Is there any evidence in the Roman catacombs that the Early Church had a devotion to the Virgin Mary?

Not prior to the 2nd century, mainly since the catacombs were not developed until then.

While there are various Christian frescos in these underground tombs which demonstrate a devotion to the saints, including the Virgin Mary, the time period for their origin would be no earlier than the late 2nd century or early 3rd, for even though Christians immediately began burying their dead in the catacombs after they became available, they did not become regularly used for worship until persecution forced them underground. The frescos did not come till later, and those that are dated are probably from the late 3rd or early 4th century. By 380 A.D., the catacombs were no longer used for meeting as Christianity became legal in that year.

So even the earliest frescos would reflect practices removed by at least a century from Christ. Yet, with other historical records it is clear that devotion to the saints, including Mary, was obviously early and seems to have developed parallel with the use of the catacombs to bury the early martyrs.

Whatever the case, since the catacombs yield little empirically of the Church prior to the 2nd century and since devotion to saints seems to be of the era of the catacombs' first use by Christians, nothing found in these tombs can guarantee a connection with the Church in its most primitive and primary state.


What is the significance of the phrase "Sic Transit Gloria Mundi"?

I've also answered the cross-posted version of this question on the Latin Language Stack Exchange.
One common attribution for this phrase is Thomas à Kempis's Imitation of Christ (~1420), which reads:

Tell me, where now are all the masters and teachers whom you knew so well in life and who were famous for their learning? Others have already taken their places and I know not whether they ever think of their predecessors. During life they seemed to be something; now they are seldom remembered. How quickly the glory of the world passes away! If only their lives had kept pace with their learning, then their study and reading would have been worth while. (Part 1, Chapter 3)

The phrase bolded above in the original Latin is o quam cito transit gloria mundi, so it's not an exact match, but the similarity is notable.
As the context indicates, Kempis is pointing out how fame and renown are fleeting: the acclaim that was showered on scholars during their lives has, following their deaths, been transferred to their successors.  Kempis recommends, instead, that Christians ensure that "their lives [keep] pace with their learning," that is, that they live godly lives instead of seeking fame.
This message is by no means foreign to the Bible.  Similar examples abound:

For the sun rises with its scorching heat and withers the grass; its flower falls, and its beauty perishes. So also will the rich man fade away in the midst of his pursuits. (James 1:11; ESV)
“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. (Matthew 6:19–20; ESV)
And he told them a parable, saying, “The land of a rich man produced plentifully, 17 and he thought to himself, 'What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?' 18 And he said, 'I will do this: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. 19 And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.”' 20 But God said to him, 'Fool! This night your soul is required of you, and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?' 21 So is the one who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God.” (Luke 12:16–21; ESV)
For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world. 17 And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. (1 John 2:16–17; ESV)

The phrase is, as you mention, closely associated with the coronation of new popes.  Janos M. Bak describes the process, writing that the words are spoken to the pope as a cloth is burned in front of him.  The visual of a cloth being consumed in fire provides stark context for the phrase: it emphasizes the fleeting nature of worldy glory, and, by extension, the permanence of service to God.
In fact, the wording in Latin resembles that of Satan when tempting Jesus in the desert:

iterum adsumit eum diabolus in montem excelsum valde et ostendit ei omnia regna mundi et gloriam eorum (Matthew 4:8; Vulgate)
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. (ESV)

In response, Christ spurns worldly glory to serve God:

Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, “‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’” (4:10; ESV)

That's the attitude all followers of Christ need to have, but the reminder is especially relevant for those in positions of great power and prestige, like popes.


Who is allowed to read the handbook of instructions in the LDS Church?

There's nothing secret on it. Instruction handbooks are distributed to those holding a calling that requires it. Handbook 1 mainly contains instructions for bishoprics and stake presidencies, while the handbook 2 contains instructions for the rest of the organizations of the church; it just happens to be the case that there's way more people holding callings included on the volume 2 (this is why it's more available).

None of the 2 volumes is "honor bound", the only thing they contain is a bunch of instructions and guidelines for those holding a calling that requires it.


The term "born again" comes from a passage in John 3:

Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”
Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”
“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

(Some translations render "born again" as "born from above")
The concept is picked up in other places in the Bible where Christians are referred to as "new creations". (2 Corinthians 5, Galatians 6). The sense is clear that to be a part of the Kingdom of God, you must undergo a radical transformation, akin to being created anew: "starting over again". Like birth, this is something that happens to you, not something you do.
Using this basis, the doctrinal position of almost all Christian denominations is that all Christians are by definition "born again". For many the sacrament of baptism makes you "born again". For others, whatever makes you a Christian also makes you "born again".
The use of the term "born again Christian" really dates from the 1960s, where it originated with the Jesus People and Christian counterculture. Since then it is generally associated with the Evangelical movement, and is often used by them to distinguish themselves from those they see as 'nominal' Christians. It isn't applied to any specific denomination.


Will (or "do") people in heaven get to interact with Jesus, independent of massive crowds?

According to the christian soterology, not only in heaven you can interact with Christ, but also here, on earth. We know from the lifes of saint Silvan of Athos or saint Seraphim of Sarov that they have seen Christ himself.

Of course there are people who believe that this form of interaction isn't a real interaction with God. It is only some created thing that we can see from the God's will. This view was however condemned by saint Gregory Palamas. So this is at least what Orthodox Christians firmly believe. If you are not Orthodox, you may not accept it.

On the other hand - if we are unable to interact with Christ in heaven, then what kind of heaven it would be? Why would it be desireable for us? Imagining heaven as full of bodily pleasures is rather muslim thing not christian. For a christian the main goal is always Christ and his love.

Two quotations from Bible to support the idea:

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise (Luke 23, 43)

For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better (Philippians 1, 23)


Anything can be harmful.  If you're going to talk about something being harmful, you have to keep this in mind and ask whether it is more harmful or less harmful than the alternatives.

If you actually study the Mosaic laws on the subject of slavery, a couple things become apparent.

First, that indentured servitude under the Law was a contract that a person could enter into voluntarily in order to work off debts that they could not pay.  (What are the alternatives?  Take a look at the rest of the world.  Depending on where and when you look at, they tend to involve prison, extreme physical punishments up to and including death, exceptionally harsh and inhumane consequences for one's family, or some form of slavery.)  The evils of slave capturing and slave trading were completely absent from the law.

Second, the bulk of the laws regarding slavery were on one point: defining and protecting the rights of such a servant.  For example, it was not legal to separate a slave from their family (unlike in the American South,) nor was it legal to physically abuse a slave. The punishment for doing so was for the slave to be immediately freed, which was equivalent to the debt being annulled.  As the primary reason for the use of slave labor has always been economic in nature, (you don't go buying slaves just because you wake up one day, give your mustache a good twirl, and get the urge to go out and oppress someone) this legal protection provided quite a strong deterrent!

Our brains operate on association and analogy.  When we see things that are similar, we tend to lump them together by nature.  It works really well, right up until we run into things that look superficially similar but are in reality completely different.  And the indentured servitude in the Old Testament was completely different from the horrific evils perpetrated by slave holders in the American South or by human traffickers today.  Trying to equate the two is a mistake.


Is there a deeper meaning for the reason for the new translation of the "Sanctus?"

The Sanctus, in Latin or Greek form, has apparently been part of the Mass since at least the 5th century. Doing a quick bit of research doesn't clarify for me whether or not commas existed either when it was written or when it reached its final form (in Latin). I need, therefore, to simply go back to the Sanctus as it's printed in the Latin Roman Missal:

  Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus Dominus Deus Sabaoth.

In English,

  Holy, holy, holy [is the] Lord God of Sabaoth.

(I'll come to Sabaoth in a minute.)

In the earlier phrasing which you refer to (the 1973 translation made by the International Committee on English in the Liturgy, or ICEL), we had

  Holy, holy, holy [is the] Lord, God of ...

The syntactic difference here is whether "God" is part of an appellation—"[the] Lord God"—or whether it's an appositive—"[the] Lord, [who is] God of ..." In the Bible, "Lord, God of ..." is typically (but not always) used to address God:

  LORD, God of hosts, who is like you?

(Psalm 89:9; this and subsequent quotations from the New American Bible, Revised Edition)

"Lord God of" is typically used to describe God:

  Today belongs to the Lord GOD of hosts ...

(Jeremiah 46:10)

But there's a bit of switching between the two, which leads me to feel that there's no significant syntactic difference between them.

Now let's get to Sabaoth. This is a transliteration (used in both the Greek and the Latin texts of the Sanctus) of the Hebrew word צְבָא֖וֹת, which is elsewhere translated "armies" (or "hosts", which can be used as a synonym)—see for example the BibleHub.com analysis of Deuteronomy 20:9 in Hebrew.

Though I cannot find a reference to the ICEL's reasoning in their translation, it seems fairly obvious that they were trying to find an equivalent to this word "armies"; they appear to have gone with a metaphor. There is some Biblical support for this interpretation in, for example, Judith 9:14:

  Make every nation and every tribe know clearly that you are God, the God of all power and might ...

as well as, more famously but less directly, Revelation 7:12:

  Amen. Blessing and glory, wisdom and thanksgiving, honor, power, and might be to our God forever and ever. Amen.

But "Lord God of hosts" is much more common, and actually appears in Isaiah 6:3, from which this part of the Sanctus appears to be taken:

  Seraphim were stationed above; each of them had six wings: with two they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they hovered. One cried out to the other: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts! All the earth is filled with his glory!"

Thus "Lord God of hosts" appears to be the more exact translation, and is used in accordance with the norms of Liturgiam Authenticam, a document produced by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, which includes the following text:

  While it is permissible to arrange the wording, the syntax and the style in such a way as to prepare a flowing vernacular text suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer, the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses.


Has Protestant-led public bible study ever been viewed by Roman Catholics as violation of the Magisterium?

The Magisterium is not exactly concerned with what you do in your time. If you hang out at the Church of Satan and listen to the preaching, that's just fine with the Magisterium. The question is, do you accept particular tenets that are at odds with Catholic doctrine? So, for instance, going to a Protestant-led bible study is perfectly okay with the Magisterium, as long as you remember and stick to the Catholic position.

Let me give a slightly awkward comparison: going to medical school means you've committed yourself to evidence-based medicine, right? The teaching authority of med school means only certain people are allowed to teach, and they're people who subscribe to those standards of EBM. So you must, in how you act etc., adhere to it. However, you aren't 'banned' or otherwise forbidden from visiting a local faith healer and listen to him about crystals, or something similar (I don't know, I've never been to one of those). The point is that the Magisterium is a quick and easy way to determine who has teaching authority you have to listen to, but it does not determine whom you may listen to.

I am no historian, so I will leave the question of whether there has been Catholic opposition to Bible study open. However, 1) the Catholic Encyclopedia is a bit dated (notably, it's pre-Vatican II), 2) it's not a doctrinal text, 3) the doctrine of the Magisterium primarily concerns who may teach from a Catholic pulpit. So clearly a Catholic school would be opposed to somebody rocking up and teaching not about Protestantism but teaching Protestantism as a doctrine. However, there is nothing wrong with examining other faiths or denominations. The understanding of Canon Law I got says that the Magisterium is primarily concerned with who may speak, not whom one may listen to.


In the Vulgata, Mark 6:3 reads:

  Nonne hic est faber, filius Mariæ, frater Jacobi, et Joseph, et Judæ, et Simonis? nonne et sorores ejus hic nobiscum sunt? Et scandalizabantur in illo.

The first verse is usually translated as:

  Isn't this the carpenter?

Similarly, in Mark 13:55 we read:

  Nonne hic est fabri filius? nonne mater ejus dicitur Maria, et fratres ejus, Jacobus, et Joseph, et Simon, et Judas?

The first phrase is commonly translated as:

  Isn't this the carpenter's son?

In effect, the Catholic tradition interprets the profession of Jesus' putative father, Joseph, as carpenter. As the respective entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia states;

  St. Joseph, indeed, was a tekton, as we learn from Matthew 13:55, and Mark 6:3. The word means both mechanic in general and carpenter in particular; St. Justin vouches for the latter sense (Dialogue with Trypho 88), and tradition has accepted this interpretation, which is followed in the English Bible.

There is also reference to Joseph's profession is several apocrypha. For instance, the "Story of Joseph the Carpenter" states:

  He was, besides, skilful in his trade, which was that of a carpenter

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in numeral 2427, when referring to the dignity of work, states:

  Human work proceeds directly from persons created in the image of God and called to prolong the work of creation by subduing the earth, both with and for one another. Hence work is a duty: "If any one will not work, let him not eat." Work honors the Creator's gifts and the talents received from him. It can also be redemptive. By enduring the hardship of work in union with Jesus, the carpenter of Nazareth and the one crucified on Calvary, man collaborates in a certain fashion with the Son of God in his redemptive work.

Finally, Pope Francis, in his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia states:

  We then need to peer
  into those thirty long years when Jesus earned his
  keep by the work of  his hands

To conclude, the Catholic Church believes Jesus did work for a living during part of his private life, probably as a carpenter. It might not be unreasonable to assume Jesus learnt this trade from Joseph.


Did God really "regret" making man? (Catholic perspective)

At the very perimeter of this question it's important to remember that:

... God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived.
First Vatican Council Decree

So, if he didn't deceive us by His regret at making us, then He really did regret making us.
Regret, however, is a feeling - not an action, and one thing they tell you in Catholic Marriage class is that feelings are never wrong!  I'm not sure if this applies to God, but the story of the Bible is a love story between God and His Spouse the Church.   Sometimes even spouses regret at having gotten married, but it doesn't make them liars all the way back to their wedding vows. Neither does it make God a liar for having created man for having regretted creating them.  Nor does it mean He made a mistake. Nor does it mean He wouldn't do it the same way if He could (and He could) do it all over again.
God also appears to have changed His mind, for the better - but to no different end - in saying He'd spare Sodom if a few good people could be found there. In fact, what is the point of prayer, if not to change God's mind about the natural course of events He set in place or the divine judgment He revealed to the prophets.

“Miracles happen. But they need prayer! A courageous prayer, that struggles for that miracle. Not like those prayers of courtesy: Ah, I will pray for you! Followed by one Our Father, a Hail Mary and then I forget. No! It takes a brave prayer like that of Abraham who was struggling with the Lord to save the city, like that of Moses who prayed, his hands held high when he grew weary...”.
Pope Francis - May 20 2013

I'll give you that Numbers and Genesis seem to contradict each other here.  I'm surprised they didn't have intratext notes for those two verses which pretty clearly fit together, but the footnotes in the NAB for Genesis 6:6 are as follows:

the expression can be misleading in English, for “heart” in Hebrew is the seat of memory and judgment rather than emotion. The phrase is actually parallel to the first half of the sentence

And Numbers 19:23 is as follows:

God is not a human being who speaks falsely, nor a mortal, who feels regret.

And in the context of the "feeling" regret vs having regret contradicts my earlier opinions about regret being a feeling.

A corollary of these contradictions can be found in St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa  articles concerning tempting God. He states:

It is forbidden in God's Law, for it is written (Deuteronomy 6:10): "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."

and then goes on to enumerate the ways God favors those who pray without tempting Him.
Similarly, God wants us to know that He is unchanging, while still letting us know that He loves us too much to be a stickler about it.


Why do biblical names vary in different languages?

One of the reasons for the variance in names is that languages often don't share the same sounds as Greek or Hebrew.  For instance, Russian has no "th" sound.  Consequently, the sound of that name cannot be reproduced in Russian.  In Greek, it is ματθαιος, or /Mat-thaios/.  Russian translates this as Матфей, or Matfay.  So, the "th" becomes an "f".

Also, the ending of the name changes in Greek depending upon which part of speech it is.  We don't do that in English, so we just have to select an ending and stick with it.

There is also a difference whether or not the Greek or Hebrew is being translated.  The Greek for the Hebrew Name of Jesus (Yeshua) is  Ἰησοῦς, or Yay-soos.  The Hebrew name of Yeshua is translated into Joshua, while the name Yay-soos is translated Jesus.

So, sometimes a word's sounds are not matched in the receiving language.  Other times, there is variance on whether it is coming from Hebrew or Greek.  This accounts for some of the issues.


Why didn't God forgive Saul when he asked for it?

You appear to be reading this into the text. It doesn't say that God didn't forgive him. Samuel had to make it clear that Sauls sin cost him his crown, so he wouldn't go to worship with Saul. Once this was established, we see Samuel soften and respond to Sauls second plea to go and worship in v30. Therefore we see God forgives on a personal level, but that doesn't mean there is no price for our sin. I hope this is helpful.


What is the original explanation Christian Scholars gave for Jewish prophecies not being fulfilled?

This question of two advents or not has been raised for near 2,000 years.  Here are some original thoughts from scholars of the first 200 years from Christ's first advent.

Clement of Rome likened the second coming to the necessity of a maturing fruit tree.

  These things we have heard even in the times of our fathers; but, behold, we have grown old, and none of them has happened unto us.”Ye foolish ones! compare yourselves to a tree: take [for instance] the vine. First of all, it sheds its leaves, then it buds, next it puts forth leaves, and then it flowers; after that comes the sour grape, and then follows the ripened fruit. Ye perceive how in a little time the fruit of a tree comes to maturity. Of a truth, soon and suddenly shall His will be accomplished, as the Scripture also bears witness, saying, “Speedily will He come, and will not tarry;” and, “The Lord shall suddenly come to His temple, even the Holy One, for whom ye look.”
  Clement of Rome

Justin Martyr explains it this way.

  And then, they [doubters of two comings of Messiah] say, the events mentioned in this passage shall happen, just as if there was no fruit as yet from the words of the prophecy. O unreasoning men! understanding not what has been proved by all these passages, that two advents of Christ have been announced: the one, in which He is set forth as suffering, inglorious, dishonoured, and crucified; but the other, in which He shall come from heaven with glory, when the man of apostasy, who speaks strange things against the Most High, shall venture to do unlawful deeds on the earth against us the Christians,
  Justin Martyr

And the same explained it this way.

  “If the prophets had not ceased, so that there were no more in your nation, Trypho, after this John, it is evident that what I say in reference to Jesus Christ might be regarded perhaps as ambiguous. But if John came first calling on men to repent, and Christ, while [John] still sat by the river Jordan, having come, put an end to his prophesying and baptizing, and preached also Himself, saying that the kingdom of heaven is at hand, and that He must suffer many things from the Scribes and Pharisees, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again, and would appear again in Jerusalem, and would again eat and drink with His disciples; and foretold that in the interval between His [first and second] advent, as I previously said, priests and false prophets would arise in His name, which things do actually appear; then how can they be ambiguous, when you may be persuaded by the facts? Moreover, He referred to the fact that there would be no longer in your nation any prophet, and to the fact that men recognised how that the New Testament, which God formerly announced [His intention of] promulgating, was then present, i.e., Christ Himself; and in the following terms: ‘The law and the prophets were until John the Baptist; from that time the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. And if you can2110 receive it, he is Elijah, who was to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
  -ibid- chapter LI

Basically, Justin Martyr is arguing from Scripture about two advents.  The first was about Messiah inglorious, suffering death, generation not declared, but the second in glory with all looking on Him who was pierced.

  Then I [Justin Martyr] replied to him [Trypho], “If, sirs, it were not said by the Scriptures which I have already quoted, that His form was inglorious, and His generation not declared, and that for His death the rich would suffer death, and with His stripes we should be healed, and that He would be led away like a sheep; and if I had not explained that there would be two advents of His,—one in which He was pierced by you; a second, when you shall know Him whom you have pierced, and your tribes shall mourn, each tribe by itself, the women apart, and the men apart,—then I must have been speaking dubious and obscure things.
  -ibid- chapter XXXII

Lastly, Tertullian will make the same arguments from Scripture.

  We [Christians] affirm that, as there are two conditions demonstrated by the prophets to belong to Christ, so these presignified the same number of advents; one, and that the first, was to be in lowliness, when He had to be led as a sheep to be slain as a victim, and to be as a lamb dumb before the shearer, not opening His mouth, and not fair to look upon. For, says (the prophet), we have announced concerning Him: “He is like a tender plant, like a root out of a thirsty ground; He hath no form nor comeliness; and we beheld Him, and He was without beauty:  His form was disfigured;” “marred more than the sons of men; a man stricken with sorrows, and knowing how to bear our infirmity;” “placed by the Father as a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence;” “made by Him a little lower than the angels;” declaring Himself to be “a worm and not a man, a reproach of men, and despised of the people.” Now these signs of degradation quite suit His first coming, just as the tokens of His majesty do His second advent, when He shall no longer remain “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence,” but after His rejection become “the chief corner-stone,” accepted and elevated to the top place of the temple, even His church, being that very stone in Daniel, cut out of the mountain, which was to smite and crush the image of the secular kingdom. Of this advent the same prophet says: “Behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days; and they brought Him before Him, and there was given Him dominion and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away; and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
  Tertullian

There are other people who explain the two advents in the same way.  The first is as the suffering servent and the second is as the King of Kings.  But this should suffice to answer the OP questions.

PS The temple is believers indwelt by the Spirit (born-again).


Looking for the Bible Verse: "If any of you have more than one  give that to another"

Sounds like you're thinking of Luke 3: 11 to me:

  He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.

This is part of John the Baptist's preaching to the people who came to him.


It is possible that the genetic engineering techniques practiced were part useless and part real.  The attempt to imprint color on the hide of sheep by seeing stripes during intercourse is folklore. However, by coincidence/destiny the majority of sheep who underwent this silly attempt may have had recessive genes that produced color in subsequent generations without any other divine influence.   Also more believable is that possibly some of the stronger animals that Jacob segregated for procreation may have had recessive genes of color.  The result is that with Jacobs meddling he may have artificially increased the procreation of animals with colored recessive genes, effectively increasing his wealth by his efforts as foolish as they may have been in part.  His ability to perform this genetic engineering may be in part with what he subconsciously recognized in breeding history, partly shaped by folklore and substantially blessed by God.

For a more technical analysis you might be interested in this A Mendelian Interpretation of Jacob's Sheep


Can the devil and/or yourself lead you to a wrong form of Christianity?

Asuming that there is one objectively True form of Christianity, the mere existence of the wide array of beliefs, some exclusive and contradictory to others means that some forms of Christianity must be false.  Simply logic tells us that  two mutually exclusive things can't both be true.

Therefore, it follows that if some forms of Chrisianity must be false, then it must be possible for people to be led and allow themselves'to be led to follow a false form of Christianity.

Without even going into doctrine, the clear answer to your question is "yes, you can lead yourself to a false form of Christianity".

Delving into Scripture, we're warned of false prophets, false spirits, able to disguise themselves as spirits of light ( 2 Corinthians 11:12-15: ), leading us to believe in false doctrines... Doctrines of devils (1 Timothy 4:1), so both logically and Scripturally, it's entirely possible to believe in a false form of Christianity.

Of course, discussing which form of Christianity is the right one is not within site guidelines, but that there is a right form is a belief comonly shared across Christianity.  And we all believe that we are practicing it.


What is the Biblical basis for infant baptism?

Acts 2:39 For the promise is to you, and your children, and to all who are afar off...

A lot of our argument comes from the inference that Baptism is to Circumcision as the Lord's Supper is to Passover.

  Colossians 2:11-12 In [Christ] also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the
  flesh*, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him
  in baptism...  (emphasis mine)

Just as circumcision was the "putting off the body of the flesh", so baptism is being "buried with Christ", "into death" (Romans 6:4). They are signs of the same promise of the same salvation, one given to the physical race Jews, the other to the world-wide race of the elect.

Since the rite of circumcision was performed on male infants at eight days old, it makes sense to retain the age for Baptism.

  Genesis 17:12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your
  household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your
  offspring.

Note that those who are baptized are those "in your household" or those brought into the household, so by carryover this would only apply to children of believers in Baptism.

Just like we (usually) retain the general "age of accountability" for Lord's Supper (just like Hebrew boys generally were supposed to wait until they were 12 to take Passover), so it makes sense to keep the age for Baptism.

While the following verses do not stand alone to support infant Baptism, they support it because they do not reverse the age set in the Old Testament for circumcision.

  Acts 16:14-15 ...The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household
  as well...

and

  Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.

While you would be right to say "ah, but this is an argument from silence," I would reply that it certainly stresses "her household" and "his family" and considering the emphasis given in the New Testament to making sure that the Jews understood that the sacrifices/ceremonial law were now nullified, it would seem foolish of Luke not to carefully point out that the infants and children were omitted in the baptism. Instead, he includes the household and the family in the event because the parents (particularly the father) were representative of their family.

When God makes his covenant with Abram in Genesis 17, he says "offspring" five times before giving the command to circumcise all males, beginning at those only eight days old.

1 Corinthians 7:12-16 suggests this has not been nullified for the New Testament and foreward; vs. 14 says

  For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the
  unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your
  children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

My pastor, in a letter to our congregation, said:

  Children of believers, like adult believers, are members of the
  visible church (church militant); and they, like we, are members of
  the invisible church (church triumphant) only by grace, through faith.

He has also called Baptism an engagement ring, placed upon the finger of the children of the covenant, and awaiting acceptance or rejection by that child as they grow.


What verses in the Bible indicate that Apostles expected Christ to come back very soon?

As was noted, I don't think there are many. Rev 1:1 comes to mind and "shortly."
Another one might be,

  1 Cor 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
  30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;
  31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.

The problem is whether these things are to be understood spiritually as did the early church fathers, or as earthly historical events, which is the preference of many modern scholars. To see how the church fathers handled terms like "this generation" (Mat 24:34, Mark 13:30-31, Luke 21:32-33) check the Catena Aurea.

Catena Aurea


Upon examining the second book of Calvin's Institutes, I found that Calvin and Augustine are pretty much 100% on the same page.

  Calvin, Institues, 2.5.2

  Thus [Augustine] asks, "What is human merit? He who came to bestow not
  due recompense but free grace, though himself free from sin, and the
  giver of freedom, found all men sinners" (Augustine, In Psalmum 31).
  Again, "If you are to receive your due, you must be punished. What
  then is done? God has not rendered you due punishment, but bestows
  upon you unmerited grace. If you wish to be an alien from grace, boast
  your merits" (In Psalmum 70). Again, "You are nothing in yourself,
  sin is yours, merit God's. Punishment is your due; and when the reward
  shall come, God shall crown his own gifts, not yoru merits" (Epist.
  52) To the same effect he elsewhere says (De verb. Apost. serm. 15),
  that grace is not of merit, but merit of grace.

Considering the wealth of quotes, it's pretty obvious Calvin agrees with Augustine on God's grace. Considering the total shunning of any human merit, this at least distinguishes Calvin and Augustine from the Catholics.

Later, in 2.5.8, Calvin quotes Augustine again:

  As Augustine says, "What God promises, we ourselves do not through choice or nature, but he himself does by grace."

The mention of the inability of human choice (based, likely, on passages like Romans 9:16) separates Calvin and Augustine again from the Arminians.

The one disagreement I found was in 2.4.3, where Augustine appears to differ on the views of God's "hardening." Calvin believed that God "hardened the hearts" of those whom he did not choose. So here, perhaps, Calvin was even more "frozen-chosen-ish" than Augustine, but otherwise they are in agreement regarding God's grace as the sole means of salvation.


What did the Centurion mean by ' the word '?

From St. Thomas Aquinas's Catena Aurea (Golden Chain) on Mt. 8:8:

St. Jerome: The thoughtfulness of the centurion appears herein, that he saw the Divinity hidden beneath the covering of body; wherefore he adds, "But speak the word only, and my servant will be healed."
St. Hilary: Also he therefore says that it needed only a word to heal his son, because all the salvation of the Gentiles is of faith, and the life of them all is in the precepts of the Lord. Therefore he continues saying, "For I am a man set under authority, having soldiers under me; and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it."

St. Jerome uses verbum in his translation. The Greek uses λόγος.


Can a marriage proceed if fiancé is unconscious?

No, marriage in the Catholic Church is not a sacrament ministered by a priest. It is rather a sacrament ministered by the couple. Each minister of the sacrament needs to state their consent. The priest is simply the official witness. (source)
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

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

Since the fiance is unconscious, he cannot be a co-minister in the sacrament, and therefore cannot get married at that point in time.


How do Oneness Pentecostals (and other modalistic denominations) interpret Revelation 3:21?

Such a good question deserves answers from Oneness Pentecostals, who are the modern-day advocates of ancient Modalism (as well as some other groups). After five years, no Oneness Pentecostal has yet answered, so I hope that my answer will prompt some to do so now.
First, it needs to be made clear what Modalism is.
Marcion lived in the middle of the second century and incurred the wrath of Tertullian who wrote “Against Marcion” (circa 201).  Marcion had a gnostic view of the spiritual Father who revealed himself in Jesus, making a dualistic distinction between the Creator and the true (but unknown) God, the Father. He denied that Jesus was truly incarnate, being “the spirit of salvation”. He further claimed that because God cannot suffer and die, neither did Jesus when on the cross. His successors so fully identified Christ with the Father that they presented Jesus as but a mode of the Father – Modalism.
Another who incurred the scathing, written wrath of Tertullian was Praxeas. I quote:

“Praxeas was perhaps the first Christian theologian to attempt to
explain the doctrine of the Trinity in systematic detail.  In the
process, however, he apparently explained away the real ontological
threeness of the persons of God.  That is, Praxeas denied that
Christians believed in three distinct identities or even relations
within the one divine being.  If Tertullian’s account of what Praxeas
taught is correct, he reduces the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to three
aspects or roles of the one-person God.  Praxeas’s view later came to
be known as modalism and was revived by another later teacher of
Christians in Rome named Sabellius.  Thus it is also sometimes known
as Sabellianism.” (The Story of Christian Theology p92 by Roger E.
Olson, Apollos 1999)

Although today’s Oneness Pentecostals uphold the deity of Christ in a way that avoids the trap of having a main God plus a secondary god, they deny the distinct personhood of Christ who thus cannot fully represent the Father to us. They infer that Christ was human in appearance only, suggesting that God himself died on the cross. They believe in a strictly singular person who acted in different forms at different times.
This means that, when it comes to Revelation 3:21, they do not see any problem. That is because the Revelation depicts one throne of God in Heaven which is equally shared by the risen Christ. The Lamb as was slain stands in the midst of the Father’s throne. God’s throne becomes (in the Revelation) a shared throne. There are other thrones surrounding the one where Jesus is “set down with my Farther in his throne” but none of those is Christ’s throne. No, he is in the midst of God’s throne.
You have not asked about the Holy Spirit in all of this, but about ten years ago, when I was in correspondence with a Oneness Pentecostal, he wrote,

“Oneness view of the Holy Spirit [is]: God IS a Spirit. That Spirit is
the Holy Spirit. The Holy Ghost is the very essence of who God is…
[He] is the Father of Jesus. And who is Jesus? The same Spirit that is
His Father inhabited the body of His son (2 Cor. 5:19) so that ALL the
fullness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus.”

It appears that they have so ‘merged’ all three that it doesn’t matter whether the Bible speaks of the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit; to them they are but modes of the one God. This means that your question is invalid, as your idea that two thrones are spoken of (that of the Father, and that of the Son) actually has no bearing on their theology; they might point out that Revelation mentions 24 heavenly thrones surrounding the one, central throne of God, but that Christ is in that midst of that one throne of God.
This is not to say, or suggest, that any such view is correct, but I hope it will prompt you to ask another question, based on scriptures that ARE a problem to Oneness Pentecostals.


In John 8, were the scribes and pharisees guilty of the sin of Fornication / Adultery?

The phrase "he that is without sin" is a translation of a single Greek word, anamartetos, which means sinless or faultless or without flaw.

It does not refer only to fornication, Jesus is effectively saying let the perfect one among you throw the first stone.

What happened next is that the scribes and pharisees went away. It is not clear whether they ever had any intention of stoning the woman in the first place. The reason they brought her to Jesus was to test Him, to see what reply He would give. If He said she should not be stoned they could accuse Him of going against the law, but if He said she should be stoned He would lose His reputation for gentleness. St Augustine, in Tractate 33 on St John's gospel said

  if he shall approve her being stoned, he will not show his gentleness; if he consent to let her go, he will not keep righteousness. But, say they, that he may not lose the reputation of gentleness, for which he has become an object of love to the people, without doubt he will say that she must be let go. Hence we find an opportunity of accusing him, and we charge him as being a transgressor of the law: saying to him, You are an enemy to the law; you answer against Moses, nay, against Him who gave the law through Moses;

So Jesus in allowing he who is without sin to cast the first stone meant he who was perfect, not simply anyone who has never committed adultery or fornication. In going away the scribes and pharisees were not making a public admission of adultery - if  that had been Christ's meaning the result could have been different.


How do Calvinists understand "anyone" in 2 Peter 3:9?

As the answer you mentioned suggests, the majority of Calvinists and that which is taught by the reputable Wayne Grudem in his Systematic Theology and many others, is that, in 2 Peter 3:9, "all" means "all", and not just "Jesus believers." The verse is definitely referring to salvation, so it is not talking about the heart and mindset of continual repentance that we should all have about all sin.

It would not make sense for this verse if all was referring to Jesus believers. That seems superfluous, and like you said they are not in danger of perishing, so to speak.

However, Calvinists could say that verse is referring to the elect, prior to salvation. Because the elect, prior to salvation, would still need to repent and be saved from perishing, but they are the elect from eternity past, so the title of "elect" would be accurate. This is how that interpretation is at least coherent but doesn't adequately explain the use of the term "all" or "everyone" without hermeneutical gymnastics.


What is the Biblical basis for the belief that God foreordained the fall of Adam and Eve?

The statement means God knew mankind would not be perfect and holy character, i.e. that they would sin.

God is unique in character.  (Refer to references of "the Holy One of Israel", for example: unique in character is the intended message of this name God gave Himself to Ancient Israel).

There was zero chance mankind would be of the same character.  So, God prepared a way to redeem them while remaining true to His character.

God's plan was made before He made 'the foundations of the world' (can be interpreted physical creation, or prior to making man in the physical creation.  Either interpretation is irrelevant to the fact God knew beforehand man would fall short ("sin" is 'miss the mark'), thus God prepared a way to redeem mankind first, then made mankind.

But, God does not ordain free-will beings to fall, e.g. Jas 1:13-14

"For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone.  But each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed"


Jesus says, in front of the scribes and Pharisees, something that they all plainly recognize, and it is something that they feel is worthy of killing him for "blasphemy" over.

What Jesus said is "Before Abraham was, I AM."  By saying this, Jesus called Himself, the LORD God Almighty, and the Jewish teachers, scribes and Pharisees recognized it immediately because they wanted to kill him because of it.

John 8:48-59King James Version (KJV)

48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?

49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.

50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.

51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.

52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.

53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?

54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:

55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.

59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

(stoning here was a method of capital punishment, and the fact that they began to do it, meant that they had judged what He said as worthy of death, since He had called Himself God.) King James Version (KJV)

(Before Abraham was, I AM is a direct reference to God as the Jews knew Him, and is how God expressed Himself when He spoke to Moses and told him whom to say, 'sent Moses' to Pharoh / Ramses)


Has any church organization refused lottery winnings as donation?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has an official policy of not accepting any tithing from winnings having to do with gambling, this includes the lottery. Their position on gambling can be found here.

For those that don't want additional information/links the position is this:

  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is opposed to gambling, including lotteries sponsored by governments. Church leaders have encouraged Church members to join with others in opposing the legalization and government sponsorship of any form of gambling.


What are the arguments for and against the Anglican Covenant?

After discussing this with our rector, I discovered that the key bone of contention is Section 4, the enforcement mechanism (or lack thereof) that holds the Anglican Communion together.

The subtext of disagreement, of course, is the subject of the authority of the Scripture in Anglican life. Probably the most visible manifestation of this debate is the question over same-sex blessings and the elevation of homosexuals to the priesthood, and in 1 1/2 cases, the office of bishop. (One = Gene Robinson in New Hampshire, 1/2 = the process for replacing the Bishop of Los Angeles in which three of the six candidates were publically acknowledging and celebrating their own homosexuality.) Support for this is strongest in the West, particularly in Canada and the United States. In contrast, most of the growth in the 80 million member Anglican Communion is in Africa, where attitudes are quite different.

The question on the table for the Anglican Communion is how such a wide diversity of opinion can co-exist. If a bishop is elevated who, at least in the minds of one wing, is living in open and unrepented sin, the Biblical mandate is fairly clear - that person should be excommunicated.  By contrast, the Anglican Covenant requires the following procedure:

  (4.2.4) Where a shared mind has not been reached the matter shall be referred to the Standing
  Committee. The Standing Committee shall make every effort to facilitate agreement, and may
  take advice from such bodies as it deems appropriate to determine a view on the nature of the
  matter at question and those relational consequences which may result. Where appropriate,
  the Standing Committee shall refer the question to both the Anglican Consultative Council
  and the Primates’ Meeting for advice.

  (4.2.5) The Standing Committee may request a Church to defer a controversial action. If a
  Church declines to defer such action, the Standing Committee may recommend to any
  Instrument of Communion relational consequences which may specify a provisional
  limitation of participation in, or suspension from, that Instrument until the completion of the
  process set out below

This is bascially the status quo - The ABC asks everybody not to provoke anybody in either direction. The problem for conservatives is that acquiesence is tacit to complicity.  "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil," would be their response.

The Economist (3/24/12) describes the situation this way:

  In the 80m-strong worldwide Anglican Communion, things are even messier. American liberals hate a covenant which Anglican churches are being asked to sign, pledging to avoid provocative actions like consecrating openly gay bishops. If the future Archbishop of Canterbury insists on the covenant, bits of the communion may reject the arrangement whereby an English prelate chairs the global fraternity, says Frank Kirkpatrick, an American Episcopalian priest. An emerging block of African and American conservatives also questions Canterbury’s historic role. For some hardliners, the covenant does not go far enough in penalising liberals.

  The next Archbishop of Canterbury will also have to answer a more basic question: is the institution he heads part of the establishment, with an accepted role as its moral guide, or is it called on to be a provocateur, speaking its own version of truth to power? Defeat over gay marriage will make it tougher to play the first role, but a church that strives to be idiosyncratically prophetic will be harder to keep together. And the church’s role at home has implications for the communion: can an English church that is steadily disestablishing itself retain any natural place as a pacesetter for much bigger churches abroad?

In short, Canterbury is in a no-win situation, and it is not clear if anyone (let alone the likely nominee John Sentamu) could hold it together.  The covenant appears to be a weak attempt at reconciliation without any teeth.


What is the name of a film about three brothers saying the Jesus prayer?

Found it!

From:

What is Augustine's original of Tolstoy's "Three Hermits" story?


What are the main biblical interpretations used to defend the point of view that Nicodemus had inferior faith?

As Jesus had not yet ascended into heaven, those with faith could not yet receive new and eternal life in Jesus.

Hebrews chapter eleven is often called the “hall of faith” as numerous old testament figures are commended for their faith. Yet they are said to have been incomplete;

  Hebrews 11:39-40  And these all, having obtained a good report through
  faith, received not the promise:   God having provided some better
  thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

I would rather call the faith of Nicodemus weak or incomplete rather than “inferior”. It is difficult make an accurate comparison of the faith of someone who has the indwelling Holy Spirit as proof of his new life in Christ with the faith of someone who has this future hope as his faith.

  Ephesians 1:13-14  In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the
  word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that
  ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,   Which
  is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the
  purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.


When are children held accountable for ther sins?

In order to give any meaningful answer, we must first assume the existence of free will.  Otherwise, the question is moot; children are simply doing what has been predestined that they will do. But if we understand that free will is given to everyone, including children, then it's fairly easy to answer.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus explained that sin begins in one's thoughts, and that it's important to keep from thoughts that can lead us to do evil.  So therefore, children who don't understand the concept of sin and the difference between good and evil aren't capable of choosing to commit sin.

They can do exasperating things sometimes, usually because it's simple human nature to seek fulfillment of basic needs and they don't understand self-restraint yet, or because they crave attention and they've learned that doing certain things will bring immediate reactions from adults.  But it's not until they're old enough to understand the abstract concepts of absolute good and evil existing independent of themselves and their desires that they're capable of knowingly choosing something that's wrong, and thereby committing sin.

I don't believe the Bible gives any doctrine as to exactly when that awareness comes to a child.  I've seen some research in child psychology that suggests that it comes towards the end of the first decade of life, but that's hardly conclusive, and it's probably a bit different for every kid anyway.


Since YHWH and the Bible acknowledge other gods, does that mean that they literally exist?

I'm sure much could be written about the specific meaning of the Hebrew word for gods, but let me focus on one important interpreter's take: Paul the apostle.  In 1 Corinthians 8:4–6, he quotes Isaiah and Deuteronomy to make his case that eating food sacrificed to idols is not inherently wrong:

  Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. [ESV]

Isaiah 41:24, the Lord speaks to the gods, saying:

  Behold, you are nothing, and your work is less than nothing; an abomination is he who chooses you. [ESV]

And Deuteronomy 4:39:

  the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other. [ESV]

Paul interprets these passages to teach that these "so-called gods" have "no real existence." But then, do they have an "unreal" existence, as a reading of verse 5 might suggest? Idols do exist, he says, in the sinful hearts of men:

  Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. [Colossians 3:5, ESV]


If flesh & blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God how did the Lord Jesus show His "hands and feet" after the resurrection?

Man  in  his  present  state  is  mortal,  and  corruptable and  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  God.

1 Corinthians 15;53
For   this  corruptable  must  put  on  incorruption,  and  this  mortal  must  put  on  immortality.

Philippians 3;21
Who  shall  change  our  vile  body,  that  it  may  be  fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious  body,  according  to  the  working  whereby  he  is  able  to  subdue  all  things  unto  himself.


Is there such a thing as a 'concordat' today in the Catholic church?

Concordats in the sense of a "treaty" were prominent in Pope Pius XI's papacy (cf. the Lateran Treaty) and in Pope Pius XII's also (Pope Pius XII was Pope Pius XI's secretary of state). See this list of concordats.

Also, there are some good books on the Catholic Church and State doctrine:

Catholic Church and Christian State: A Series of Essays on the Relation of the Church to the Civil Power vol. 1 & vol. 2 by a cardinal-archivist of the Vatican Archives, Cdl. Joseph Hergenröther
The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Christ by Cdl. Manning
Catholic Principles of Politics by Fr. John A Ryan


Is there a unique characteristic for all canonical books?

Technically, the only "criteria" for canonicity is widespread acceptance.  Looking at canonical lists up through the Festal Letter canonicity was always based on "what seemed most profitable to the reader" at the time. That said, the Council of Trent said

All New Testament Books share a claim to apostolic authority:

Matthew & John were disciples
Luke (&hence Acts) travelled with Paul
Mark was probably a close friend of Peter's
All of the Pauline Epistles (Rom - Philemon) were written by Paul, who is considered an aposotle
Hebrews was mistakenly attributed to Paul
James & Jude were brothers of Jesus
Peter (I & II) & John (I, II, III, and Revelation) were disciples

The Old Testament books had their authority by the Jews, and several theories including the Council of Jamnia have been put forward that describe their assembly.

By contrast, the NT Apocraphya (Acts of Thecla, Gospel of Barnabas, Gospel of Peter, etc...) were never widely held to have been of apostolic origin, and the Church Fathers (the Didache, I Clement, Matrydom of Polycarp, etc...) were written by people who were more than a generation removed from Jesus.


What is the Biblical evidence against the day-age theory?

The primary argument against the day age theory is from the Hebrew Grammer.  The word Yom is translated day in this passage, and in different contexts it can mean different things.

In 67 verses in the Old Testament, the word Yom is translated into the English word "time." (Genesis 4:3, I Kings 11:42)
Four times in the Old Testament Yom is translated "year." (1 Kings 1:1)
Eight times in the Old Testament Yom is translated "age." (Genesis 18:11 and 24:1, Joshua 23:1)
It is translated Day hundreds of times.

If we were to stop here in our investigation of the word we could conclude that the genesis account could include the idea of the word yom referring to an age instead of a literal day.  But as we dig deeper this view becomes less likely.

Every place we find the word Yom with the words morning or evening it always means a literal 24 hour day.  Every place we find the word Yom with a number (First Day for example) it always means a literal day.  So usage would tell us that when we find the words "So the evening and the morning were the first day." we would fully expect that this means a literal day and not an age.


What is the Biblical Basis for differences in the Dispensational and Non-dispensational understanding of the 70th week in the Book of Daniel?

There isn't really a single "Baptist view" or even just two or three Baptist views which are in any way distinctive from the views of other major Christian groups/denominations. The following I summarise from Edward J Young's commentary.

There are two broad interpretations - Non-Messianic Interpretations (NMI), and Traditional Messianic Interpretations (TMI).

NMIs mostly tend to focus on Antiochus Epiphanes as the subject of the prophecy: such a focus goes back at least as far as Julius Hilarianus towards the close of the 4th century. An NMI position is adopted by M. Stuart (1850), J.D. Prince (1899), S.R. Driver (1922), J.A. Montgomery (1927)(International Critical Commentary) (which E.J. Young says is very worthy for its philological content). A modern advocate of an NMI is Chris White (2013). "The Septuagint Translation also, by means of additions to the text appears to interpret the passage the same way." (E. J. Young, page 192).

Your question relates to differences between the Dispensational and Non-Dispensational interpretations of the passage. Since both these interpretations are TMIs I will leave the NMIs at that.

Traditional Messianic Interpretations, TMIs, go back at least as far as Augustine. TMIs regard this passage as a prophecy of the first advent of Christ in the flesh, the central point of which is his death, and they relate the prophecy also to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

Before Augustine, Josephus, the Jewish first century historian, although he did not relate it to Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, he did relate the prophecy to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans:-

"In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them." (Antiquities, book 10, ch 11, [three quarters down] paragraph 7).

The Dispensational View was promoted by Harry Ironside in his book "The Great Parenthesis" (publ. 1943), the parenthesis being between the end of the 69th week and the beginning of the 70th week which has so far lasted 2000 years or so. In addition, before Ironside's work the Scofield Reference Bible (first publ. 1909 and then updated by author and re-publ. 1917) was and is effective in making this interpretation popular. Before the Scofield Reference Bible, the Ultradispensationalist (Bullingerist) Sir Robert Anderson, had produced his work "The Coming Prince" (1894). These works all point to 445 BC as the starting point. Before Robert Anderson, Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, a staunch defender of the Faith, and author of many commentaries, had written his commentary on Daniel in German (1831) with a following English translation (1848): Hengstenberg also believed the starting point was 445 BC. A further translation of Hengstenberg's book was produced by James Martin and included in "Christology of the Old Testament" (1858). From this stable of interpretation came the idea of a prophetic year of 360 days. Because these interpretations have Jesus of Nazareth as the focal point of the prophecy they are a variant of the TMI.

I will return later to what I believe are major problems with this interpretation.

Then there is an essentially amill minority view which hold all the numbers of weeks to be figurative or symbolic numbers such as two German authors C. F. Kiel, (English translation 1877). and T. Kliefoth "Das Buch Daniel" (1868). I shall not comment on this interpretation because I feel it vanishes away immediately a better interpretation is seen, at least for Protestant amillennialists.

Then there are amillennial interpretations which also have multiple variations but certain common themes apply to many of them. I shall give an amillennial view below.

One of the salient differences between Amill and Dispensational views is the interpretation of the 1 week following the 62 weeks.

In the (non-symbolic) amill view there are essentially two prophecies in the passage:

The first prophecy is of 70 weeks, each week being 7 years. It terminates in the most important event in world history up to the present time, and relates to the Messiah's first advent.

The second prophecy is of 7 weeks, 62 weeks and 1 week. It has a different termination point: its termination point is the most important event yet to happen in world history and relates to the Messiah's second advent.

The second prophecy has the same starting point as the first prophecy, and each week is the same length as the first prophecy, EXCEPT for the final week. This second prophecy has a single theme: if you like, for 7 weeks a tap is switched on, then for 62 weeks the tap is switched off, then for the final week the tap is switched on again. It has the grandest theme imaginable and divides the future of the world history into, spiritually speaking, the most significant periods it is possible to conceive.

Then any amillennialist would be willing to look at the prophecy as having a double meaning: there is a physical, earthly Jerusalem in the Middle East and there is a heavenly Jerusalem, the City of God, the elect people of God, all those predestined to have faith in the Messiah. The word to rebuild relates to both the earthly Jerusalem and the heavenly. The heavenly Jerusalem was made possible by what happened at the end of the 70 weeks; and the heavenly Jerusalem will be finally finished, and the decree to build will reach its culmination, at the end of the 7, 62 , and 1 week, when all the elect people of God will have been gathered into the Kingdom of God, into the heavenly Jerusalem.  The city will have been finally built.

I think it must be admitted that it is one of the greatest of oddities in the interpretation of the Scriptures that the year 458 BC was so easily rejected by commentators and expositors for such a long time despite the fact that 458 BC is exactly 490 years prior to the year of the crucifixion (if we take 33 AD as the year) and amazingly close to 490 years if we take 30 AD as the year of the crucifixion. Surely the decree given 458 BC should have been given the most exact scrutiny, no stone, no pebble should have been left unturned until this possible starting point had been thoroughly credited or discredited. As I read Edward Young's book it is hard to see that this examination was ever done, but rather it seems the date was thrown overboard with indifferent enthusiasm!

An example of such a rejection can be seen in Harry Ironside's comments on chapter 9 at https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/isn/daniel-9.html
"Some insist that the reference is to the commandment given in the seventh chapter of the book of Ezra, which was approximately 457 B.C.; but a careful examination of that decree will make it evident that it did not really have to do with restoring and building the city of Jerusalem at all, but was rather a confirmation of the earlier decree of Cyrus to rebuild the Temple and reinstate the worship of God in Israel. It seems far more likely that the commandment referred to is actually that given in the second chapter of the book of Nehemiah. There we have in very truth a commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, and that commandment was given about 445 B.C."

That summary dismissal of 457 BC is all the comment you get about that year from Harry Ironside. He is not alone. Edward Young, an amillennialist, does worse: his commentary (published 1949) doesn't mention 457 BC (or 458 BC) at all. This is despite the fact that he references the works of 65 different authors, of ALL doctrinal hues, in his bibliography and, in passing, seeks to produce a brief summary of their views. (Despite this rather glaring omission it is still a very useful commentary (in my opinion), even for this passage, not least because of his knowledge of Hebrew.)

This is all very strange: if we simply follow our nose 490 years before the crucifixion we arrive at 458 BC and the decree of Artaxerxes I in Ezra 7:7. Once we have 458 BC I believe the rest of the prophecy begins to fall into place.

To summarise the history: Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed by the Babylonians in 587 BC.

In 539 BC Cyrus conquered Babylon, and very early in his rule, about 539 BC, he decreed that the Jews could return and rebuild in order to restart the Temple worship (Ezra 1:1-11). This decree was re-issued by Darius I, about 522 BC (Ezra 6:1-15). Again the decree was re-issued by Artaxerxes in 458 BC (Ezra 7:7 see also 7:13) leading to the return of Ezra. Some have claimed another decree was given by Artaxerxes at the time of Nehemiah's return, 445 BC.

The Persian Kings are:-

Cyrus the Great 539 - 530 BC (began to reign Persia in 559, but 539 he conquered Babylon, and thus Judaea)

Cambyses II 530 -522

Bardiya/Smerdis/Gaumata 522 ("the imposter")

Darius I (Hystaspes) 522 - 486

Xerxes (Ahasuerus) 486 - 465 (husband of Esther, the 4th king of Daniel 11:2)

Artaxerxes I 464 - 424

Darius II 423 - 404

Artaxerxes II 404 - 358

Artaxerxes III 358 - 338

Artaxerxes IV 338 - 336

Darius III 336 - 330

Artaxerxes V 330 - 329...

And after them Alexander the Great.

Nehemiah returned to Jerusalem and rebuilt the walls in the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Neh 2:1) which was Artaxerxes I, 445 BC. His second journey to Jerusalem was during or not long after the 32nd of Artaxerxes, 433 BC, (Neh 13:6).

One of the most difficult parts of the prophecy has been the meaning of the 7 and 62 weeks. Here I venture the only realistic interpretation: the 62 weeks, 434 years, is the period of prophetic silence between the completion of the Old Testament and the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptist.

Is there any evidence for this? I believe there is.

Elephantine Papyri B19 (Cowley 30) was written 25 November 407 BC and refers back to a previous letter written to "Jehohanan the High Priest" about 410 BC.
If you google search "Baytagoodah" and "elephantine papyri" and go down to letter B19. Go down to page 142 and read the Appeal section.

This letter shows that Jehohanan ("Jonathan" in Nehemiah 12:8, and "Johanan" in Nehemiah 12:22) was High Priest in 410 BC and probably later up to maybe 407 BC.
Yet Nehemiah 12:22 indicates Jaddua (the son of Johanan) was High Priest at the time of composition of chapter 12 of Nehemiah.

Nehemiah 12:22 also mentions the reign of Darius the Persian. This is Darius II who reigned 423 to 404 BC. So clearly Nehemiah was written after 423 BC, but the mention of Jaddua as High Priest means Nehemiah was written after 410 BC when the Elephantine Papyrus says Jehohanan was High Priest.

So sometime after 410 BC Jehohanan died, Jaddua became High Priest in his place, the book of Nehemiah was written, and then Darius II died in 404 BC.

In summary we have a window from 410 BC to 404 BC when the book of Nehemiah was written and added to the Scriptures. This, I believe, is the meaning of the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks.

The 7 weeks is the period from 458 BC to 408 BC when there was still the word of God being proclaimed and when there were still living divinely appointed prophets in Judah.

The 62 weeks is the period starting from the completion of the Old Testament, with the completion of the book of Nehemiah, to the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptist, sometimes referred to as the "Period of Prophetic Silence". It is a distinct period where the beginning and the end of the period are linked together by a common theme.

458 BC of Ezra 7:7 is the anchor of the whole prophecy. 7 weeks from there gives 409 BC, 62 weeks from there gives 26 AD. I suspect that the truly accurate period to the exact year is the 70 weeks up to the crucifixion. (The 7 weeks and 62 weeks do not demand exact years.)

The problem with arguing that the 7 weeks is the period of rebuilding is simply that it is impossible to demonstrate a fulfilment: when can anyone say the year in which a destroyed city was rebuilt? London, Hamburg and Berlin were badly damaged in World War II, but how can anyone say the year in which they were rebuilt? They were reconstructed over many years, and there was never a year when anyone could say they were finished.

"Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven sevens, and threescore and two sevens". Those Bible versions which separate the sixty two sevens from the seven sevens (such as the Revised Standard Version) are following the Masoretic Hebrew Text. The RSV says:-

"Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks.  Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time".

The Hebrew Masoretic text upon which the RSV depends was produced by Jews in about the 10th century AD. It is easy to imagine this was a deliberate corruption: they deliberately wanted to separate the two periods so that they did not add up to 69 weeks or 434 years: they did not want the prophecy to point to Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. It is also worth remembering that by the time of the Masoretes the Hebrew language was virtually a dead language, even to them.

Edward Young, a scholar in Hebrew, in his commentary on Daniel writes:- "At any rate, this violent separation of the two periods is out of harmony with the context. Furthermore, I question whether it is really in accord with the rules of Hebrew syntax to render "(for the space of ) sixty-two sevens," i.e. as an accusative of duration... It is best, therefore, to understand the text as stating that between the terminus a quo and the appearance of an anointed one, a prince, is a period of 69 sevens which is divided into two periods of unequal length, 7 sevens and 62 sevens."

"The streets shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times", is referring to the rebuilding of the city, but it need not be declaring the date of such rebuilding. It is like a clue for a cryptic crossword. In truth, it is referring to the book in which these things are written about - i.e. the book of Nehemiah - and the prophecy is referring to the date when that book was completed and added to Scripture.

Why must it be referring to the date of writing? It is because the events within the book of Nehemiah had already happened a few decades before the 7th week after 458 BC. It is not necessary to read into Daniel 9:25 that the city will be rebuilt or completed 49 years after 458 BC.

"the people of the prince that shall come" - the Romans, they "shall came" and destroy the city and the temple, which they did in 70 AD.

"He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week" - this is referring to the Covenant of Grace. It is not talking about any new covenant, or any covenant distinct from the covenants already spoken of in Scripture. The covenant will merely be confirmed, not created... it will be no new, separate, distinct, covenant. It is simply saying that many shall be saved in this final week.
This final week is the entire Gospel Age.

Why is it only one week? This is because the Father does not want us to know its true length, "it is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father has put into his own power" Acts 1:7. The date of the Day of Judgement was not revealed to Daniel or to any other prophet nor even to the Son himself (Mark 13:32). Of course, in Jesus's divine nature as God Jesus knew, but Mark 13:32 tells us in His human nature as man Jesus did not know. Furthermore the end of the world COULD have come a week/seven years after the crucifixion. The Word of God urges us to be always ready, "for you do not know what hour your Lord doth come" (Matthew 24:42).

In short, if the prophecy of Daniel 9 24-27 had finished with 500 weeks rather than 1 week would you have thought it needful for you personally to be "always ready for you know not the hour"?

Finally, some typically amillenial objections to the Dispensational interpretation:-

The Dispensational view requires a break between the 69th and 70th week of some 2000 years or about 285 weeks of years. This alone must be an entirely fatal flaw to the interpretation.
The idea that some of the prophecy relates to the Antichrist has very little within the text to support it. And besides that it means that none of us need be ready (for we do not know the hour our Lord doth come (Matt 24:44)) until after we have seen the fulfilment of this prophecy, until the Antichrist has come: I mean, we can all sit around and do just as we please, because we know Christ will not return to judge us until after the appearing of the Antichrist. Introducing another event, the coming and reign of the Antichrist, before Christ's return is contrary to Matthew 24:37-51.
It seems unlikely, to say the least, that there would be such a cryptic prophecy about, or would include, such a minor detail as the coming of the Antichrist. This prophecy must surely be about things major.. the general periods of the future when, and how, God shall deal with mankind; the death of Christ; the gospel age; the end of the function and purpose of the temple because Christ, the effective sacrifice for sin, has made the temple obsolete, and this, in turn, means the end of the centrality of the Jewish nation in God's dealings with mankind because no temple means no more God-ordained Jewish religious system, whose sacrifices will have finally permanently ceased "even until the consummation", that is until the Day of Judgement.  From an amillennialist's point of view the Dispensational interpretation turns this prophecy on its head: for the amill, the prediction here is that the Temple finally ceases forever, terminating in the 1st century, and so God's special dealings with the Jews finishes forever, but the Dispensationalist view sees this as a prophecy that the Temple will make a come back and the Jews continuing to have a very special place in God's purposes.
The order in which things are spoken in vv26 and 27 shows that "Messiah shall be cut off" (AD 33) after the 62nd week, which means this falls within the final 1 week. The destruction of the city and the temple shall also be within the 1 week (70 AD). It follows that the 1 week is not a seven year period. "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week" - this must relate to a covenant with which we are already familiar, not any new covenant. The most obvious reading is that it is the covenant of grace, firstly because we are familiar with that covenant and secondly because it is a very major theme of scripture, and not a trivial detail such as a covenant between the Antichrist and a people.
Our Lord Jesus speaks of the prophecies of Daniel in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14. These are parallel passages. Matthew Henry's commentary has a sufficient interpretation of Chapter 24, which is roughly this:- the apostles think the temple will be destroyed towards the end of the world. The Lord Jesus does not say they are wrong because he himself does not know when the end of the world will be (Mark 13:32), but he asserts there is no necessary connection between the destruction of the temple and the end of the world. Sometimes in the is passage He speaks of the end times, and sometimes He speaks of the time of the destruction of the Temple. In Matthew 24:33-36 notice that He speaks of "THIS generation"/"THESE THINGS" and then, in contrast, He speaks of "THAT day" - "this"/"these" refers to the time of the temple destruction, "that" refers to the end times. And He finishes the whole discourse with a warning that we should always be ready.
The warnings relating to the book of Daniel are local to the land of Judaea and to Jerusalem, "then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains", because it is a local judgement, and an approaching judgement - "THIS generation shall not pass, till all THESE things be fulfilled" (Matt 24:34) - being spoken of.  But of the Day of Judgement, He says "But of THAT day knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only".  Christ told his disciples that the prophecy of destruction in Daniel 9:26 would be fulfilled shortly after his crucifixion, before "this generation", the generation standing before him, "passes away".


What is the origin of Zoe (ζωή) vs Psyche (ψυχή) life in St. John?

Aristotle (384-322 BC) talked about zoe versus psyche in his treatise De Anima ("On the Soul").  However, his concept of the mortal and immortal components of the complete human is a bit different than our current understanding.

An excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia discusses this:

  For Aristotle, in the case of living natural bodies the vital principle, psyche is the form. His doctrine is embodied in his famous definition: psyche estin entekexeia e prote somatos fysikou dynamei zoen exontos. (De Anima, II, i), i.e. the soul is therefore the first entelechy (substantial form or perfect actualization) of a natural or organized body potentially possessing life. The definition applies to plants, animals, and man.

That source goes on to say

  The human soul, however, seems to be of a different kind (genos etepron), and separable as the eternal from the perishable.

However, it should be noted that while Aristotle considers the zoe to be separable from the psyche, it's the psyche that is eternal, not the zoe:

per Wikipedia:

  Aristotle also argues that the mind (only the agent intellect) is immaterial, able to exist without the body, and immortal.

And also

  He holds that the soul is the form, or essence of any living thing; that it is not a distinct substance from the body that it is in; that it is the possession of soul (of a specific kind) that makes an organism an organism at all, and thus that the notion of a body without a soul, or of a soul in the wrong kind of body, is simply unintelligible.

finally

  Some commentators have suggested that Aristotle's term soul is better translated as lifeforce

Given this, I would have to say that yes, the concept that there is a mortal component and an eternal component to us all is an older concept the Christianity.  However, the concept isn't quite the same as our current understanding.


Why Jeremiah 10:5 was changed from palm trees to scarecrows

I generally agree with another answer and comments that “modern translations are better”, but I will elaborate a bit on how the variant translations came about. The Hebrew of interest:

  כְּתֹ֨מֶר מִקְשָׁ֥ה הֵ֙מָּה֙
  kətōmer miqšâ hēmmâ
  They [the idols] are like a tōmer of a miqšâ

Both tōmer and miqšâ are somewhat obscure. Tōmer appears only here in the OT. The KJV assumed an emendation to tāmār = palm tree (occurs 12 times in the OT), supported by the Vulgate: palmae. The Greek Septuagint doesn’t include this statement at all, so it’s not helpful. However, it is a Greek text that pushed translators in the direction of “scarecrow”. From the Epistle of Jeremiah 69(70):1

  Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν σικυηράτῳ προβασκάνιον οὐδὲν φυλάσσον, οὕτως οἱ θεοὶ αὐτῶν εἰσιν ξύλινοι καὶ περίχρυσοι καὶ περιάργυροι.
  Like a scarecrow in a cucumber bed that guards nothing, so are their gods of wood, overlaid with gold and silver.

Προβασκάνιον (probaskanion) is a reasonably well-attested word for "scarecrow". This secures the meaning of tōmer in Jer 10:5 because it coheres with the context: the other term there, miqšâ, means cucumber field.2

  If the object stands in a cucumber field, it has to be a scarecrow.3

Consistent with the sense of the verse, Lundbom goes on to cite evidence from classical writers about statues of gods being used as scarecrows.

As to your second question, the KJV actually says,

  they must needs be borne4  because they can not go

There’s no reason to work with the meaning “palm tree” at this point, but whether it’s a palm tree or a scarecrow, the point is that they are inanimate and therefore lame; they must be carried (“borne”).

Summary
The KJV translators were uncertain the meaning of tōmer in the Masoretic text, so they accepted an emendation of the vocalization toward the reading of the Vulgate, arriving at "palm tree". In light of external evidence, translators now nearly universally accept that the meaning is "scarecrow".

1. Deuterocanonical for Roman Catholics and Orthodox; Apocryphal for Protestants. The earliest manuscripts, from Qumran, and are in Greek. The letter is a harangue against idols that is loosely based on the book of (proto)canonical
Jeremiah.

2. See also Isaiah 1:8, where the KJV agrees. The Greek is σικυήρατον in both Is 1:8 (LXX) and Ep Jer 70(69), from σίκυς (sikus) = cucumber.

3. Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20. (The Anchor Yale Bible; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), 586.

4. Not born as in the question. To be borne is the passive form of a somewhat archaic use of the verb “to bear” meaning “to support the weight of”. The Hebrew term is often glossed “to be carried”.


What is the current Vatican's position on the Council of Constance (regarding John Wycliffe) in 1415?

Regarding the Council of Constance in Switzerland, this is what I gleaned from an article by Caroline T. Marshall in the Lion History of Christianity (published 1997). She was writing about Jan Hus, who was ordained as a Catholic priest in 1401:

  "His case was referred to Rome. In 1415 Hus attended the Council of
  Constance in order to defend his beliefs... The Hussites, especially
  after the execution of Jan Hus at the Council in 1415, held that all
  Christians should receive both bread and wine. The Council prohibited
  it. Wyclif was condemned for heresy by the Council in 1415, and his
  body disinterred from holy ground in 1427." (pages 330-331)

  Page 339 adds, "The two most troublesome movements [to the papacy]
  were those instigated by Hus and by Wyclif, whose followers came to be
  called Lollards. By the end of the Middle Ages they had come to attack
  the very foundations of the medieval hierarchy, including the papacy
  itself."

Another history book, "The Pilgrim Church" by E.H. Broadbent (Pickering Classic first published 1931, quoting from the 1985 edition page 124) notes,

  "Another object of the Council was to combat the teachings associated
  with the names of Wycliff and Hus... But, in spite of the Imperial
  promise, [Huss] was seized and cast into a foul dungeon on in island
  in the lake. To justify this action the Council promulgated a solemn
  decree (1415), claimed as a decision given by the Holy Spirit and
  infallible, for ever binding, that the Church is not bound to keep
  faith with a heretic... After a solemn service of degradation, Huss
  was burned."

I looked to a modern-day Catholic source to see if any mellowing of attitudes to such matters has occurred. In The Encyclopedia of Theology edited by Karl Rhaner (published 1981) it was written under the heading of 'Heresy I. Canon Law' that only a baptized Catholic who 'contumaciously denies or doubts a truth which ought to be adopted by virtue of divine or Catholic faith' can be called a heretic (page 604). It must be noted that Jan Hus was an ordained Catholic priest, and Wyclif was the best Catholic scholar in Oxford, and who considered preaching to be the most important duty of the clergy. He was a preacher. Both were accused of heresy.

Yet there have been changes in attitudes to heretics in more recent times. It further says on page 605,

  "Vatican II avoided completely the words heresy and heretic. The
  decrees speak only of separated non-Catholic Christians or of
  separated brothers. In view of the Directorium Oecumenicum it may be
  assumed that the notion of heresy and heretic have changed since
  Vatican II. The view upheld by Augustine that those who are born
  (Christians) outside the Catholic Church are not to be spoken of as
  heretics seems to be prevailing once more. Hence the only heretics
  would be those who deliberately departed from the doctrine of the
  Church of Jesus Christ, and these would then be subject to the
  penalties of canon law."

It seems clear from that that Hus and Wyclif are still viewed as heretics by the Catholic church for there was no retraction regarding their attacks on the foundational authority of the papacy. On page 608 Rhaner mentioned some ancient groups, but not the Lollards. He said, "The Church learns to know more clearly its own truth by hearing and rejecting contradiction of its own truth, and of its growing self-understanding."

The simple question that requires answering is this - Has the Catholic church changed its self-understanding of the authority of the papacy to come closer to that stated by Hus and Wyclif, or vice versa? The answer is, 'No. There has been no change in either stance regarding the authority of the papacy.' That is my answer to your main question.

As for your secondary questions about Catholic views regarding exhuming Wyclif's body in 1428 (44 years after his death), I can only point to a comment to your question, questioning details of the event. The exhumation itself is not denied. However, history records that at Lutterworth Church, around the grave, in the chancel, was Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Bishop Fleming of Lincoln, plus other dignitaries and clerics. The source I cite below adds that Wyclif's coffin was carried on the shoulders of men through the chancel, down the winding road to the River Swift. A fire was then kindled on the bridge; the bones of Wyclif were taken out of the coffin and flung into it. They were reduced to ashes which were then cast into the River Swift. Thomas Fuller, 'The Church History of Britain: From the Birth of Jesus Christ until the Year MDCXLVII, 3 vols. (London, England: Thomas Tegg and Son, 1837), 1.493


Is there a mentioning about the wisdom of a crowd in the Bible?

No, not really. Half the time 'crowds' are mentioned the word is basically synonymous with 'mob' and the other half it's just a big group of people.

There is advice about seeking counsel from wise friends. The company you keep is important, and there are lots of stories (both good and bad) to show that. Most importantly, the Bible says that true wisdom always starts with knowing and rightly fearing the Lord, and that any understanding comes after that.

  Proverbs 9:10 (ESV)
  The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.

As Christians our source of wisdom should always be first and foremost God's word, and having a few sound counselors to help us in understanding it rightly. If we do not know and fear God it cannot be said that we are wise.


Where does C. S. Lewis teach that a virtuous attitude can be developed by acting virtuously?

Indeed, in chapter 6 ("Human Pain") of The Problem of Pain, Lewis explicitly connects the idea to Aristotle:

Kant thought that no action had moral value unless it were done out of pure reverence for the moral law, that is, without inclination, and he has been accused of a 'morbid frame of mind' which measures the value of an act by its unpleasantness. All popular opinion is, indeed, on Kant's side. The people never admire a man for doing something he likes: the very words 'But he likes it' imply the corollary 'And therefore it has no merit'. Yet against Kant stands the obvious truth, noted by, Aristotle, that the more virtuous a man becomes the more he enjoys virtuous actions.

But probably his most extensive treatment of the idea comes in chapter 9 ("Charity") of book III ("Christian Behaviour") of Mere Christianity, in which he writes:

It would be quite wrong to think that the way to become charitable is to sit trying to manufacture affectionate feelings. Some people are "cold" by temperament; that may be a misfortune for them, but it is no more a sin than having a bad digestion is a sin; and it does not cut them out from the chance, or excuse them from the duty, of learning charity. The rule for all of us is perfectly simple. Do not waste time bothering whether you "love" your neighbour; act as if you did. As soon as we do this we find one of the great secrets. When you are behaving as if you loved someone, you will presently come to love him. If you injure someone you dislike, you will find yourself disliking him more. If you do him a good turn, you will find yourself disliking him less. ...
The Germans, perhaps, at first ill-treated the Jews because they hated them: afterwards they hated them much more because they had ill-treated them. The more cruel you are, the more you will hate; and the more you hate, the more cruel you will become—and so on in a vicious circle for ever.
Good and evil both increase at compound interest. That is why the little decisions you and I make every day are of such infinite importance. The smallest good act today is the capture of a strategic point from which, a few months later, you may be able to go on to victories you never dreamed of. An apparently trivial indulgence in lust or anger today is the loss of a ridge or railway line or bridgehead from which the enemy may launch an attack otherwise impossible.
Some writers use the word charity to describe not only Christian love between human beings, but also God's love for man and man's love for God. About the second of these two, people are often worried. They are told they ought to love God. They cannot find any such feeling in themselves. What are they to do? The answer is the same as before. Act as if you did. Do not sit trying to manufacture feelings. Ask yourself, "If I were sure that I loved God, what would I do?" When you have found the answer, go and do it.


Does Isaiah foretell any births that are not about Jesus?

From Isaiah 7 ESV (emphasis mine):

  1-4 In the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, son of Uzziah, king of Judah, Rezin the king of Syria and Pekah the son of Remaliah the king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to wage war against it, but could not yet mount an attack against it. When the house of David was told, "Syria is in league with Ephraim," the heart of Ahaz and the heart of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake before the wind. And the LORD said to Isaiah, "Go out to meet Ahaz, you and Shear-jashub your son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the Washer's Field. And say to him, 'Be careful, be quiet, do not fear, and do not let your heart be faint because of these two smoldering stumps of firebrands, at the fierce anger of Rezin and Syria and the son of Remaliah...
  10-16 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, "Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven." But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test." And he said, "Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted.

To quote Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible:

  Its general original meaning is not difficult. It is, that in a short time - within the time when a young woman, then a virgin, should conceive and bring forth a child, and that child should grow old enough to distinguish between good and evils - the calamity which Ahaz feared would be entirely removed. The confederacy would be broken up, and the land forsaken by both those kings. The conception and birth of a child - which could be known only by him who knows “all” future events - would be the evidence of such a result. His appropriate “name” would be such as would be a “sign,” or an indication that God was the protector of the nation, or was still with them.

Isaiah 7:14 is well-known as a prophecy of Jesus Christ's birth; within context, we see that it is also prophesying the birth of another. Isaiah tells Ahab that a son will be born of a young woman, and that while this child is still young, these two kings he worries about will no longer be a threat to him. In fact, Assyria defeated both these nations (Syria and Israel), then turned to subjugate Judah (prophesied in verse 17).

The Keil && Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament says this of Immanuel:

  His eating only thickened milk and honey, at a time when he knew very well what was good and what was not, would arise from the desolation of the whole of the ancient territory of the Davidic kingdom that had preceded the riper years of his youth, when he would certainly have chosen other kinds of food, if they could possibly have been found. Consequently the birth of Immanuel apparently falls between the time then present and the Assyrian calamities, and his earliest childhood appears to run parallel to the Assyrian oppression. In any case, their consequences would be still felt at the time of his riper youth.


What denominations subscribe to or accommodate the Annihiliationist doctrine of hell?

From the wikipedia article on Annihilationism (4th paragraph):

  Some Christian denominations which are annihilationist were influenced by the Millerite/Adventist movement of the mid-19th century. These include the Seventh-day Adventists, Bible Students, Christadelphians and the various Advent Christian churches. Additionally, the Church of England's Doctrine Commission reported in 1995 that "[h]ell is not eternal torment", but "non-being". Some Protestant and Anglican writers have also proposed annihilationist doctrines. (emphasis mine)

Later in the article it cites Jehovah's Witnesses (see this question) and the followers of Herbert Armstrong as other examples