Why isn't the Eucharist of protestant churches considered valid by non-protestants?

As far as both Catholics and Orthodox are concerned, you need a validly ordained priest to confect the Eucharist.(see e.g. CCC, ¶1411) As far as they are concerned, none of the churches that originate from the Reformation period have what is required for a valid priesthood (i.e. bishops in unbroken tactile succession from the Apostles(see CCC, ¶1576)), so the Eucharist cannot be validly celebrated by these churches.

This may look uncharitable on the surface. In reality, the Catholics and Orthodox could not accept the validity of Protestant Eucharists without significantly altering their own doctrine.

On another related point, it's worth noting that Catholics and Orthodox do not even properly consider the Protestant churches "Churches" in the proper sense: they are referred to technically as "ecclesial communities" precisely because they have not preserved the sacramental priesthood and therefore the Eucharist:

  According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense. Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the doctrine of the Church)


How should I understand the emphasis on "begotten, not made" in the Nicene Creed?

The Arians were very good at using the same (Biblical) language as orthodox Christians, but meaning entirely different things by them. The language in the Creed had to be so specific that it removes all wiggle room. I think I can hear, in the creed, the frustration of someone so upset with Arian double-speak that they pound orthodoxy home with some conceptual overlap.

Nevertheless, the two statements do affirm different things about Jesus:

  eternally begotten of the Father

That is, the Son is eternal. He was not begotten at some point in time, and there was not a time when he did not exist. But this does not mean, by itself, that Jesus was the same type of being as God.

  begotten, not made

Here I think your C.S. Lewis quote applies. Jesus is not a creature, he is not part of the creation. Contra the Arians, begotten does not mean created. The other clauses (true God from true God, one in Being with the Father, etc.) explain what it means to be begotten as distinct from created.


How would the Bible advise a Christian to cope with fear?

In Joshua 1:7-9, faith in God coupled with obedience is said to produce courage and overcome fear and discouragement.

  “Be strong and very courageous. Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go. Keep this Book of the Law always on your lips; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful. Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged, for the Lord your God will be with you wherever you go.”

Proverbs 29:25 warns us to Fear God and not man:

  Fear of man will prove to be a snare,
    but whoever trusts in the Lord is kept safe.

Psalm 56 relates an episode where David was afraid but trusted in God:

  Be merciful to me, my God,
    for my enemies are in hot pursuit;
    all day long they press their attack.
  My adversaries pursue me all day long;
    in their pride many are attacking me.

  When I am afraid, I put my trust in you.
    In God, whose word I praise—
    in God I trust and am not afraid.
  What can mere mortals do to me?

Indeed, if you open Psalms up at random and read a chapter, the odds are that the psalmist is dealing with fear.

Jesus advised people not to worry in Matthew 6:25-27:

  “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life ?"

In Luke 12:4-7, Jesus tells us whom we should fear and why:

  “I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

It is also instructive to read about Gideon in Judges 6, who started out with very little courage, but because he obeyed the Lord, the Lord showed him things that increased his courage.

In 2 Kings 6:15-17, Elisha's faith permits him to trust that he is well defended by God, while his servant is terrified:

  When the servant of the man of God got up and went out early the next morning, an army with horses and chariots had surrounded the city. “Oh no, my lord! What shall we do?” the servant asked.

  “Don’t be afraid,” the prophet answered. “Those who are with us are more than those who are with them.”

  And Elisha prayed, “Open his eyes, Lord, so that he may see.” Then the Lord opened the servant’s eyes, and he looked and saw the hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.

Other stories that show fearful people learning courage from God are Moses in Exodus (at the burning bush) and Jacob in Genesis (when he is returning to his homeland and fears that his brother will kill him). But perhaps the most remarkable story is the entire Book of Acts, where a group of terrified fisherman and tax collectors who deserted their Lord stand up to Jerusalem and Rome to the point of death.

I must stop, because almost every Bible story that I can think of deals with courage: Mary agreeing to be the handmaid of the Lord, Joseph marrying her, and the Son of God consenting to be hung on a cross. Truly "The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom."


Looking for a passage in the Old Testament

You are probably thinking of Elijah, as recounted in 1 Kings 19. It occurs right after Elijah's 'competition' with the prophets of Baal, and also includes the "still small voice" of God.

The Catholic Church prescribes this passage, 1 Kings 19:4–8, as the first reading for the 19th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Cycle B, which in 2015 fell on August 9th—you were nearly, but not quite, correct in identifying the date.


How do Jehovah's Witnesses explain Paul's apparent equating of Yahweh and Jesus in Ephesians 4?

Jehovah's Witnesses agree that Ephesians 4:8 refers to Jesus and that Psalm 68:18 refers to Jehovah God (Yahweh). They also agree that it equates Jesus' actions with God's actions, but they disagree that it equates Jesus with God.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus is God's Son and God's representative, and as God's representative, it's Jesus' responsibility to imitate God. Ephesians 5:1 tells us to "become imitators of God, as beloved children." Jesus, being God's Son, gave a perfect example for the rest of God's children in imitating God.

Those favored with assignments of service by God’s undeserved kindness are also called “gifts in men,” and Jesus Christ, as God’s representative and head of the congregation, has given these to the congregation in order that its members individually might be built up and attain maturity. (Eph 4:8, 11, 12)
—Insight, Vol. 1, pg. 937 "Gifts of Service and 'Gifts in Men.'"

To confirm that Paul didn't equate Jesus with God, Jehovah's Witnesses could cite the verses directly above at Ephesians 4:4-6, where it says in the ESV:

4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

This verse says the Father is "God and Father of all." If the Father is the Father of the Son, then according to this verse that would mean the Father is also the God of the Son. Therefore, the Son isn't God. He has a god: the same God and Father everyone else has.


Have any ante-Nicene writings been discovered in the past 20 years?

Yes.  29 homilies of Origen were discovered in 2012 in the Bavarian State Library in Germany.  Some of them were already available in Latin translation, but others were completely new discoveries.  Origen scholar Lorenzo Perrone judged them to be genuine.

In 2015 the homilies were published in a critical edition, the front matter of which is available on academia.edu.

Several years prior, in 2008, six sermons of Augustine were discovered at Erfurt, in a 12th century manuscript.  Larger groups of Augustine's writings had also been discovered in 1974 and 1990.


Were humans created before the animals? (Catholic perspective)

Read on to Genesis 2 : 20-23 and you will understand that Gen 2:18 is in fact setting the stage for narrating the creation of Eve, the perfect life-companion for Adam. The interlude of Adam's `screening' of the animals and birds to look for a companion , is only meant to reinforce the design of Creation meant for mankind.


Is it known whether  Adam and Eve had the ability to experience physical pain before the fall?

This is an interesting question.  The simple answer is that we are really told explicitly whether or not physical pain was possible.  We do know, however, that in the judgment of Eve, pain is mentioned:

  To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in
  childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.  Your desire
  shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”  Genesis 3:16 ESV

The phrase, "I will surely multiply your pain", could certainly indicate that physical pain was a possibility.

This brings up some theological questions though.  It seems that death only exists as a penalty for sin, and it would seem that pain is related to death.  Pain tells us that something is wrong physically (much like shame lets us know that something is wrong spiritually).  Yet, the body seems to have been created for immortal life, so pain that indicates the destruction of the body in some way does not seem to fit.

So, if pain originated at the fall, the wording in Genesis 3:16 could indicate that pain would also be a part of something that was intended to be good rather than just with all things that are to our own destruction.

Yet, again, we are not explicitly told the answer to this question, so it seems the best we can do is contemplate what we do know.


What does Lutheranism teaches in regard the eastern orthodox doctrine of theosis?

It is inaccurate firstly, to say that "[t]his practice/doctrine seem to come from the so called 'desert fathers' and/or 'cappadocian fathers".

Rather, the amount of quotes from the writings of church fathers shows that the focus of the incarnation of Christ is directly related the believers' deification.

Justin Martyr, a second-century apologist, is one of the earliest witnesses to explicitly teach that man may become God in God's salvation.

  Let the interpretation of the Psalm be held just as you wish, yet
  thereby it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming
  “gods,” and of having power to become sons of the highest....
  (Dialogue with Trypho)

Shortly after, Irenaeus of Lyon:

  For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from
  the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods; although
  God has adopted this course out of His pure benevolence, that no one
  may impute to Him insidiousness or grudgingness. He declares, “I have
  said, Ye are gods; and ye are sons of the Highest.” (Against Heresies,
  Bk. IV, ch. 38, sec. 4)

Clement of Alexandria uses Psalm 82:6 to show that our sonship in Christ is synonymous with our becoming God:

  Accordingly this grace is indicated by the prophet, when he says, “I
  said that ye are gods, and all sons of the Highest.” For us, yea us,
  He has adopted and wishes to be called the Father of us alone, not of
  the unbelieving. (Protreptikos 12)

  Being baptized, we are illuminated; illuminated, we become sons; being
  made sons, we are made perfect; being made perfect, we are made
  immortal. “I,” says He, “have said that ye are gods, and all sons of
  the Highest.” (Paedagogus, Bk. I, ch. 6)

I think these are sufficient and you can get more from Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Palamas, John of Damascus and so on.

Regarding the question, there are traces of deification found in Luther passages that seem to support the Finnish claim (Mannermaa and his counterparts) on deification at the center of Luther's theology.

In the Christmas sermon of 1514:

  Just as the Word became flesh so is it necessary that the flesh become
  the Word. For the Word becomes flesh precisely so that the flesh can
  become Word. In other words, God became man so that man may become
  God. Thus power becomes powerless so that weakness may become
  powerful. The Logos put on our form and manner, image and likeness, so
  that he might clothe us with his image, form and likeness. Therefore,
  wisdom became foolish, so that foolishness might become wisdom. And so
  with regard to all other things that are in God and us, in everything
  he assumes ours, so that he might confer onto us his …

The second from a 1525 sermon:

  And so we are filled with “all the fullness of God.” This phrase,
  which follows a Hebrew way of speaking, means that we are filled in
  all the ways in which God fills; we are filled with God, and he pours
  into us all his gifts and grace and fills us with his Spirit, who make
  us courageous. He enlightens us with his light, his life lives in us,
  his beatitude makes us blessed, and his love causes love to arise in
  us. Put briefly, he fills us in order that everything that he is and
  everything he can do might be in us in all its fullness, and work
  powerfully, so that we might be divinized throughout -

In Christ Present in Faith: Luther's View of Justification, Tuomo Mannermaa speaks of this reality:

  Because faith means a real union with Christ, and because in Christ
  the Logos is of the same essence as God the Father, therefore the
  believer’s participation in the essence of God is also real....

In other words, justification by faith is not merely forensic but involving a union of the divine life. It is not something that we are convinced of in our
mind; it is something that we receive when we are joined to the Lord as one spirit (1 Cor. 6:17). When the living Christ indwells us, His faith becomes our faith. We believe because He is faithful, and He cannot deny Himself in us
(2 Tim. 2:13). In our organic union with Him, His faith becomes our faith, and our faith is His faith.

The "happy exchange" according to Luther involves Christ's assumption of our sin and our assumption of His righteousness. In his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, Luther speaks of this exchange in relation to faith and to our union with Christ. He says:

  Faith connects you so intimately with Christ, that He and you become
  as it were one person. As such you may boldly say: “I am now one with
  Christ. Therefore Christ’s righteousness, victory, and life are mine.”
  On the other hand, Christ may say: “I am that big sinner. His sins and
  his death are mine, because he is joined to me, and I to him.


If God doesn't tempt us, why does the Lord's Prayer petition Him to "lead us not into temptation"?

The phrase is part of a couplet, so it needs to be read in that context.

  Lead us not into temptation,
  but deliver us from evil.

The phrase does not assume that God might lead us into temptation. Instead, it assumes that God does deliver us from evil. The couplet gives the impression that temptations will come, but prays that God delivers us from them. The New Living Translation attempts to make this more clear:

  And don’t let us yield to temptation,
  but rescue us from the evil one.

Through other Scriptures, we know that God does not tempt anyone (James 1:13), and we also know that God will always have a way out when temptation comes (1 Corinthians 10:13). A proper systematic theology will look at all the Scriptures that mention a subject to help interpret the more difficult or confusing passages. In this case, other Scriptures make this clear, that God does not tempt and does deliver us from temptation. This is exactly what the prayer asks: when temptation does come (because it will), God save us from it.


This is an example of a theophany. People often make the mistake of equating the descriptions of God with human form. Just because God is said to have a face, shoulders, a right hand etc. does not make him human. The same could be said of a koala bear [or enter arbitrary animal here!].

There are many, many references throughout the bible to God's "body", however it is unwise to assume we know what God looks like. We shall, ultimately, see His face and know Him fully as He is.

The incarnation is different. That is the phenomenal notion of God becoming a human being, fixed in time and space.

Hope that helps.


What part of your body is affected in times of great emotion? (whether in sadness and stress or in joy and thanks)?  In our culture we usually speak of our 'hearts' being the seat of emotion. But it was common in greek culture to attribute the seat of emotions to the intestines (σπλάγχνα), since that's where we feel emotions.  Ulcers in times of stress, butterflies in times of joy—they affect our gut far more than our hearts.  One could argue that the ancient understanding was better.
As evidence, here are some citations from common standard greek lexicons on the word:
BDAG:

as often in the ancient world, inner body parts served as referents for psychological aspects (s. καρδία): of the seat of the emotions, in our usage a transference is made to the rendering heart,

“σπλάγχνον,” BDAG, 938.

NIDNTTE:

Because strong emotions produce sensations in the abdomen, the bowels and other organs were regarded as the site of the natural passions (cf. the use of gut in [Vol. 4, p. 352] Eng.). Thus σπλάγχνα came to have the same fig. meaning as heart (see καρδία G2840), referring to the seat of the affections, both negative, such as anger and fear, and positive, such as love and compassion (cf. the use of σπλάγχνα alongside κέαρ [= κῆρ, “heart”] and φρένες [pl. of φρήν G5856, with a sim. meaning] when speaking of fearful premonitions, Aesch. Ag. 995–98).
“σπλάγχνον” NIDNTTE, 4:351-352.

As to the pairing of σπλάγχνον with οἰκτιρμός (compassion), the thought is the full extent and depth of compassion, not a half-hearted effort, but compassion shown from the depth of your heart (or in the original, gut). And that is a truly theological thought, that out of the great compassion that God has shown us in Christ, we extend that same compassion to others.


According to Catholic teaching, does sin disfigure?

Catechism of the Catholic Church

The Image of God

  1701 "Christ, . . . in the very revelation of the mystery of the
  Father and of his love, makes man fully manifest to himself and brings
  to light his exalted vocation." It is in Christ, "the image of the
  invisible God," that man has been created "in the image and likeness"
  of the Creator. It is in Christ, Redeemer and Savior, that the divine
  image, disfigured in man by the first sin, has been restored to its
  original beauty and ennobled by the grace of God.

The emphasis in this passage is mine. The catechism says that the divine image in man is disfigured by original sin. Although the catechism is, at this point, talking about the soul, it does not make a direct connection between 'divine image' and 'soul'. At least, there is not suggestion that the disfigurement said to be caused by original sin affects a person's physical beauty. Elsewhere, it is said that original sin disfigures the soul.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

God's Spirit and Word in the Time of the Promises

  705 Disfigured by sin and death, man remains "in the image of God," in
  the image of the Son, but is deprived "of the glory of God,"66 of his
  "likeness." the promise made to Abraham inaugurates the economy of
  salvation, at the culmination of which the Son himself will assume
  that "image"67 and restore it in the Father's "likeness" by giving it
  again its Glory, the Spirit who is "the giver of life."

Once again, the emphasis in this passage is mine. Here we see that man is disfigured by sin, which presumably includes original sin, but is not restricted to it. This disfigurement is equivalent to the disfigurement of death, which is purely physical; in fact the good surely are not disfigured in the soul when they die. Here the disfigurement of sin does not affect the "image of God" in which man remains - but surely the "image of God" is an identical term to "divine image." We seem to have a different theological view here, but presumably there is an explanation.


Can you proof trinity by Jesus's words alone?

The bible teaches all over there is one God.

  “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’
  Mark 12:29-30

The Father and Son are one and fully God:

  I and the Father are one.
  John 10:30

The Holy Spirit is God:

  Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? ... You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
  Acts 5:3-4


Is it accurate to say Jehovah's Witnesses do not view Jesus as divine?

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is divine, however many people have different ideas about what it means to be divine. As you've noted, JWs don't believe that Jesus is God, so what do they mean when they say that Jesus is divine?
From the context of scriptures which use the term, Jehovah's Witnesses interpret "divine" to mean:

"That which belongs to God or pertains to him, that which is godlike or heavenly."
–Insight, Vol. 1, p. 638

Therefore it is a quality of things which relate in some way to God or gods. In Greek, words which convey the idea of divinity even stem from the word "theos" meaning "god."
Colossians 2:9 is very clear about Jesus being divine/having divinity:

"because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily."

And this makes sense, because Jesus is described as a god in several places, such as John 1:18, and also because Jesus is from God, in that he is God's son and was sent by God (Galatians 4:4).
Here are some more examples of things which are divine:

God himself - Acts 17:29
Followers of Christ - 2 Peter 1:4
God's favor and power - Acts 6:8


What are the rules or laws a Catholic must follow if he/she has a website or blog?

Code of Canon Law, Book III The Teaching Function of the Church

  The Church, to which Christ the Lord has entrusted the deposit of
  faith so that with the assistance of the Holy Spirit it might protect
  the revealed truth reverently, examine it more closely, and proclaim
  and expound it faithfully, has the duty and innate right, independent
  of any human power whatsoever, to preach the gospel to all peoples,
  also using the means of social communication proper to it. (Can. 747 §1, emphases mine)

I think that about covers it.

(There's also quite a bit about publishing in Title IV Instruments of Social Communication and Books in Particular.)


How should Christians discipline their children today?

Very good question.
The way to live your life as a Christian, is to find out what the scripture says and conform to that.
I live in America and I spank my child. I have no fear of losing them to Social Services. I play by the rules, using an open hand on the butt. I normally only have to smack them once or twice to get my point across.
I was raised by a 5'4" one hundred and ten pound mom that spanked me. When I get out of line today I still get hit, thanks mom...  I can tell you that she did it right, I have the utmost respect for my mother and rarely if ever talk back to any of  my elders because of it. The Bible is true folks.

Proverbs 29:17 NIV
Discipline your children, and they will give you peace; they will
bring you the delights you desire.

This is a very, very valid point here. When you discipline your child with persistence, they will learn to respect you when you ask them to do something. They will not always fight you and therefore you will not always have to spank them.
Spanking is not the only answer to this question either. There's some book out called Love and Logic, although the book has its many fallacies as it relies to heavily on the secular, it still has some valid points. This book has some interesting ideas.
It's good to have a specific discipline for different kinds of offenses.

Cleaning up: 'till this day when I get mad I always start cleaning. It's a good technique to have your child go clean their room when they get into trouble or fights with each other. Probably not the most logical discipline if they're offense was not listening.
Timeout chair: although this is best used in tandem with spanking in my experience.
Make them say their sorry: If one child hurts another child I ALWAYS make them show love before the punishment of timeout. "Go give your brother a hug and a kiss and tell him that you're sorry."
Go to your Room: This is much different then time-outs, which usually involve the corner. If my children throw themselves on the ground or begin crying to get their way I escort them to their room and let them know that they can come out when they're done. These days they stop immediately, but I will not talk to them until they have regained their composure.

Remember that no matter what you do consistency is the key.
Another thing that I have learned is to pick my battles. There have been a few times in mine and my wives lives that we sat down, looked at each other and realized that we were yelling at the kids for every tiny offense.
Think about what you're child is doing before you tell them to not do it. Seriously. One day my child was climbing up on the window sill, 20" of the ground and I had the urge to tell them no. Then I thought about it for a minute, what is it going to hurt? If they fall, they will not die, they're just going to learn why I would be telling them no.
So my child slipped off the window sill and bopped his chin, crying of course he came to me (20 months old). I told him, "That's why we don't climb on the window. So remember, the next time I tell you that you can get hurt, this is why."


What was the weight of Noah's ark before and after the animals were loaded on to it?

The draft of the Ark (the depth of the vessel submerged under water) is given in scripture as being 22.5 feet (15 cubits, as recorded in Genesis 7:19-20).

From this figure, together with the dimensions of the structure, can be calculated the displacement, which is the volume of water that the vessel displaces.

The weight of this volume of displaced water can then be calculated which will be the weight of the vessel (as is known by By Archimedes' Principle).

  Archimedes' Principle - the weight of a floating object is the weight of the fluid it displaces.

All the details and calculations are shown by Creation Concepts. They estimate a weight of :

  47million lb or about 24 thousand tons

Note: This only gives the weight of the ark when afloat with all its contents.


Jesus refers to this episode in Luke 17. Here are verses 28-33 in the NIV:

  "It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. Remember Lot’s wife! Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it."

She is used here as an example of people who are too attached to their old life, indicating that she looked back in regret for what she was losing. There is a double meaning: attachment to physical goods, and to the unregenerate life.

John Wesley's Explanatory notes upon the Old Testament (1765), which is surely as Wesleyan as could possibly be expected, says:

  Probably she hankered after her house and goods in Sodom, and was loath to leave them. Christ intimates this to be her sin, she too much regarded her stuff. And her looking back spoke an inclination to go back; and therefore our Saviour uses it as a warning against apostasy from our Christian profession.

Other commentators have made the same interpretation, so it's not exclusive to the Wesleyan school of thought. Here's John Calvin in his Genesis commentary (1563; English translation 1578):

  First, the desire of looking back proceeded from incredulity; and no greater injury can be done to God, than when credit is denied to his word. Secondly we infer from the words of Christ, that she was moved by some evil desire; and that she did not cheerfully leave Sodom, to hasten to the place whither God called her; for we know that he commands us to remember Lot's wife, lest, indeed, the allurements of the world should draw us aside from the meditation of the heavenly life. It is therefore probable, that she, being discontented with the favor God had granted her, glided into unholy desires, of which thing also her tardiness was a sign; for Moses intimates that she was following after her husband, when he says, that she looked back from behind him; for she did not look back towards him; but because by the slowness of her pace, she was less advanced, she, therefore, was behind him.

and here's Augustine in City of God 16.30 (5th century):

  For what is meant by the angels forbidding those who were delivered to look back, but that we are not to look back in heart to the old life which, being regenerated through grace, we have put off, if we think to escape the last judgment? Lot's wife, indeed, when she looked back, remained, and, being turned into salt, furnished to believing men a condiment by which to savor somewhat the warning to be drawn from that example.


I think the short answer that's easiest to give to another person is that if you really believe the message the Christ brought to mankind, it will change you, and that change will show in your actions. Not that you must do change your behavior to attain salvation, but that coming to believe what saves us by faith cannot but change your behavior.

By contrast, it is very easy to say that one believes something, whether or not it is true. The profession of belief is important, but when one declares a belief and that belief is not reflected in their behavior, it is suspect.

Perhaps I'm arguing semantics here, but I think it's meaningful that James says "You say you believe there is one God," as opposed to, say, "You say you believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah who died for your sins." I think James is pointing out that simply believing in the existence of God is a baseline, not the endpoint of faith. If that's the case, then such a belief isn't nearly as formative of behavior as belief that one is a sinner who can be forgiven. James seems to be saying faith should manifest action because real faith is in something transforming.


Is the al-Hallaj of the Yazidi religion Jesus?

Al-Hallaj (AD 858–922) was a Sufi mystic from ~900 years after the time of Jesus. He was enamored of the Jesus he knew of, but his own sources and influence were primarily Islamic and his idea of who Jesus was matches the non-divine prophet of Islamic teaching rather that the divine savior of Christianity. He tried to live after the pattern of the stories he had and used some terminology from Christianity, but his self proclaimed identity is that of a follower of Jesus, not a re-incarnation of him.

Strictly speaking, al-Hallaj was not a Yazidi, although they share some relationship to Sufism. Yazidi beliefs do incorporate some Islamic mystic ideas similar to al-Hallaj's, but other beliefs are incorporated as well into a syncretistic blend of beliefs that is deeply animistic. Stories, lingo, and a not a few theological concepts are borrowed from both Islam and Christianity.

For their part, both Islam and Christianity deny any affiliation. Neither recognize him or his legacy as anything but that of a Sufi mystic.


My attempt of an answer based on the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

First, I could not find any explicit doctrine/dogma on this. Thus, my answer is inferred from other dogmatic definitions.

Hell and Genesis:

Let us start with the fact that, if God dwells in Heaven (e.g. John 14:2), Heaven has always existed (unless God "moved", which is odd). At some point, as related in Genesis, God created the universe and Earth. However, there is no direct mention of God creating a physical place named Hell.
But Hell already existed at the time of Jesus resurrection:

Remember that Jesus descended into hell. Thus, hell must already exist.

In effect, the Catholic Church teaches that there is a General (or Last) Judgment (which is to occur when Jesus comes again, and where bodies will be resurrected), and a Particular Judgment, which occurs immediate after the death of the body. In the latter, which has happened since Adam and Eve, the soul is sent to wherever it corresponds depending on the status of sin the individual is at.  However, before Jesus erased original sin with his death, even saints and good people were "sent to hell" (to be precise, this place is called limbus patris, "in which the souls of the just who died before Christ awaited their admission to heaven; for in the meantime heaven was closed against them in punishment for the sin of Adam;").

All this means that Hell must have existed as a destination of the soul since the death of Adam and Eve.

Maybe hell is not a physical place, but just a state of separation from God.

This is in fact possible for now.  The Catholic Church has not decided anything on this. Many theologians and church fathers believed hell to be a physical place inside the Earth, in which case, God would have created hell just as he made Earth (for details, see "Names and Place of Hell" here). Yet, in my view it is only evident that, if after the General Judgment every human being is to have its body resurrected, Hell must by then be a physical place.

In conclusion, hell, at least as a place for destination of disembodied souls, exists since the creation of mankind.  Whether it was "created" by God or not, it is open to debate, as this depends among other things on whether hell is a physical place or it is simply the "absence of God".  What is clear however is that in the General Judgment bodies will be resurrected, at which, given my limited human mind, it means hell as a physical place must definitively exist, and hence, be created by God.


Which type of Baptism is preferred in today Catholic Parishes?

From my service/experience in the Archdiocese of Atlanta I have observed that, like the CCC states, triple immersion is preferred, but the pouring of water 3 times is much more common.

The variables that determine how each parish baptizes its members are numerous and overlapping, but usually can be lumped into several main categorical reasons.

Location - The majority of Catholic Churches (at least in Georgia) are not located near large bodies of water (i.e. rivers, lakes, oceans).   From a logistical standpoint this makes it difficult for Baptismal Masses to be performed by immersion.  From what I understand, 3rd world civilizations tend to gravitate toward significant bodies of water, which might be a logical reason as to why immersion baptisms are more frequently performed in these conditions. During the apostolic era, which is when the Didache was written, living conditions would perhaps be considered "3rd world" by today's standards.  There are special pilgrimages offered for catechumens to participate in that symbolically reenacts the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC-w4k7TgCU

Architecture - Vatican II ushered in a slew of architectural ideas and innovations. Some where for the better, some for the worse.  At any rate, this allowed more possibilities for parish councils and pastors to design how the "church" should function.  These changes also made it easier for local communities to establish new parishes (which are called missions until permanent church membership reaches a certain level) by purchasing previously used protestant churches.  This is the case with my own parish, St. Katharine's.

You can see a picture of our baptismal font here: http://saintkatharine.wix.com/trenton#!services/c24jx

6 years ago we purchased an old Methodist church building from the Dade County Historical Society and modified its structure to house our liturgies.  It was 101 years old at the time, and had no means of performing baptism by immersion. It was only possible within our parish's budget to buy a baptismal font - which leads me to my next reason.

Money - Baptismal pools are extremely expensive. Most of the Churches I've encountered with baptismal pools are located in a very wealthy area, or have 1000+ members. Parishes with large numbers have a high need for catechumens and children to be baptized, and usually set aside more money to put towards luxuries of that nature. Below is a picture I took of a fully functional baptismal pool located in Dunwoody, Ga, complete with a steady flow of warm water.

There are countless other factors that determine how a local parish baptizes its members. From apostolic times until now, the Church has faithfully baptized all walks of life from all corners of the world in every generation.  This is why the various forms of baptism have been adapted and permitted, while maintaining the true matter and form that is required.


What is the Biblical evidence against the perpetual virginity of Mary?

One such passage is Matthew 13:55, where Jesus is identified thus:

  “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and
  aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?"

Some would quibble over the definition and translation of the word "brother" here, taking it to mean that the brothers listed weren't the offspring of Mary but spiritual brothers (with no genetic link) or perhaps half-brothers (which would require Joseph to have had another wife - there's no evidence of this) or other relations. But much more definitive is Matthew 27:56, where Mary is described as the mother of those first two brothers:

  Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and
  Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.

Interestingly Mary here isn't identified as the mother of Jesus as well as James and Joseph, so one possible rebuttal to this verse is that Mary the mother of James and Joseph is a different Mary from Mary the mother of Jesus.

There are similar passages elsewhere in the New Testament that refer to Jesus' mother and his brothers, the context and normal processes of hermeneutics would lead to the conclusion that Mary (Jesus' mother) did indeed have these other offspring - but, to defend the Catholics a little bit, none of those passages state unambiguously that his brothers were born of his mother.

One further argument that Mary had further children after Jesus is that Jesus is referred in the Bible as Mary and Joseph's "firstborn", and never as their only child.

Matthew 1:25 (AMP):

  But he had no union with her as her husband until she had borne her
  firstborn Son; and he called His name Jesus.

But to be pedantic, an only child is also a firstborn, so this too could be argued against.

In summary, there is very strong Biblical evidence that Mary went on to have other children and therefore did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus; certainly that is the natural conclusion to be drawn from what is written in the Bible. However there are ways  of challenging the wording and interpretation of each of the verses above in order to form an argument to the contrary.

Reference/further reading: "Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters?" by Tony Warren


Were the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts written by the same person?

The fact that both Books were written by the same individual known as Luke is extracted from the first few verses of both Books.

Luke 1:1 through4 KJV Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
 Acts 1:1 KJV , The former treatise have I made O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

Both books were written to one Theophilus, and  The former treatise have I made  O Theophilus indicates that Acts is a follow-up to the Book of Luke.
These two commentary excerpts deal with these introductions to the books.

"Luke 1:1
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand,.... From hence, to the end of Luk_1:4 is a preface of the evangelist to his Gospel, setting forth the reasons of his writing it; and which he wrote and sent to the excellent Theophilus, for the further confirmation of him in the faith of Christ. It seems that many had took in hand, or attempteo set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us; that is, they undertook to write and publish a very particular and exact narrative of the birth, life, actions, doctrines, miracles, sufferings, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ; things which Luke, and other Christians, had the fullest and strongest evidence, and were confidently assured of, and most firmly believed, even with a full assurance of faith. By these many, he cannot mean the authentic historians of evangelical facts, as Matthew and Mark; for they two cannot, with any propriety, be called many; and besides, it is not so very clear and certain a point, that they had, as yet, wrote their Gospels; nor would this evangelist suggest any deficiency, weakness, and inaccuracy in them, as he seems to do: nor does he intend such spurious writers as the authors of the Gospels according to the Nazarenes, Hebrews, and Egyptians; of Nicodemus, Thomas, Matthias, and of the twelve apostles; and still less, the Gospels of Cerinthus, Basilides, and other heretics; since these would not have passed without a censure from him, for the falsehood, fabulous, and trifling stuff in them, as well as for the wicked and heretical opinions propagated by them; and besides, these pieces were not extant when this Gospel was written: but he seems to design some honest and well meaning Christians, who undertook to write, and did write an account of the above things, which were firmly believed by all; and which they took from the apostles, and first ministers of the Gospel, from their sermons and discourses, and from conversation with them; and which they committed to writing, partly to help their own memories, and partly for the benefit of others; in which, no doubt, they acted an upright part, though attended with weakness: wherefore, the evangelist does not censure them as false, wicked, and heretical, nor approve of them as divine and perfect for though they honestly meant, and designed well, yet there might be many things collected by them, which were impertinent, and not proper to be transmitted to posterity; and what might be wrote with great inaccuracy and deficiency, and in a style the Holy Ghost thought improper things of this kind should be delivered in: and therefore the evangelist, moved and inspired by the Spirit of God, set about the following work, and under the same influence completed it. The phrase, αναταξασθαι διηγησιν, "to set forth in order a declaration", is as Dr. Lightfoot observes, out of the Talmud (h), agreeably to the Jewish way of speaking,
"R. Chasdai said to one of the Rabbins, who was מסדר אגדתא, "setting in order a declaration" before him. &c. or relating in order a story before him.
(h) T. Bab. Succa, fol. 53. 1."

Commentary by John Gill

"Acts 1:1
The former treatise have I made,.... Meaning the Gospel written by him the Evangelist Luke, for from that he makes a transition to this, beginning here where he there left off; namely, at the ascension of Christ; see Luk_24:51."

Commentary by Peter Gusik

With further examination of the two books there are similarities in both style and choice of syntax which lend both books to a common authorship.

Hope this helps


Could the thorn that was given to Paul be a mortal sin?

As a Protestant, let me offer a different interpretation: the phrase "thorn in the flesh" should not be taken in isolation - it has meaning in an Old Testament context. In Numbers 33:55 the Israelites were warned concerning the heathen Canaanites:
But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land, those you allow to remain will become barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides. They will give you trouble in the land where you will live.

Secondly, Paul goes on to clarify: the "thorn" was a messenger of Satan. In other words, it was an evil spirit. Exactly how it afflicted him is not explained, though the idea that it stirred up the persecutions Paul suffered is one interpretation.


What is Alvin Plantinga's view on divine sovereignty and free will?

Plantinga is definitely a Calvinist, though most Calvinists would call him an inconsistent one. Reformed teaching plays a very significant, if at-times tangential, role in much of his work. (For example his work on epistemology is known as Reformed Epistemology)

He's known for Molinism because of his books God, Freedom & Evil and The Nature of Necessity (among other works). Crucially his free will defense relies on a libertarian conception of freedom.

To answer your question though, I'm not sure what his precise views are. This probably lies at the heart of the difference between philosophy and theology, but philosophers are often quite difficult to pin down in terms of their own personal beliefs. Their focus is on the arguments, and they will often take up a position they don't necessarily agree with because it serves them. For example from God, Freedom & Evil:

  Quite distinct from a Free Will Theodicy is what I shall call a Free Will Defense. Here the aim is not to say what God's reason is, but at most what God's reason might possibly be. We could put the difference like this. [...] He (The Free Will Theodist) tries to tell us what God's reason for permitting evil really is. The Free Will Defender, on the other hand, [...], does not claim to know or even believe that T is true.

Though given the scope of his writing on the subject it's probably fair to say that he advocates it.

In terms of how the two systems might be put together (Calvinism and Molinism), Craig seems generally optimistic that the two systems aren't all that far apart. You can find in some of his writings a variant of Molinism with a stronger view of election (Congruism) that he thinks might help cross the divide.

On the other side many (perhaps most) Calvinists are deeply suspicious of Molinism (consider this paper). For example the Westminster Confession of Faith (3.2) explicitly contradicts Molinism:

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

And that probably explains Plantinga's cautious wording: he may not see much tension between the two systems, but many others do.


When was the first time God promised eternal life in the Bible?

It is implicit in the command given to Adam (Genesis 2:17):

  but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

Theologians understand this as the covenant of works.

The promise of blessing and life on the condition of obedience often comes with the punishment of curse and death upon disobedience.

For Adam, such promise was implicit because he lived in a state of blessedness.

See also Romans 5:18:

  Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

The 'one trespass' meant here is the trespass of Adam, while the 'one act of righteousness' is that of Jesus.

The agreement between God the Father and His Son Jesus that He would die to redeem sinners of course happened in eternity, before the command was even given to Adam.


Does a literal reading of Romans 4:25 conflict with Reformed theology?

Yes, if you read "because" as indicating a causal relationship, no if it's just giving the reason or purpose.

"Because of our justification" might suggest that some action done by us is the cause of the resurrection. That's a problem for Reformed theology, and probably not just for us either, as it's a bit logically and temporally difficult.

If we read "our justification" more like "the justification that relates to us" or "is done to us" then there is no problem with the responsibility. Something like "for the sake of" instead of "because of" carries the same sort of meaning - indicating purpose rather than causality.

My knowledge of Greek isn't good enough to be sure about this, but from a cursory glance into Liddell-Scott-Jones it looks like dia can carry this meaning (sense B.III.3). Latin propter, as in the Vulgate for Romans 4:25, certainly can have a sense of "this was the reason" without necessarily also indicating logical cause. Compare the Nicene Creed's propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem.  (But prepositions are always difficult to translate.)

In Martin Luther's commentary (1515-1516, trans. J. Theodore Mueller 1954) on Romans 4:25, he says:

  Christ's death is the death of sin, and His resurrection is the raising up of righteousness. For by His death Christ has atoned for our sins, and through His resurrection He has procured for us righteousness. Christ's death does not merely signify, but has effected the remission of our sins. Christ's resurrection is not merely the pledge of our righteousness, but its cause.

The direction of the causal relationship he sees is obvious.
Likewise, in John Calvin's commentary (1540, trans. John Owen 1849), we find:

  Expiation depended on the eternal goodwill of God, who purposed to be in this way pacified. [...] The efficacy of justification is ascribed to his resurrection, by which death was overcome; not that the sacrifice of the cross, by which we are reconciled to God, contributes nothing towards our justification, but that the completeness of his favor appears more clear by his coming to life again.1

Calvin here adds the additional nuance of God's sovereign will. Like Luther, he sees the resurrection as both a sign and a cause, but in addition he emphasises that God is the ultimate cause. This helps the reading of "because of our transgressions" as well: God's grace is freely given, not procured as a necessary result of our sin. In both cases, our transgression and justification supply the reasons why God did what he did, without causing God's action.

1. expiato ab aeterno Dei beneplacito pendet, qui hoc modo placere voluit [...] resurrectioni, per quam mors absorpta est, vis iustificandi adscribitur: non quod sacrificium crucis, quo reconciliati sumus Deo, nihil ad iustitiam contulerit: sed quia in nova vita huius gratiae perfectio clarius apparet.


Can a priest act on a confession of molestation?

Canon law is very explicit on this...

The priest can't betray the person confessing (983.1)

  The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

  Sacramentale sigillum inviolabile est; quare nefas est confessario verbis vel alio quovis et quavis modo de causa aliquatenus prodere paenitentem.

Considering these rules, if the priest confessing sexual attacks only ever discloses it in the sacrament of reconciliation, he is free from any disciplinary action from the bishop.

If he were to disclose such abuses outside the sacrament of reconciliation, (or get caught), only then is he vulnerable to disciplinary actions.

Let's say the Bishop was suspicious about a priest and decided to tell a random person to eavesdrop on the confession...

Canon Law 983.2 covers that

  The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.

The priest facing disciplinary actions as a result of such abuses (hopefully) either got caught or disclosed it outside the sacrament of reconciliation.

The priest hearing this confession can encourage him to give himself up.

What if the Priest told the guy confessing that his penance is giving himself up?

Using the example of another type of sin, (murder) Fr. Charles Grondin answered this question saying...

  To require that someone turn himself in to the police would be to require him to reveal his confession to a third party. While the sinner is free to do so if he chooses, to require it would appear to be the equivalent of the priest revealing the contents of the confession via a secondary source. In light of canon 984, the priest only knows who the murderer is based on the confession. To require the penitent to turn himself in to the police would be to use that information to the detriment of the penitent. And if the absolution is essentially conditional upon this requirement it would seem to also violate canon 980. If someone is not sufficiently contrite the confessor can simply withhold absolution. If the penitent is sufficiently contrite the priest can most certainly encourage him to turn himself in to the police but to require someone to reveal their confession to another would violate canon law.

  Can. 980 If the confessor is in no doubt about the penitent's disposition and the penitent asks for absolution, it is not to be denied or delayed.

  Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.


Did the 12 disciples represent all 12 tribes?

From the simple fact that there were at least two sets of brothers, we can say for sure that their primary tribal identities were not from all 12 tribes.

If you included all their tribal ancestors from their mothers' sides as well, then we'd expect that all the tribes were represented just from the fact that people moved and married around a lot, but there's no actual evidence for it either way.


According to Catholic sources, what is the "Leviathan" in the Bible?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  LEVIATHAN. — The word Leviathan (Hebrew, líweyãthãn), which occurs six
  times in the Hebrew Bible, seems to have puzzled not a little all
  ancient translators. The D.V. has kept this name, Job 3:8; 40:20;
  Isaiah 27:1; it is rendered by dragon Psalm 73:14, and 103:26; The
  word leviathan means:

  (1) crocodile (Job 40:20 and Psalm 73:14);
  (2) a sea-monster (Psalm 103:26, Isaiah 27:1);
  (3) possibly the Draco constellation (Job 3:8).

In Haydock's commentary on Job 40, he says much the same thing; in Job 40 the reference is to the crocodile, but the reference could also be a whale or dragon. Thomas Aquinas says it is "some great fish" but could also be a reference to the devil. The devil reference is supported by Haydock's commentary on Job 3, in which he says:

  The fathers generally understand the devil to be thus designated.
  Septuagint, "he who is about to seize the great whale," (Haydock) or
  fish, which they also explain of the conflict of Satan with Jesus
  Christ. (Origen, &c.)

Footnote to Job [40:25], Job, chapter 40 | USCCB (New American Bible) has: Leviathan: although identified by some scholars as the crocodile, it is more likely another chaos monster and the Jerusalem Bible Popular Edition footnote to Job 3:8 has: The dragon of primeval chaos; he might be roused by a curse against the present order.

Clearly, there is no consensus within or without Catholicism on what exactly the leviathan is. But they seem to agree it is a large aquatic or semi-aquatic beast or a chaos monster, and possibly a reference to the devil.


How did Christian come to be the name for believers?

The term Christian or Christians is only in the Bible 3 times: Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, and 1 Peter 4:16. Acts 11:26 tells us a little bit of how the term Christian began to be used to describe the followers of Jesus. It says, "...The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." (NIV) We are given nothing else to go with.


Is there any specific difference between a "Christian" and a 'true' disciple of Christ?

Your definition of a Christian seems a bit arbitrary, but one thing I notice is that the whole thing is based on beliefs.  But the word disciple comes from the same root as discipline, which suggests a few things as to its meaning.  Discipleship is not about belief, it's about what you do with that belief.

Much of the Sermon on the Mount, which lays out many of the core principles of the Law of the Gospel, is about self-discipline: controlling not only one's actions but one's very thoughts, not allowing anger to take over even when you've been wronged, etc.  And in Matthew 16: 24 (and this is also mentioned in Mark and Luke) we see:

  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.

So we see that following Christ requires denying oneself, (again with the self-discipline theme,) and taking up their own cross.  And this doesn't mean wearing a cross on a necklace!  To someone living under Roman rule, carrying your own cross was something that a prisoner condemned to death had to do, and the meaning here is clear. It's an extension of denying yourself: you need to be willing to sacrifice whatever is necessary, even your own life, in service to God's plan in order to be a true disciple of Christ.

In Mark 10:21, when talking to a righteous youth who professes a desire to follow him, Jesus gives a slightly different perspective on this:

  Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

Here we see the theme of sacrifice associated even more explicitly with discipleship and taking up one's own cross.  It's repeated even more strongly in Luke 14:27-33, with a warning attached:

  27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

  28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?

  29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,

  30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.

  31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?

  32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.

  33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

Jesus makes it clear that he never meant for being a true disciple to be something easy.  It's much more than simple belief; it requires full commitment, self-discipline, and a willingness to sacrifice all that we have for his sake.


Are LDS members expected to contribute a certain amount of time as a full-time missionary?

In October 2012, when the full-time missionary age requirement was reduced for both men and women, President Thomas S. Monson reiterated the call to missionary service, for men, women, and seniors:

We affirm that missionary work is a priesthood duty—and we encourage all young men who are worthy and who are physically able and mentally capable to respond to the call to serve. Many young women also serve, but they are not under the same mandate to serve as are the young men. We assure the young sisters of the Church, however, that they make a valuable contribution as missionaries, and we welcome their service.
We continue to need many more senior couples. As your circumstances allow, as you are eligible for retirement, and as your health permits, I encourage you to make yourselves available for full-time missionary service. Both husband and wife will have a greater joy as they together serve our Father’s children.

So the call to missionary service is:

to young men: a commandment from the Lord. For practical and legal reasons, they must be out of high school, age 18-25 (inclusive), worthy, and physically/mentally/emotionally able. Men who may serve but choose not to don't lose privileges, only blessings. Their missions are 2 years (and 4 days, technically).

to young women: not required or commanded, but their service is certainly welcome. They must be at least 19 years of age (no upper age limit). Their missions are 18 months.

to senior members: senior couples and individuals may serve if they choose, but it's not uncommon for a local leader to call them into a meeting and issue a mission call, knowing the couple or individual is able to serve. Their full-time missions are typically mostly self-funded and offer them a great degree of options because of their seniority and circumstances. Their missions can vary in length according to their situation.

Years ago, to a group of young men, the President of the Church, Spencer W. Kimball, said:

"The question is frequently asked: Should every young man fill a mission? And the answer has been given by the Lord. It is 'Yes.' Every young man should fill a mission. ...
"... Every man should also pay his tithing. Every man should observe the Sabbath. Every man should attend his meetings. Every man should marry in the temple"

("When the World Will Be Converted," Ensign, Oct. 1974, p. 8)
So the commandment for young men to serve a mission is as universal as others in the LDS faith such as attending Church and tithing.
There's a whole article by President Kimball that would be worth reading on this matter.
Elder Rasband of the Presidency of the Seventy, gave a talk a few years ago in a General Conference, wherein, he described the process of full-time mission calls, how they are issued, and why it is a divine commandment.
The whole talk gives a great, little-known insight into issuing calls to missionaries, but he concludes with this, in a more direct answer to your question:

I suppose many of you young men have asked yourselves that same question. Here is the Lord’s answer: "And now, behold, I say unto you, that the thing which will be of the most worth unto you will be to declare repentance unto this people, that you may bring souls unto me, that you may rest with them in the kingdom of my Father." (Doctrine and Covenants 15:6; 16:6.)
At this time in your life, a mission call from the Lord, my young friends, is the most important work that you can do. Prepare now, live righteously, learn from your family and Church leaders, and come join with us in building the kingdom of God on earth—accept your divine appointment in "so great a cause."


I am a Catholic, and though I'm certainly not professing to be an expert on doctrine... the answer I've been given goes along the lines that The Catholic church will not declare that any given deceased individual is in Hell (or not in Heaven) as we can't know the forgiveness of our Lord, but that there are individuals who, after careful examination of their earthly deeds and the fruits of their lives, we believe are in Heaven - those individuals we refer to as Saints.
It is (or should be) the goal of every Christian to become a saint after their death, and therefore to believe and behave in as saintly a manor as possible throughout their life.


Why was Tamar more righteous than Judah?

From the Haydock commentary:

  Juster. For Juda had been guilty of injustice; and had thus exposed her to the danger of following a life of lewdness. (Haydock) --- She
  remained a widow afterwards, as she was now rendered unfit to be
  married either to Juda or Sela. The latter married another woman,
  Numbers xxvi. 19. (Calmet) --- While Juda was engaged in this unlawful
  commerce, and yielded to the temptation, Joseph was triumphing over a
  much greater temptation, in rejecting the solicitations of his
  master's wife. (Haydock)

Basically, by not following through on his promise to have his son Sela marry her, Judah exposed Tamar to the danger of making a living as a prostitute as she did not have any other way to support herself in her widowhood.  As such, Judah was more at fault; or stated the other way around: Tamar was more just than Judah (calling Tamar more just could be a vestigial idiomatic construct of the Hebrew language).


None of the major branches do. All they say is that it is a large number, and most say that there are more than all humans who have ever existed:

A Protestant view: (Drawing from Scripture only)

  While the Scriptures give no definite figures, we are told that the
  number of angels is very great (Daniel 7:10; Matthew 26:53; Hebrews
  12:22).

  It appears that all angels were created at one time. No new angels are
  being added to the number. Angels are not subject to death or any form
  of extinction; therefore they do not decrease in number.

  It seems reasonable to conclude that there are at least as many spirit
  beings in existence as there will have been human beings in all their
  history on earth.

  Author: Dr. Paul Eymann.

A Catholic view:

  The number of the angels is frequently stated as prodigious (Daniel
  7:10; Apocalypse 5:11; Psalm 67:18; Matthew 26:53). From the use of
  the word host (sabaoth) as a synonym for the heavenly army it is hard
  to resist the impression that the term "Lord of Hosts" refers to God's
  Supreme command of the angelic multitude (cf. Deuteronomy 33:2; 32:43;
  Septuagint). The Fathers see a reference to the relative numbers of
  men and angels in the parable of the hundred sheep (Luke 15:1-3),
  though this may seem fanciful. The Scholastics, again, following the
  treatise "De Coelesti Hierarchia" of St. Denis, regard the
  preponderance of numbers as a necessary perfection of the angelic host
  (cf. St. Thomas, Summa Theologica I:1:3).

An Orthodox view:

  St. Cyril of Jerusalem writes: "Imagine how great in number is the
  Roman people, imagine how great in number are the other barbarian
  peoples that now exist, and how many must have died even! In a
  century, imagine how many have been buried in a thousand years,
  imagine all mankind, from Adam to the present day. Great is their
  multitude, but it is small in comparison with the angels, whose
  numbers are greater. They are the ninety-nine sheep, whereas the human
  race is the one lost sheep. By the greatness of a place one can judge
  the numbers of those who dwell in it. The earth we inhabit is a mere
  dot in the heavens, thus the heaven that surrounds it must have a much
  greater number of inhabitants. As is has greater space, the heavens of
  heavens hold their innumerable number. If it is written that 'a
  thousand thousands ministered unto Him, and ten thousands of myriads
  attended upon Him' this is only because the prophet could express no
  greater number." When the numbers of the angels are so great, it is
  natural to assume that in their world, as in the material: world,
  there are various degrees of perfections and therefore various ranks
  or a hierarchy of the heavenly powers. Thus Holy Scripture calls some
  angels and others archangels (I Thess. 4:16, Jude v. 9).

There are a great many teachings of the number of types  or ranks of angels, but no serious writings about the population count.

Of course, there may be smaller groups within Christianity that try to pin a number on it, but most of Christianity would discount any such attempt the same way we'd discount all of the various attempts to set a date of the second coming.  It wouldn't be accepted by Christianity as a whole.

The only exception I can think of - the only group within Christianity that puts an actual number to it is the group of "Christian Atheists" that discount all supernatural altogether.  Those in that group probably put the number at zero.  But that is a small group that does not represent any of the major denominations or teachings (nor do they believe in them except, perhaps, the moral ones they agree with).


How long did the drought that Elijah prayed for really last?

There are two common ways to explain this:

The "third year" refers to the third year of Elijah's stay in Zarephath, following a stay of some months at the brook Cherith (Adam Clarke, Barnes, Haydock, Keil and Delitzsch)
The "third year" refers to the time of Elijah's exile, which did not begin until the dry period had already been underway for six months (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown; Thomas Coke)

In both cases, it's important to note that the text does not actually say "in the third year of the drought."  See, for example:

After many days the word of the Lord came to Elijah, in the third year, saying... [ESV]
And it came to pass after many days, that the word of the Lord came to Elijah in the third year, saying... [KJV]
Now it happened after many days that the word of the Lord came to Elijah in the third year, saying... [NASB]
After a long time, in the third year, the word of the Lord came to Elijah... [NIV]

Many modern translations add "of the drought" or "of the famine," but it's not actually in the text.
Third year of Elijah's stay in Zarephath
One explanation for the alleged contradiction depends on this: rather than the "third year of the drought," the text is referring to the third year of Elijah's residence in Zarephath (1 Kings 17:9), where is staying at the end of 1 Kings 17.
Prior to this, but after the beginning of the drought, Elijah lived by the brook Cherith for an unspecified length of time (1 Kings 17:5).
Thus, if he lived at Cherith for some months, and this time is added to the 2+ years he lived in Zarephath, the time mentioned by Jesus and James (3 years, 6 months) is not necessarily contradictory to the 1 Kings account.
Keil and Delitzsch call this the "most simple and natural" understanding:

The time given, "the third year," is not to be reckoned, as the Rabbins, Clericus, Thenius, and others assume, from the commencement of the drought, but from the event last mentioned, namely, the sojourn of Elijah at Zarephath. This view merits the preference as the simplest and most natural one, and is shown to be the oldest by Luke 4:25 and James 5:17, where Christ and James both say, that in the time of Ahab it did not rain for three years and six months. And this length of time can only be obtained by allowing more than two years for Elijah's stay at Zarephath.

Third year in exile
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, among others, take a different approach.  They argue that the two periods of rain in ancient Israel normally occurred in March and October, and that the king's anger would have driven Elijah away only after these rains failed:

The early rain fell in our March, the latter rain in our October. Though Ahab might have at first ridiculed Elijah‘s announcement, yet when neither of these rains fell in their season, he was incensed against the prophet as the cause of the national judgment, and compelled him, with God‘s direction, to consult his safety in flight. This was six months after the king was told there would be neither dew nor rain, and from this period the three years in this passage are computed.

Summary
Either approach addresses the apparent contradiction, and some commentators, such as John Wesley, mention both and do not express a preference.


The Immaculate Conception is not the same as the miraculous conception of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Mary: Mary was conceived (by her mother, Saint Anne) being full of sanctifying grace and free of any stain of original sin.

It does not refer to any of the following, which Catholics also uphold:

Mary's freedom from any personal sin
Mary's perpetual virginity
The virgin birth of Jesus
The virginal conception of Jesus (mentioned above)

From the Baltimore Catechism:

  Q. 268. Was any one ever preserved from original sin?
  A. The Blessed Virgin Mary, through the merits of her Divine Son, was preserved free from the guilt of original sin, and this privilege is called her Immaculate Conception.

  Q. 271. What does the "Immaculate Conception" mean?
  A. The Immaculate Conception means the Blessed Virgin's own exclusive privilege of coming into existence, through the merits of Jesus Christ, without the stain of original sin. It does not mean, therefore, her sinless life, perpetual virginity or the miraculous conception of Our Divine Lord by the power of the Holy Ghost.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  The Immaculate Conception

  490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role." The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace". In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

  491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

    The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

  492 The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son". The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".

  493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature". By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

The Immaculate Conception does not imply that Mary did not need redemption through her Most Holy Son, Jesus Christ.

The Immaculate Conception is an Article of Faith among Catholics.


While it is possible that Christians may disagree about this issue, with some claiming verses such as:

Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. - 1 Timothy 6:17 NIV (emphasis added)

could be interpreted to grant implicit permission towards smoking cigarettes and that therefore their manufacture is morally neutral and an acceptable occupation to engage in; this is a considerably more difficult case to maintain since it has become common knowledge that smoking cigarettes is harmful.
Of considerable relevance to a Christian's consideration of whether an occupation is consistent with Biblical principles are the following:

35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” - Matthew 22:35-40 NIV
Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. - Romans 13:10 NIV (emphasis added)

Many would argue that taken together, the fact that cigarettes are known to be harmful  and the importance of loving our neighbor in a way that does them no harm constitute a strong reason that a Christian should not engage in the manufacture of cigarettes.


Do the notes in the NABRE accurately reflect the Catholic Church's understanding of biblical inerrancy?

The footnote apparatus in the NABRE consists mainly of philology, that is describing how the extant text developed into what we have today. Mixed within are some details regarding Catholic doctrine, but the footnotes do not comprise religious or theological commentary. Except for a very few cases where Catholic interpretation is briefly presented, the footnotes consist mainly of technical transmission and translation data, providing a mixture of methodological data, hypothesis, and scholarly theory.

That being said, the footnotes in question are meant to be read in the context of the technical discussion begun in the NAB introduction to Matthew, namely that the final work as we have today suggests that it was put into final form by someone other than the apostle Matthew.

As an example of this, these comments in the footnote apparatus are offered as some of the data that leads some scholars to this conclusion. The actual apostle Matthew would have been an eye witness to the events of Jesus' entry to Jerusalem, but the text reads as if the author was not there, mentioning two animals being used instead of one as do the other Gospels. These statements read as if the author is using a technique (midrash?) that is here attempting to demonstrate that Jesus fulfilled everything written of the Messiah in the Hebrew Scriptures, down to the last detail. The author of this section of Matthew seems to "misread" the prophecy as if there are two donkeys being spoken of, and adds this into the account.

"Matthew" in the footnotes of the NABRE refers to the author(s) of the book, including any redactors, editors, and even perhaps the original saying source that tradition claims was composed by St. Matthew. This composite "Matthew" is spoken of in the footnotes, so at first blush it can read as if the apostle Matthew is being described (which again the introduction makes clear is not the case).

Finally, it should be noted that the apparatus has been found problematic by many Catholics due not to offering unsound scholarship but being somewhat confusing in its presentation (not to mention impractical in its application). They seem to take no consideration of the fact that the average reader cannot make heads or tails of when philological theory is being offered or Catholic doctrine instead. They offer little in the way of application as well, explaining what the data means and its value to the everyday Christian. The recently revised Old Testament of the NABRE has improved somewhat in this regard, and the New Testament is currently being revised along the same lines. Projected for release in 2025, it is believed that the footnotes of the New Testament revision will show similar consideration in redeveloping its footnotes.


Are tongues a sign for believers or unbelievers?

The whole 14 chapter of 1 Corinthians is dedicated on how the Christian meeting must operate. It was good to talk in tongues in many cases but a problem may occured when "everyone speaks in tongues". Paul recommend an organized way for the operation of Christian meetings. He also recommended that the speaking in tongues “be limited to two or three at the most, and in turns.” However, if no one could translate, then the person speaking in a tongue was to remain silent in the congregation, speaking to himself and to God. (1 Corinthians 14:22-33)


Is there any correlation between national prosperity and percentage of Christians?

Actually it's the other way round:

More studies:

http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/02/18/poorest-countries-are-the-most-religious/
http://www.zahablog.com/?page_id=782


Is it fair to say that Baptists have a liturgy?

Yes and No

It is fair to say that Baptist services are liturgical, but I don't think I'd say that they have "a" liturgy (meaning that they generally adhere to a common liturgy).

Many Baptist churches I've been to don't quite follow the formula you described.  Most follow it somewhat, but I think that to call it a common liturgy, it needs to be followed more closely than it actually is.

The best formula that I can come up with that describes every Baptist church I have been to is (in varied order):

Singing (varied number of songs)
Announcements
Prayer
Sermon

I feel that that is too generic to be called a liturgy, because:

The order varies from church to church.
These are common elements, but these elements are practiced very differently in different churches (hymns versus rock bands, etc.)
Churches often have additional elements.

But that said, most Baptist churches are liturgical within themselves.  In other words, they don't necessarily follow the liturgies of other Baptist churches, but the pattern of a given Baptist church service changes very little from week-to-week.


For Eastern Orthodox churches, what are the main references concerning Biblical Interpretation methodology?

Being Orthodox Christian myself, I haven't heard of any authoritative book mainly because the Church structure is not like in the west with a single Papal authority. We, as you probably know, with our different jurisdictions and patriarchies are self governing but are in communion with one another through love and common Creed. However we do have an overall methodology and it's is the same through out. Scriptural interpretation is derived from the lives, experiences and writings of the saints.

Some of the great sources of biblical interpretations come from Saints not recognized by the Catholic West. A good example would be of St. Gregory Palamas who probably is one of the more important theologians of the Orthodox East. His works outline, in great detail, the mindset of the Orthodox Church in terms of sin and salvation, and the fall of man. A good book I found title "Passions and Virtues" by Anestis Keselopoulus brings many of the Saint's works together to form a Orthodox mindset. It's with this mindset we begin to interpret the holy scriptures.

Of course works by many other Church fathers like St.Chysostom, St.Basil the Great, St. Gregory of Nyssia, St. John Climascus, and St. Anthony the Great, are greatly used as well. Among theologians of today look at the writings of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware. There is also the Didache.

All the best and I hope this helps.


How do Arminians reconcile free will with God's omnipotence logically?

Because some things cannot be accomplished by the application of power.

Suppose I asked you to draw a 4-sided triangle. You would presumably reply that this is impossible, because a triangle by definition has only 3 sides. Suppose I then say, Well, what if you had 10 really strong men to help? Then could you do it? Of course the logical reply is that it doesn't matter how much strength or power is available. It is not a question of power, but of logical impossibility.

When we make statements like, "God can do anything", we don't mean that literally. At least, not if we are thinking logically. I remember when I was a kid another kid once asked our Sunday School teacher, "If God can do anything, then can God sin?" The teacher replied, "God does not want to sin." So the kid asked, "But could he sin if he wanted to?"

God cannot make 4-sided triangles. God cannot sin and remain holy. One could come up with many things that God cannot do because they are logical impossibilities, and no amount of power makes them possible because power is irrelevant.

Lest you say, "But the Bible says God can do anything" ... May I point out that the Bible itself says that words like "all" are not always intended absolutely literally. 1 Corinthians 15:27 (NIV), "Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him [Christ], it is clear that this does not include God himself". I presume when Paul wrote, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me", by "all" he did not mean that he could fly or see through walls ... or wave his hands in the air and magically cause everyone in the world to come to Christ.


Yes, a Roman Catholic Priest can adopt children. In 1981, the Vatican granted permission to Fr. George Clements, of Holy Angels Catholic Church in Chicago the permission to adopt a child, and he later adopted three more. I expect another Catholic Priest seeking to do so would need permission, but not necessarily from the Vatican.


What is achieved by baptism in Eastern Orthodoxy (compared with Catholicism)

My understanding is that ancestral sin is different from original sin in that ancestral sin teaches we have received a physiology, psychology, and environment that is deeply damaged by sin and therefore bound by it at birth, through no fault of our own, and have a great inclination towards it; whereas the West and Reformed theology specifically likes to emphasize how guilty we are and how justly we deserve punishment, even for the sins we didn't commit. So the basic problem that the church is trying to solve is different in each place. In Orthodoxy the human is sick and in Catholic and Protestant teaching the human is guilty. In both teachings baptism gives us a remission of sins, but it is understood differently, because it is solving different problems.

This is probably the general explanation that you will hear from most any Orthodox apologist (the sick vs. guilty comparison), but that is not to say that each theology doesn't overlap. There are certainly teachings of guilt and healing in each tradition. However, I think you question betrays a common Western question about Orthodoxy: namely that if salvation isn't understood within a legal construct of guilt and payment then how can any of it make sense.

In other words, yes, baptism (and the mysteries/sacraments in general) wash away sin, but it is not the legal condemnation of God that is being done away with. We didn't need to fulfill, or have fulfilled for us, some part of God's law to satisfy any sort of justice. It is our own soul and body that is being transformed by the Holy Spirit to enable communion.


What did Catholics do to ease the time and maintain hope during historical pestilences such as the Black Plague?

Pope St. Gregory the Great started liturgical processions to combat the plague at Rome!

At the end of the 6th century, a severe plague ravaged the city of Rome, even claiming the life of Pope Pelagius II. It was a difficult time for the people of the city, and when Pope Gregory I was elected to lead the Church, he immediately set out to call upon the mercy of God.

St. Gregory the Great (as he would later be known) organized a massive procession around the city, inviting everyone to pray to God that the plague would be lifted. The Golden Legend narrates how the procession was led by an ancient image of the Virgin Mary, reportedly cleansing the air of disease.

  The Roman Plague of 590 a local plague that affected the city of Rome in the year 590. It followed from the great plague of Justinian that may have killed more than 100 million Europeans2 that began in the 540s and spread to other parts of the world.

  During the plague, the bishop of Rome Pelagius II died and Gregory the Great was elected his successor. Gregory had previously served as a kind of papal ambassador called an apocrisiarius to the Byzantine court where he had likely been influenced by Byzantine practices. Constantinople, which was consecrated to the protection of the Mother of God (Theotokos) had a practice whereby processions would be done through city streets of masses of the faithful that would chant psalms and kyrie eleison to console God's wrath. Gregory had likely seen these many times during his stay in Constantinople.

  When the plague was in Rome in 590 and Gregory was still a deacon, he organized such a procession to take place in Rome wherein seven groups would hold processions through the streets of the city and ending at the basilica of Mary Major to ask for the Virgin's Mary protection. This was perhaps unusual at the time, since Rome was traditionally associated with St Peter's protection, but it may have been a result of Byzantine influence, since Constantinople was often put under Mary's protection during times of crisis.

  The seven processional groups were: 1) clergy, 2) abbots and monks, 3) abbesses and nuns, 4) men 5) married women 6) widows and 7) children.(also perhaps including the poor of Rome)

  The processions took place on April 25, 590.

  The reason for the processions was because plagues and other national disasters were typically interpreted at the time as being the chastisement of God for sinfulness, and therefore to appease God's wrath, these measures were taken. Eighty people collapsed during the processions as a result of being infected by plague. St Michael the Archangel supposedly appeared with a flaming sword standing on top of Hadrian's Mausoluem (which is today known as Castel Sant'Angelo precisely because of this story) and he sheathed it when the procession approached, which was interpreted to signify that God's wrath had been turned back, and the plague supposedly stopped at that moment, following which the faithful thanked the Mother of God.

Up until 1967, the Processions on the Feast of St. Mark were held on April 25th each year! The Catholic Encyclopedia has the following to sat on Rogation Days

  The liturgical celebration now consists in the procession and the Rogation Mass. For 25 April the Roman Missal gives the rubric: "If the feast of St. Mark is transferred, the procession is not transferred. In the rare case of 25 April being Easter Sunday [1886, 1943], the procession is held not on Sunday but on the Tuesday following".

In the Golden Legend, Jacobus de Varagine pens the following about St. Gregory I and the Roman Plague of 540:

  And because the mortality ceased not, he ordained a procession, in the which he did do bear an image of our Lady, which, as is said, S. Luke the Evangelist made, which was a good painter, he had carved it and painted after the likeness of the glorious Virgin Mary. And anon the mortality ceased, and the air became pure and clear, and about the image was heard a voice of angels that sung this anthem: Regina cæli lætare, etc., and S. Gregory put thereto: Ora pro nobis, deum rogamus, alleluia. At the same time S. Gregory saw an angel upon a castle which made clean a sword all bloody, and put it into the sheath, and thereby S. Gregory understood that the pestilence of this mortality was passed, and after that it was called the Castle Angel.

Castel Sant'Angelo

The liturgy for the Rogation Days, during which the priest is vested in purple, begins with Psalm 43:26 --"Arise, O Lord, help us and redeem us for Thy name's sake" -- which is followed by the Litany of the Saints. At the Litany's "Sancta Maria," all stand and a procession begins, which in older times was (and still is in rural areas) usually around the boundaries of the parish, giving to the procession the name of "beating the bounds."


Why didn't Martin Luther provide for his family to be taken care of after his death?

I always find these questions about Luther interesting because the more I follow a questions about Luther, which are often curiously raised, the more impressed I am in his admirable character. Basically there is no story here, other than that Luther was a humble and responsible person who left all he had faithfully to his wife.

  Luther’s income was very small, even for the standard of his times, and presents a striking contrast to the royal splendor and luxury of bishops and cardinals. (Schaff, P., & Schaff, D. S. (1910). History of the Christian church (Vol. 7, p. 470). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.)

Although a humble minister who had few sources of income, he was diligent with what little he had and managed to earn and seems to have invested it all into his family:

  He bought in 1540 from his brother-in-law a little farm, Zulsdorf, between Leipzig and Borna, for six hundred and ten guilders, as a home for his family. His wife cultivated a little garden with fruit-trees, even mulberry and fig trees, raised hops and brewed beer for domestic use, as was then the custom. She also had a small fish-pond. She enjoyed hard work. Luther assisted her in gardening and fishing. In 1541 he purchased a small house near the convent, for his wife. He willed all his property, which amounted to about nine thousand guilders, to his wife during her lifetime, wishing that “she should not receive from her children, but the children from her; that they must honor and obey her, as God has commanded.”
  His widow survived him seven years, and suffered from poverty and affliction. The Elector, the Counts of Mansfeld, and the King of Denmark added small sums to her income; but the unfortunate issue of the Smalkaldian war (1547) disturbed her peace, and drove her from Wittenberg. She returned after the war. Melanchthon and Bugenhagen did for her what they could. When the pestilence broke out at Wittenberg in 1552, and the university was moved to Torgau, she followed with her children; but on the journey she was thrown from the wagon into a ditch, and contracted a cold which soon passed into consumption. She died Dec. 20, 1552, at Torgau; her last prayer was for her children and the Lutheran Church.( Schaff, P., & Schaff, D. S. (1910). History of the Christian church (Vol. 7, pp. 471–472). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.)

Compared to the poverty of some who survive their husbands (we must remember that the husband's salary was the source of income) it does not actually sound that bad. Aside from a local war between Catholics and Protestant powers that seems to have aggravated otherwise fairly manageable conditions, his wife did OK and did not seem to need the support of her children. Simply speaking, Luther left what he had to his loved one, but was not a rich man. I suppose many prophets and Apostles left less for their wives than Luther but judging a man for his wealth seems inadvisable, as their whole ambition was concerning the world hereafter and so did not accumulate much in this life.


Why Don't Christians Accept the Oral Torah?

At the time of Christ, the largest proponents of the Oral Law were the Pharisees.  On multiple occasions, the Pharisees caught Jesus breaking some of the Oral Laws and confronted Him about it in order to discredit His ministry.  Jesus responded by calling the Oral Law "traditions of men".  He taught that they were not only unnecessary to follow, since they were not from God, but that some of them were actually counter-productive.  He said that some of their Oral Laws contradicted God's laws which are enshrined in the Torah.  Since Jesus, himself, denounced the Oral Law, it should be unsurprising that Christians would do so as well.

For instance, in the following two passages, the Pharisees confronted Jesus because he was breaking the Oral Laws regarding the washing of your hands before eating (these oral hand-washing laws were written down, a couple of centuries later, in the Mishnah).

Matt 15:1-9 (NASB)

  Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you:‘This people honors Me with their lips,But their heart is far away from Me.‘But in vain do they worship Me,Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’”

Mk 7:1-13 (NASB)

  The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem, and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.) The Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?” And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:‘This people honors Me with their lips,But their heart is far away from Me.‘But in vain do they worship Me,Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”