted picks sense 14, "(expressing a cause) on account of, for". The Latin in is closer to senses 1, 2 and 3.

Of course, the sentence must make sense theologically, so not all senses may be used, but if one does not start with a position where the sin of Adam cannot be the same original sin all inherit, then one can definitely come to this reading.


The sword is an important symbol in Christian imagery, and does not always symbolize war and violence. In fact, the sword is a definitive symbol of the word of God. In the context of the passage you cite, history teaches us that the word of God is a source of discord among men. Consider these passages from the New Testament:

(Hebrews 4:12 NASB) For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

In this passage, the word of God is compared to a double-edged sword for its ability to penetrate to the core of the person- even to the source of his psychological (ψυχῆς) and spiritual (πνεύματος) being.
When Christ was presented at the Temple on the eighth day for circumcision, consider the blessing that Simeon, who the Scriptures call righteous, speaks over the infant Jesus while in the Spirit (speaking as a Prophet):

(Luke 2:26-35 NASB) And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. And he came in the Spirit into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to carry out for Him the custom of the Law, then he took Him into his arms, and blessed God, and said,
“Now Lord, You are releasing Your bond-servant to depart in peace,
According to Your word;
For my eyes have seen Your salvation,
Which You have prepared in the presence of all peoples,
A Light of revelation to the Gentiles,
And the glory of Your people Israel.”

And His father and mother [Joseph and Mary] were amazed at the things which were being said about Him. And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary His mother, “Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed— and a sword will pierce even your own soul— to the end that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.”
Do you see how this use of the symbol of the sword is identical to that of the author of Hebrews? This sword that Simeon speaks of is not a sword of war, but the word of God that penetrates to the soul (ψυχὴν).
Paul, in his epistles, also compares the word of God to a sword:

(Ephesians 6:13-17) Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

The penultimate use in the New Testament Scriptures of the image of the sword is the most poignant and definitive- it is wielded by the resurrected and eternal Christ, ascended to the Father and filling the cosmos. Does he wield this sword in his hand or at his side? No, but instead the sword comes from his mouth; it is the very word of God:

Revelation 1:12-18 NASB Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands; and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash. His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire. His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters. In His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength.
When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.

It is important to note that the Epistle to the Hebrews, from which we cited the first passage, was written around 20 or 30 years before John penned his Revelation of Jesus Christ at Patmos. Either John read the epistle, which I don't find to be likely, or the double-edged sword that is the word of God is a common revelation.
In summary, the symbol of the sword is interpreted to be the word of God, that comes from the mouth of Christ. It is with this word that he cuts to the core of people, exposing their hearts. It is by the sword of his mouth, the word of God, that he makes war with the powers of evil and the nations that oppose him, and they are defeated- he strikes them down with the authority that he was given by the Father. Consider this final passage in closing.

(Revelation 19:11-16) And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”


Where, if anywhere, is it explicitly stated that the Church may borrow and adapt heathen feasts?

Yes, a letter from Pope Gregory I to the Abbot Melitus was recorded by the venerable Bede in Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation, Book I, chapter XXX.

In his letter of instruction regarding the conversion of England, Gregory said:

  To his most beloved son, the Abbot Mellitus; Gregory, the servant of the servants of God. We have been much concerned, since the departure of our congregation that is with you, because we have received no account of the success of your journey. When, therefore, Almighty God shall bring you to the most reverend Bishop Augustine, our brother, tell him what I have, upon mature deliberation on the affair of the English, determined upon, viz., that the temples of the idols in that nation ought not to be destroyed; but let the idols that are in them be destroyed; let holy water be made and sprinkled in the said temples, let altars be erected, and relics placed. For if those temples are well built, it is requisite that they be converted from the worship of devils to the service of the true God; that the nation, seeing that their temples are not destroyed, may remove error from their hearts, and knowing and adoring the true God, may the more familiarly resort to the places to which they have been accustomed. And because they have been used to slaughter many oxen in the sacrifices to devils, some solemnity must be exchanged for them on this account, as that on the day of the dedication, or the nativities of the holy martyrs, whose relics are there deposited, they may build themselves huts of the boughs of trees, about those churches which have been turned to that use from temples, and celebrate the solemnity with religious feasting, and no more offer beasts to the Devil, but kill cattle to the praise of God in their eating, and return thanks to the Giver of all things for their sustenance; to the end that, whilst some gratifications are outwardly permitted them, they may the more easily consent to the inward consolations of the grace of God. For there is no doubt that it is impossible to efface everything at once from their obdurate minds; because he who endeavours to ascend to the highest place, rises by degrees or steps, and not by leaps. Thus the Lord made Himself known to the people of Israel in Egypt; and yet He allowed them the use of the sacrifices which they were wont to offer to the Devil, in his own worship; so as to command them in his sacrifice to kill beasts, to the end that, changing their hearts, they might lay aside one part of the sacrifice, whilst they retained another; that whilst they offered the same beasts which they were wont to offer, they should offer them to God, and not to idols; and thus they would no longer be the same sacrifices. This it behooves your affection to communicate to our aforesaid brother, that he, being there present, may consider how he is to order all things. God preserve you in safety, most beloved son.

  Given the 17th of June, in the nineteenth year of the reign of our lord, the most pious emperor, Mauritius Tiberius, the eighteenth year after the consulship of our said lord. The fourth indiction."

Over the centuries, many pagan pagan festivities are said to have been incorporated in Christianity, although generally not in response to explicit, written papal instruction or approval. The redefinition of the birth of the sun god as the birthday of Jesus took place in the late fourth century, at a time when the Roman emperor was regarded as Pontifex Maximus, with final authority on religious matters.


Second Coming of Jesus Christ on Easter Sunday?

Interesting Question:

The actual introduction of Easter-Sunday appears to have occurred somewhere around AD 132-135 in Palestine after Emperor Hadrian ruthlessly crushed the Barkokeba revolt.

Virtually all Christian sects today celebrate Easter-Sunday, BUT this was not always the case. In fact, virtually all Christians celebrated the Passover. Although most who profess Christianity now celebrate it, Easter-Sunday was not observed by the second century Christians in Asia Minor. They observed Passover.

In fact Easter Sunday itself was not an annual tradition until made so at the Council of Nicea (325).  It was then ruled that Easter Sunday would be celebrated on the Sunday immediately following that full moon which came after the vernal equinox. At the same time the Council decided that the vernal equinox would be March 21 in the Julian calendar (Eusebius, Vit. Const. 3.18).

No where in scripture however does the Bible mention that the Resurrection is to be celebrated as some type of Holiday. Jesus specifically mentioned that Christians were to observe the Passover as He did (Luke 22:14-20).

In fact many argue today that Easter Sunday itself is simply a remembrance of the Passover.

I do not know of any of the Church Fathers believing they could determine the date Christ would return specifically as to coinciding with Easter Sunday itself.

Interesting Question - putting me to a bit of research


Which Protestant denominations support the position that Peter is the rock that Jesus builds his church upon?

No Protestant denominations that I know of support Peter being the rock of Mathew 16. They all tend to interpret this passage as Jesus indicating the revelation of who Jesus is being given Peter by the Father, as the 'rock' upon which the church is built.

Some Protestants (individuals) note that Peter appears to have a primary role amoung the apostles, evidenced by the number of times he is mentioned first in the gospels and Acts, and often as 'Peter and the others', etc. They also agree that Peter was a leader in the church at Jerusalem.

Some denominations note that Peter is thought to be Jasper stone in the wall of the New Jerusalem/The Israel of God/The Church, which was the first stone in the wall, listed in Rev. 21. This fulfills Jesus' words, if they were about Peter being a rock upon which He would build His church, the New Jerusalem being a type of the church, and the Israel of God,  and Peter indicated as being a foundation stone in the wall, hence therefore Peter was a 'rock' upon which Jesus 'built his church' in the prophecy of Rev. 21.

This being said and in summary, no Protestant denominations think that Peter is 'the rock' upon which Jesus said He would build His church, and few if any have written about Peter even being 'a rock' in the foundation wall of the New Jerusalem/The Bride/The Church.

This interpretation of Mathew 16, because it is a point upon which the Roman Catholic Church justify the Papacy, is stayed away from by most, if not all of Protestantism.


What's the name of the heresy that declares Mary Mother of God is a goddess?

The heresy is known as Collyridianism, after the Greek for the "little cakes" which were offered.

Collyridianism was an obscure Early Christian heretical movement whose adherents apparently worshipped the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus, as a goddess. The main source of information about them comes from their strongest opponent, Epiphanius of Salamis, who wrote about them in his Panarion of about 375 AD. According to Epiphanius, certain women in then-largely-pagan Arabia syncretized indigenous beliefs with the worship of Mary, and offered little cakes or bread-rolls (Greek κολλυρις – a word occurring in the Septuagint) to her. Epiphanius states that Collyridianism originated in Thrace and Scythia, although it may have first travelled to those regions from Syria or Asia Minor. Little else is known.
[Wikipedia]


According to Reformed theology, where is the Scriptural evidence for homoousion?

Before we get into the weeds, here are the main points that I intend to impart:

Reformed theology generally accepts the church fathers' wisdom on the homoousion.
The concept of homoousion, not the term, is what matters most.
The concept of homoousion safeguards the Gospel against Arianism.
There is no single proof-text for the term, but the concept is inseparable from the Biblical witness.

And now we move into the weeds.

Francis Turretin, author of one of the classic reformed systematic theologies, affirmed that the church father Basil was correct to advance the term despite a lack of singular proof-texts:

  Francis Turretin [Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1:37-39] asked whether Christian doctrine was to be legitimately proved "only by the express word of God" or also from "consequences drawn from Scripture." He observed that "a thing may be said to be in Scripture in two ways: either kata lexin (expressly and in so many words); or kata dianoian (implicitly and as to the sense." It is unnecessarily reductionist to suggest that a doctrine is biblical only if a proof text can be adduced. Turretin drew attention to Basil's response to the Arians in which he argued that their demand for a proof text to establish the homoousion rendered them "syllable-catchers."

  Mark D. Thompson, "The Divine Investment of Truth," in Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith, 75

The church father Athanasius believed that the concept has its origin in the New Testament:

  Athanasius ... rightly recognized that the proper understanding of the homoousion was lodged within the New Testament from the outset. The homoousion may be a word foreign to the New Testament, but it was, ultimately, not a concept foreign to the New Testament, for the New Testament proclamation did not simply give rise to it but actually contained its meaning.

  Thomas Weinandy, Athanasius: A Theological Introduction, 136

For Athanasius, the entire Gospel was at stake in the debate against Arianism:

  It must be stressed that so far as Athanasius was concerned it was not the word homoousios itself that was of central importance, but what the word stood for. There was no substantial change in his position when he came more and more to use homoousios in his writings: it served simply to focus and concentrate the entire debate with Arianism. What it meant for Athanasius was simply this: that the reality of God himself is present with us and for us in Christ. "One ousia" means "one divinity", "one activity", "one presence", "one glory", "one power and energy": all that the Father is, the Son is also, except that the Father is Father, the Son, Son. This was the decisive difference between Athanasius and Arianism; for any assertion of this kind was, in the Arian horizon, strictly incorrect and untrue. For Arius and his followers, however, the point might be expressed, decorated or qualified, the Son is not God as the Father is God; for Athanasius, he is.

  [From Athanasius' perspective,] what was missing in Arius' entire scheme was, quite simply, God himself. True, he was there—after a fashion. He was there, but he was silent, remote in the infinity of his utter transcendence, acting only through the intermediacy of the Son or Word, between whose being and his own, Arius drew such a sharp distinction. The God in whom Arius believed had no direct contact with his creation; he was for ever and by definition insulated and isolated from it in the absolute serenity of an unchanging and unmoving perfection. God himself neither creates nor redeems it; he is involved with it only at second hand. This is on the one hand the corner-stone of Arius' theology, and on the other the point of fundamental contrast with Athanasius. This remote transcendence, Athanasius rightly sees, has nothing to do with the God of the Old and New Testaments, the Father of Christ. When Arius' system is put to question, not simply about its own internal logic, but about its adequacy as a means of interpreting and expressing the Gospel, it is found to be hopelessly inadequate; for the Bible speaks of a God who is present and who does act in and for the world which in his own, and whose presence and activity are uniquely concentrated in the man Jesus who is at the same time Immanuel, God-with-us. For Arius, that cannot really be; for Athanasius, it is the centre around which everything else falls into place.

  Alasdair I.C. Heron, "Homoousios with the Father," in The Incarnation, 68-69

Here's an example of Athanasius' scriptural reasoning at work in the homoousion controversy:

  The bishops ... were again compelled on their part to collect the sense of the Scriptures, and to re-say and re-write what they had said before, more distinctly still, namely, that the Son is 'one in essence' with the Father: by way of signifying, that the Son was from the Father, and not merely like, but the same in likeness, and of showing that the Son's likeness and unalterableness was different from such copy of the same as is ascribed to us, which we acquire from virtue on the ground of observance of the commandments. For bodies which are like each other may be separated and become at distances from each other, as are human sons relatively to their parents (as it is written concerning Adam and Seth, who was begotten of him that he was like him after his own pattern); but since the generation of the Son from the Father is not according to the nature of men, and not only like, but also inseparable from the essence of the Father, and He and the Father are one, as He has said Himself [John 10:30], and the Word is ever in the Father and the Father in the Word [John 10:38], as the radiance stands towards the light (for this the phrase itself indicates), therefore the Council, as understanding this, suitably wrote 'one in essence,' that they might both defeat the perverseness of the heretics, and show that the Word was other than originated things. ... If the Son is Word, Wisdom, Image of the Father, Radiance, He must in all reason be One in essence.

  Athanasius, De Decretis, 20,23

Lastly, observe how reformed theologian Stephen J. Nichols affirms each of the main points listed above while citing additional verses for reference:

  The bishops at Nicea concluded that homoousios alone measured up to the standard of biblical teaching. The Nicene Creed declares that Jesus is "very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father."
  This creed is not uncovering new ground. Rather, it summarizes the massive swath of biblical material regarding the person of Christ. The author of Hebrews begins by declaring, "He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature" (Heb. 1:3). Paul says rather directly that in Jesus "dwells the whole fullness of deity bodily" (Col. 2:9).

  The Nicene Creed is a prime example of systematic theology at its best. Systematic theology seeks to organize and summarize, not add or detract from, the biblical teaching. Systematic theologians then teach this doctrine to the church. These bishops in the early churches were systematic theologians. The creed the bishops constructed at Nicea was their gift to the church.

  Stephen Nichols, "Christology in Context," Tabletalk Magazine (12/1/14)


What is the basis for faith not being an emotion or feeling?

In general, what you've heard is similar to a widely held perspective within Protestantism. From Luther:

  “Feelings come and feelings go,
   And feelings are deceiving;
   My warrant is the Word of God--
   Naught else is worth believing.

This highlights though, that our faith should be based on the Word of God - not on our own thinking.  It is entirely possible for our thoughts to be as fickle and deceiving as our emotions, for instance according to Proverbs 14:12:

  There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.

and we can be:

  always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. - 2 Timothy 3:7

If overly emphasized, (poor statements of) this doctrine can lead some to downplay the role of emotions in the life of the believer to the extant of ignoring them as a legitimate part of life and undermining any fulfilment of the great commandment

  Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul
  and with all your strength. - Deutoronomy 6:5

and has in all probability contributed to the rise of reactionary movements within Protestantism such as Pietism, Revivalism, Methodism and Pentecostalism - so by no means do Protestants speak with a unified voice on this issue.

A relevant article on this subject is found at:

http://www.atthispoint.net/articles/emotions-and-faith-the-perplexing-relationship-between-what-we-feel-and-what-we-believe/217/

with further response articles to it linked from that page


how does the bible WORD FOR WORD say that homosexuality is wrong?

Here  are some references for homosexuality and treating it to be against the nature of God and his design. There are though some translation variations, but whatever translation one take they portray basically same point.
1 Corinthians 6:9

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,(ESV)
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites,(NRSV)
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals(NASB)

1 Timothy 1:10

the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,(ESV)
fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching (NRSV)
and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,(NASB)

Romans 1:26-27

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.(ESV)
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural,and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.(NRSV)
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [a]unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in [b]their own persons the due penalty of their error(NASB)

Jude 1:7

just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.(ESV)
Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.(NRSV)
just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after [a]strange flesh, are exhibited as an[b]example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.(NASB)

Homosexuality is definitely against the nature and contrary to God’s design. Even when there is a loud clamour for justification of homosexuality in a liberal world (where good is projected as bad and vice versa)  on the basis emotional factor involved between these individuals, they fail to justify the very physical act of homosexuality minus this emotional factor. Emotionally they may feel attracted towards one another yet physically they cannot accommodate one another and that itself is the testimony that it is an emotional sickness/disorder which needs to be corrected.
And in that sense these people cannot be treated as outcasts but like any other disabled person needing corrective treatment.